Has Rome 2 Vanilla now reached the level of Rome 1 Vanilla

[Pontic Pontus]

_{Due to a buggy release a lot of people didn't like Rome2 at the start, but do you think that has changed? I loved it from the first time I played.}

[equinoxsolar]

BAI: No
CAI: No
Game Design: No

The only areas where Rome 2 exceeds the quality of Rome 1 is in visuals and faction diversity.

[Ritmas]

BAI: No
CAI: No
Game Design: No

The only areas where Rome 2 exceeds the quality of Rome 1 is in visuals and faction diversity.

Oh c'mon, this is pure hate. The AI is like thousand times better. I don't see enemy generals charging my pikes, or ignoring flanking manouvers etc. And diplomacy somehow works

[kujirakira]

Oh c'mon, this is pure hate. The AI is like thousand times better. I don't see enemy generals charging my pikes, or ignoring flanking manouvers etc. And diplomacy somehow works

AI is a wash imo, but the entire Diplomacy and Politics in R2 is quite terrible.
The new Province and Army/recruit system is the only thing I'd place above RTW; or S2 for that matter.
Unit Diversity is pretty crap. Sparta has generic hoplites, generic pikeman, and cavalry. The Nomadic factions have sword cav, spear cav, and bow cav.
Over half the factions have units that depend on fighting in the phalanx style ... and yet it's completely broken.
The new "formation" button is broke. They got rid of guard mode for no reason.
There's so much missing in the fundamentals of the game that it's hard to say it's even a cohesive product after 9 patches. It's still a work in progress with an unfinished political system, broken and missing battle mechanics, etc.

[GussieFinkNottle]

BAI: No
CAI: No
Game Design: No

The only areas where Rome 2 exceeds the quality of Rome 1 is in visuals and faction diversity.

That is ridiculous, of course the battle AI is far more sophisticated, as is the campaign AI. I don't see one unit armies or vast collections of slingers running around any more! And have you tried CiG - the AI is very smart, particularly on the campaign map.

However, in terms of simple gameplay depth, there is a whole world of feature Rome 2 doesn't have (click here for full list)

[Slipz]

They cannot be compared, Rome 1 was revoultion on a whole level. Rome 2 is now very good with the most recent patches I would say that it's a completely different game compared to the release version of rome 2, There are however still some issues which needs to be adressed. (multiplayer campagin desync fix!!!)

With patch 9 I have a hard time seeing problems with the AI. And the problems visible are minor issues. We can never expect the AI to be as good as a human player.

[TheRomanRuler]

Nope. But modded Rome 2 might become better than modded RTW. We should wait, hope and pray.

[Canaris]

Nope. But modded Rome 2 might become better than modded RTW. We should wait, hope and pray.

No it cant , because Warscape is simply NOT FIT for representing Ancient formation warfare. And im not even sure if other retarded features like "no move without a general| , "no walls" , "province system", 4 building slots etc etc can be modded ( probably not ). So RTW2 will never be better or even approach RTW1 level of fun. And if you take a notice that EB2 is coming soon .... RTW2 will die like it should.

[Colonel Dax]

No it cant , because Warscape is simply NOT FIT for representing Ancient formation warfare. And im not even sure if other retarded features like "no move without a general| , "no walls" , "province system", 4 building slots etc etc can be modded ( probably not ). So RTW2 will never be better or even approach RTW1 level of fun. And if you take a notice that EB2 is coming soon .... RTW2 will die like it should.

"Fun" being completely subjective, of course...

[TheRomanRuler]

No it cant , because Warscape is simply NOT FIT for representing Ancient formation warfare. And im not even sure if other retarded features like "no move without a general| , "no walls" , "province system", 4 building slots etc etc can be modded ( probably not ). So RTW2 will never be better or even approach RTW1 level of fun. And if you take a notice that EB2 is coming soon .... RTW2 will die like it should.

Perhaps you are right, expect on one thing: Rome 2, will not die. There are many people who still love empire and play it. Rome 2 is better than Empire in my opinion, so there will be plenty of people playing this. Total War fanbase is not what it was pre-Empire - altough that applies to any game once they get more players.

[Pontic Pontus]

And unit diversion, and naval battles, and a lot of other things.

[equinoxsolar]

And unit diversion, and naval battles, and a lot of other things.

Im sorry but rendering ancient warships in 3D does not equate to delivering great naval battles. When transports can steam roll specially designed warships then something is seriously wrong. If the naval battles were removed I would not be mindful.

[=Vastator=]

You cannot compare Rome II vanilla to Rome I . They are totally different.
Rome II has many more things than Rome I, but in other aspects, like characters management and battle system, ROme I is way way better.

[Leonidas II]

Install Divide Et Impera ,the best and biggest mod available for Rome 2 , and install Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1.

Result : Rome 1 > Rome 2

[SoHungover]

Install Divide Et Impera ,the best and biggest mod available for Rome 2 , and install Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1.

Result : Rome 1 > Rome 2

You can't compare EB with Divide Et Impera.... give 3 more years to the modding community and we will have some truely awesome mods for RTW2 too... (not saying the modders are not doing a great job already. Just that it's impossible for any of them to produce a mod this big this quick).

[Muizer]

Most serious problems with Rome II concern the battles. That's slowly getting better. As for the campaign, Rome II is vastly superior. Lots of complaints about the campaign design appear to come down to complaints about the campaign having been made more challenging. "We can't hide behind our walls anymore", "The AI can do naval invasions, unfair!", "I cannot unthinkingly build any building everywhere", "I cannot raise as many armies as I want". I fear CA have over-estimated a large proportion of their fans in this respect.

[Makrell]

Most serious problems with Rome II concern the battles. That's slowly getting better. As for the campaign, Rome II is vastly superior.

This man speaks the truth. Although the battles arent that bad IMO

[Monoloco]

Most serious problems with Rome II concern the battles. That's slowly getting better. As for the campaign, Rome II is vastly superior. Lots of complaints about the campaign design appear to come down to complaints about the campaign having been made more challenging. "We can't hide behind our walls anymore", "The AI can do naval invasions, unfair!", "I cannot unthinkingly build any building everywhere", "I cannot raise as many armies as I want". I fear CA have over-estimated a large proportion of their fans in this respect.

What a load of bollocks.

The majority never complained about naval invasions. Most complained about every single army near water permanently being in said water and AI unable to assault/defend anything without a port as a result. Let alone the AI inability to utilize its own troops that start off at sea during coastal battles.

Unthinkingly build? Tell me how hard it is to spam farms and temples in safe settlements, build a single army producing region then spam elites out of it with full bonuses, and never have to deviate from this strategy ever? How about if my borders are no longer secure I would wish to raise a meager palisade to help protect a farming or trading village that cannot turn into a full defensive legion to help the vigiles and such survive longer than 30 secs in combat? Or the repeated fact that cities like syracuse and indeed all of greece lived behind vast stone walls? How stupid would it be if Rome did not have any walls? How can I make invasion more difficult to potential enemies by deliberately NOT building roads leading into their provinces? to aid in my own defence? There is a level of strategy and control that was taken away from us to make it easier not harder.

As for hiding behind walls... It is not more challenging to not hide behind walls. Walled settlements in older titles always demanded proper organised sieges and assaults. The fact that right now I can walk up with 6 units of slingers to any town anywhere sit outside the little square the enemy is designated to defend and freely wipe out their entire army for free is not a challenge. The same goes as a defender. You block off the obvious access points and then flank with ranged troops the ai will be incapable of reacting to. EVEN IN PATCH 9. Reducing walled settlements and the ability to build them if anything made it less challenging.

Lastly, building as many armies as you want is not what good commanders did. It is called a supply line for a reason. The greatest generals were also master logisticians because that is what won wars. The inability for us to send small groups of reinforcements to the front lines from our homelands, or the ability to counter enemy reinforcements with ambushes and disrupting supply lines, as well as being able to tactically split your forces for various tactical reasons made the game easier and simpler. Yes it was frustrating with the enemy sending one unit armies everywhere. But do not pretend for a second that by trying to eliminate that and reducing tactical and strategic flexibility as a result for the player made the game more difficult in any way shape or form. It an out right fallacy to do so.

The complaints about the CAI is the fact it is still a terrible strategist, that can cannot fathom the difference between friend and foe properly, poorly responds to threats and makes ludicrous diplomatic demands while also not fulfilling its diplomatic obligations it is supposed to. Not even fully reliable factions with open paths of invasion attempt to send military forces when requested to attack a common enemy. And yet a simple system in Med 2 existed that could have been adapted to Rome 2. Crusading/jihad armies. Of course heavily refined but the idea that you could name a settlement to be attacked and your allies would then respond NEXT TURN, yay or nay. Then immediately form up or send a force to attack said settlement would allow for coordinated invasions and make satrapies infinitely more worthwhile than client states as they would either join the war or have war declared on them by their overlords. In one move that would deepen and make far more critical the decision to request allied assistance as you would have to way up more than just " I pressed this button I hope people show up" as it is now.

Do not speak of the game being more challenging when it is by far the easiest of the Total Wars to date for 2 reasons. The AI incompetence and obvious easily abused strategies and mistakes, and 2, The hugely limited tactical decisions afforded the player through a combination of reduced building customisations and poorly made diplomatic system we have to liaison with the AI through.

And allfo that is just a small issue with the CAI, and strategy map in general. I have not even touched upon the BAI, or the fact it took them 2 months after release to notice troops standing on hills did not get bonuses to combat etc and implement it. (Something that has been in Total War since Shogun 1)

[RGA]

Rome I has some features that are clearly inferior to those in Rome 2: non-existence diplomacy, diplomats that have to be manually controlled, no auto-replenishment, no sea battles, out-dated graphics, etc.

I don't play Rome I or any of its mod anymore. I just can't. Rome 2 has its flaws, but it would get better, either in the hands of CA or by modders.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't know what Rome I was better at.