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

[SupAll]

I think your question is a little bit vague for me to understand. When you say "the level of Rome 1 vanilla" are you referring to it's,

* realistic campaign gameplay, Laughably non-existent. Oh, you have all of the Aegean cities and Wonders? Spam armies like it's no body's business.
* the complexity of building an empire, Laughably non-existent. Don't build farms, build everything else. Camp in cities.
* the huge variation of constructing buildings, Also non existent. All cities were the same and built in the same way.
* the realistic battle gameplay, Sure, keep telling yourself this. Pikes, stay in the center of the city and never get hurt as the AI was too fatigued to fight and would run away at the first loss. Also, corner camp and you'll never be flanked! Oh, and let's not even get into the lack of flanking using the shallow crossing in a river. Oh, but I can build 10 Armored Cataphracts and 10 Armored Elephants and watch me insta-rout all armies on the battlefield (this was so fun... and boring).
* the right amount of spacing of units in combat, Yes, because this clearly has a factor on how fast your units die or affect gameplay of any sort. Aesthetics are merely aesthetics. Michael Jackson went from Black to White, did that affect his singing? No...
* a working siege AI, Barely. AI bugged plenty of times in Rome 1 - AI would stand still without moving unless you destroyed their catapults because their catapults would get bugged. They couldn't get up siege towers. If any of their siege weapons were bugged, it pretty much bugged the entire AI siege. At least R2 gives the AI a chance to continue the siege if a unit gets bugged.
* the simple slash-stab-block animation (that works), See Michael Jackson comment...
* the cinematic inspirational speech before every combat, That everyone skipped once they heard it once and they really didn't tell you anything that you didn't know.
* how everything was manual and you are the one who decides what to do? Well I think Rome 2 hasn't reached that level yet. Automation is great. What can't you decide to do in R2 that you could in R1?

If CA didn't cut off all of those great features from Rome 1 and combined it with these new added features such as the combined land and sea battles. Rome 2 would been the best total war game to be released.

They cut out a lot of useless features. It's not the best total war game; anyone can make that claim about anything (although I feel that title belongs to S2:FotS, but that's just a subjective opinion).

The notion that they cut anything is dumb. You can't cut what wasn't in the design in the first place.

[Turbo]

Why compare vanilla to vanilla Rome I and Rome II? Rome 2 should have been a vast improvement over Rome I vanilla and Rome I modded. Instead it was shovelware.

CA had access to the Rome I mods and should have looked at what features were appealing to gamers and incorporated it into Rome 2. This is called listening and understanding your fan base, something that CA has yet to learn.

[DarrenTotalWar]

Why compare vanilla to vanilla Rome I and Rome II? Rome 2 should have been a vast improvement over Rome I vanilla and Rome I modded. Instead it was shovelware.

CA had access to the Rome I mods and should have looked at what features were appealing to gamers and incorporated it into Rome 2. This is called listening and understanding your fan base, something that CA has yet to learn.

I think he means vanilla as in without mods, not the vanilla version.

[antred]

Things that prevent Rome 2 from touching Rome 1:

- the instant-transport-ship (just add water) fiasco
- the overly simplified settlement construction mechanism
- the overpowered agents
- the overpowered forced-march stance

AI-wise I'm quite sure that Rome 2 is vastly superior to Rome 1 (that doesn't mean that Rome 2's AI is great ... still leaves a lot to be desired). Diplomacy in Rome 2 is __much__ better than Rome 1 (still badly needs a demand peace with 3rd party option, though).

If these issues can be fixed then Rome 2 will be the best TW by a long shot.

[Cavalier]

Things that prevent Rome 2 from touching Rome 1:

- the instant-transport-ship (just add water) fiasco
- the overly simplified settlement construction mechanism
- the overpowered agents
- the overpowered forced-march stance

There are mods that touches the transport, forced march and overpowered agents issues. Personally I use a mod that reduces the AI usage of agents, which improve the gameplay. Sadly, the mod regarding the transports simply removes the ability to cross water with armies, it doesn't have a script that promotes the AI to build navies to cross the water. But it's better than nothing.

I kind of agree with the simplified settlement construction thingy, though.

[DarrenTotalWar]

I don't think I ever played a game of Rome I where the enemy never reached my walls when I was defending. Sure they might pile into one gate, or behind one ram, or climb one ladder. But they always made it.

Patch 9, still has this issue. Most recently for me was defending carthage. I watched ladders spin around in the distance. fun times.

[Serbian91]

They are very diffrent games. But i liked Rome I more, for it's time at least.

Though one thing... to the people saying that Rome I had better CAI/BAI - are you on crack or you just like to post hate comments. There are many elements that were superior to Rome I than in Rome II ( immersion, music, more diverse factions etc ) but saying that AI was better just makes you look stupid.

[Turbo]

They are very diffrent games. But i liked Rome I more, for it's time at least.

Though one thing... to the people saying that Rome I had better CAI/BAI - are you on crack or you just like to post hate comments. There are many elements that were superior to Rome I than in Rome II ( immersion, music, more diverse factions etc ) but saying that AI was better just makes you look stupid.

At least the AI in Rome 1 knew how to siege assault settlements. Watching the AI in Rome 2 is almost comical with spinning ladders and resting on walls.

[Pontic Pontus]

GussieFinkNottle
A lot of things on that list have been fixed, as well as some more good things added in patches, and some are simply not true or haven't been added;

numbers on unit card

there's formed attack, which works since patch 9

levy soldiers from satrapy

Armies commanded by captains allowed a lot of mini stacks to walk around

You can change the names of armies

Distance from capital wasn't actually that realistic, why would people get angrier just because they live further away from the capital?

Sea regions

Prisoner count has been put into the game

In Rome 2 you have options with prisoners

Slums, which are annoying but realistic

factional mercenaries

more wildlife

two types of elephants, making it more realistic

no suicide generals

more bodyguard options for generals

damage boost for higher ground is just as realistic as further range, so not a benefit of Rome 1 over Rome 2

Less building slots make the game more strategic, plus some of the buildings count for the whole province so they are more useful

The huge ram like things used to knock down entire walls

"scorched earth from armies in hostile territory, devastation shown on map and had public order and income consequences" Sorry, but raid stance has public order and income consequences, if an army is not in raiding stance it is not devastating the countryside"

"units stayed together when routing, not turning into weird massive long single-file lines, and chasing routing units was not a micromanagement-fest"
Why would people running for their lives stick together? they would go their own way as to not be targeted as easily.

map projection is becoming less distorted due to patches

Short campaign is useless, making your own objectives is much better.

"you could have multiple generals within one army" Why would you have multiple generals?

[GussieFinkNottle]

GussieFinkNottle
A lot of things on that list have been fixed, as well as some more good things added in patches, and some are simply not true or haven't been added;

numbers on unit card

there's formed attack, which works since patch 9

levy soldiers from satrapy

Armies commanded by captains allowed a lot of mini stacks to walk around

You can change the names of armies

Distance from capital wasn't actually that realistic, why would people get angrier just because they live further away from the capital?

Sea regions

Prisoner count has been put into the game

In Rome 2 you have options with prisoners

Slums, which are annoying but realistic

factional mercenaries

more wildlife

two types of elephants, making it more realistic

no suicide generals

more bodyguard options for generals

damage boost for higher ground is just as realistic as further range, so not a benefit of Rome 1 over Rome 2

Less building slots make the game more strategic, plus some of the buildings count for the whole province so they are more useful

The huge ram like things used to knock down entire walls

"scorched earth from armies in hostile territory, devastation shown on map and had public order and income consequences" Sorry, but raid stance has public order and income consequences, if an army is not in raiding stance it is not devastating the countryside"

"units stayed together when routing, not turning into weird massive long single-file lines, and chasing routing units was not a micromanagement-fest"
Why would people running for their lives stick together? they would go their own way as to not be targeted as easily.

map projection is becoming less distorted due to patches

Short campaign is useless, making your own objectives is much better.

"you could have multiple generals within one army" Why would you have multiple generals?

Jolly good, I'll update it, however, I take issue with some of your points, which are opinions about features' usefulness or application. Other points are wrong or already on the list. This is a straight list, not a commentary on whether I like them
Ones I will not remove for this reason:

-Unlimited armies. You may not like the mini stacks, but they had their uses, and at any rate the fact is there was no cap
-Prisoner count - I mean on the HUD, in-battle. You only find out prisoners on the victory screen
-Distance from capital (plus the idea here is that the further one is from the centre of power, the less likely one is to want to be a part of a foreign empire, or the more likely one will not worry about rebelling)
-prisoner options are the same as in Med2, however the profitable one is enslave rather than ransom
-generals' bodyguards (already on the list)
-change army names (already on the list)
-sea regions (already on the list)
-Wildlife (already on the list)
-damage boost that is an opinion, this is just a list of statements, furthermore being high up in real life grants you extra range, but no more power/damage
-building slots limited
-scorched earth was more sophisticated and had long-term consequences, but anyway it was a different feature (e.g. impacted pop. growth) so goes on the list
-fleeing units: equally why would fleeing men get into lines to run away in an orderly fashion
-map projection, this point is just wrong, they haven't changed the projection of the grand campaign map in any way, compare it to a real map and it's just so wrong
-short campaign (opinion not fact)
-multiple generals

Thanks for your points, though

[DeliCiousTZM]

Rome 1 was a much easier game to create it had less features with easier code just like virtually all games at the time.

Rome II to me is vastly superior, because it has both mod tools and multiplayer campaign capabilities. To me the potential could be endless. Just imagine if we get a LOTR or GoT mod up where we could actually play against other Stark against Lannister, Gondor vs Mordor.

In a few years it will have surpassed anything Rome 1 could throw at it. Rome 1 has had 9 years to develop mods and updates + people see it through rose tinted nostalgia googles anyway. Total war has evolved, if you are still trying to play Total war like you did 6 years ago you won't ever be satisfied with a vanilla release ever again. You guys already know how i enjoy Rome II and why it is so great for me. All i can do is preach the word and hopefully you guys will come around eventually, don't sit alone child - come dine at MPC with us.

[eXistenZ]

option 4: new stupid threads start appearing at a faster rate

[stevehoos]

I will tell you what is not subjective: The banal pointless political system and the fact that the siege AI works terribly with this engine. Is that "subjective" enough for you? If you think that Rome 2 is a better game, I give up.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Everybody pre ordered Rome 2 because of RTW. And that's THAT!

[Musteline]

i dare to say that i had more fun in my warm up to rome 2 release with rome 1 vanilla than i had in these five months with rome 2.

[kujirakira]

Without some revolutionary work/help from CA, Modders will never be able to fix the issues with phalanx formation, politics, etc.
As it stands, the problems go to the core of the game.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Rome 1 may have been better, but let's not pretend Rome 2 after patches, especially in CiG, isn't fun too. I'm enjoying myself (400 hours!).

[Musteline]

Rome 1 may have been better, but let's not pretend Rome 2 after patches, especially in CiG, isn't fun too. I'm enjoying myself (400 hours!).

It is fun but i usually rage quit at the first stupid thing that happens.
Usually its an bugged siege ai or a horrible battle. And i only play with mods because the battles are just the worst in my opinion.

[Cavalier]

Rome 1 may have been better, but let's not pretend Rome 2 after patches, especially in CiG, isn't fun too. I'm enjoying myself (400 hours!).

Same here.

And I think it's kind of meaningless comparing Rome 1 to Rome 2, as the design of the two are completely different. What would be more fair is probably comparing Rome 1 with all it's mods to Medieval 2 with all it's mods, and Empire/Napoleon/Shogun to Rome II as the designs are more similar.

------------------------

And here's a quick rant: Did people really listen to general's speeches in every single battle or something? I listened maybe.. I don't know.. 5 times in hundreds of hours of gameplay, before I grew bored of them and skipped them. There's only so many times one can listen to the same rant over and over. Some people seem to list these speeches as vital and what made RTW great.

[Garensterz]

And here's a quick rant: Did people really listen to general's speeches in every single battle or something? I listened maybe.. I don't know.. 5 times in hundreds of hours of gameplay, before I grew bored of them and skipped them. There's only so many times one can listen to the same rant over and over. Some people seem to list these speeches as vital and what made RTW great.

At least here you can see that the CA devs made Rome 1 with pure heart and passion in them. These little things/features made this game really great. I for one also skipped these speeches back then. But not on huge and noble battles!!! For example, when I get really outnumbered, lets say 5:1. This, the general speech is where see fit in this kind of situation. When the general say's Blah blah blah(can't remember those speeches) Strength and Honor to us All!!! And all of your men will shout courageously, and this gives me the shivers everytime you see, this is an immersive style of gameplay it's like you were really there fighting for your leader, and this is what Rome 2 really lacks of, the lack of passion to the devs.