Is it fair to compare modded Rome 1 to unmodded Rome 2?

[Sebidee]

I suppose there is only so much they can have. They dropped a lot of features from Empire for Shogun 2. They are the features that aren't all that important, otherwise the game would just be bloated. Do you genuinely think that general speeches were a core feature of Total War games? I'm sure 99% of people listened to the first couple and then skipped the rest. Besides, there are some general speeches.

[z3n]

No Sebidee, the problem fans supporting features from RTW/MTW2 have is that those features were scrapped. Evolution is fine, if it's adding to what worked (and what nobody complained about). Evolution is not 'fine' if it takes away the foundation (previously approved of features).

[Hetairos]

It is very simple to port mods like Roma Surrectum II into Rome II, just:

- Add a Battle Map Editor
- Add a Campaign Map Editor
- Enable UI Coding (not only reskins)
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Buildings and Traits
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Descriptions and Texts
- Unlock or De-Hardcode the Database
- Add a Population System
- Add a Family Tree
- Add Roads
- Enable Intro / Cutscene Modding
- Enable Sound Effects and Voice Modding
- Remove Torching Down Gates and Improve the Siege AI
- Add Diplomacy Option: Trade Region
- Release a Scripting Doc
- Add the Senate
- Fix Night Lighting
- Add Dynamic Weather to the Battle Maps
- Add Dynamic Day & Night Cycle to the Battle Maps
- Improve the Battle AI

It's not about carbon-copy porting RS or EB or RTR or whatever, though. What's the point of doing that? They already exist, why would you want an EXACT copy?

Rome 2 has some advantages over Rome 1. Rome 1 has some advantages over Rome 2. Simple as that - hell, most of these aren't even "advantages", they are "differences".

And some of the things you've listed I haven't seen in the original Rome or it's mods: when did Rome 1 have dynamic weather or day/night cycle? If I remember correctly, Rome 1 had separate night battles, just like Rome 2! And honestly, I can't remember seeing much weather in Rome 1... but I've not played it for a while.

What? Why port it? Firstly, why it would make sense to port those mods into Rome II:

1.) Because Roma Surrectum II is one of the most legendary, immersive and in-depth modification out there.
2.) Because EB is the the modification that equals the bible of historic research.
3.) Because those mods contain the hard work of a decade and countless modders and researchers and ancient history doesn't change

Secondly, because its pretty clear that I am trying to make a point with that post above + EBII was ported to TWM2 (yes not to RII, because of impossible ^^) and I highly doubt that it was ported 1:1, but made even better.

The entire point of the post was to show how shallow Rome II is right now and that it needs a huge amount of additions to be able to ever mod anything into it that is even close or similar to RSII, EB or RTR status. Hence, why it is pretty clear why it is very fair to compare modded RTW with unmodded TWRII. Since its not a matter of the mod, but a matter of what can be done at all.

PS: I am playing RTW pretty much every day: Weather changes from clear to snow, from clear to rain, from clear to fog, from light rain to heavy rain, from light snow to heavy snow and vice versa. When you start a night battle it can happen that you see a dawn , if you play a daylight battle it can happen that the sun set. During the day the time of the day changes as well and it is visible in the color of the sky and so on. It really adds some dynamics and immersion to battles.

[Sebidee]

I don't think a making Rome 2 a carbon copy of Roma Surrectum is really whats need, I mean they already exist. Also Rome 2 may be shallow in some areas but in others it has quite a bit more depth than Rome 1. At least vanilla, and that's the point of the thread and poll.

And another thing Alec. As far as I remember Rome 1 didn't have night battles, that was added in Barbarian Invasion. Just sayin'.

[Causeless]

I don't want a carbon copy port. I can already play RS2. It's there. On my hard drive. Why make an exact copy of something that already exists? I'd rather have something new and exciting for Rome 2, and that's being done!

Rome 2 doesn't support the exact feature set that Rome 1 does... but so what? There are some mods for Rome 2 that we could never have seen for Rome 1, and I'm excited to see where else modding can take us, especially after the assembly kit is further updated.

Rome 2 is in no way a shallow game. Perhaps upon release it was (I heard terrain advantages like height weren't even considered by the game...) but now?

Shallow is the wrong word. The simulation fidelity of battle fighting is increased, with more stats to fine-tune. You can select different ammo types, instead of choosing between just 2 with a special ability. There is line of sight in the battle map, and the stances system on the campaign map. There are army traits, and an improved public order system. There are dozens and dozens more factions, and the same goes for units. There's a correct distinction between pike and hoplite units, and improved battlefield controls and a better camera allowing for more cinematic camera angles. The tactical map. Greater variety in battle types (combined land/sea, more unwalled settlements, etc), and a greater focus on the land battles which IMO are more fun that sieges which were constant in Rome 1. There's settlement garrisons, the province system which makes overlooking a huge empire easier, and edicts. You can recruit regional troops from areas you have invaded to improve your unit roster and variety. The diplomatic system, although perhaps lacking a few options, gives a big in-depth run-down of why factions like or dis-like you, and there are some new diplomatic options such as non-aggression pacts and the distinction between defensive and military alliances.

That doesn't sound shallow to me. People whine about the lack of a family tree, accuse the game of being shallow and down-graded for consoles, then ignore all the great stuff that's been added.

No Sebidee, the problem fans supporting features from RTW/MTW2 have is that those features were scrapped. Evolution is fine, if it's adding to what worked (and what nobody complained about). Evolution is not 'fine' if it takes away the foundation (previously approved of features).

Game design isn't a situation of adding more and more things on. Eventually the foundation collapses upon this sheer weight of features which detracts from the game rather than adding to it.

Did we really need population and armies detracting from it? For me, it was a mere annoyance that dissapeared after a town had grown for a few turns anyways. Do we need to be able to change capitals? Well, it's nothing but a symbolic thing, now that the whole "distance from capital" public order has been removed which just turned the end-game of RTW into "spam peasants", and then eventually into "let the town revolt then massacre everyone inside". Because that's realistic, right? What about the other fluff that happened... losing entire armies because a single ship out at sea sinks? Not an issue anymore, and although the transports system is widely criticized, what's really so bad about it? It's the difference between waiting a turn then building a single ship at your port or just going in the first turn!

Sure, perhaps these things were removing features, but it's for the better. If everything just kept adding on, and on, and on, the game would collapse under a weight of mechanics, all built on a foundation not prepared or designed to take it.

[Hetairos]

I don't want a carbon copy port. I can already play RS2. It's there. On my hard drive. Why make an exact copy of something that already exists? I'd rather have something new and exciting for Rome 2, and that's being done!

Rome 2 doesn't support the exact feature set that Rome 1 does... but so what? There are some mods for Rome 2 that we could never have seen for Rome 1, and I'm excited to see where else modding can take us, especially after the assembly kit is further updated.

Rome 2 is in no way a shallow game. Perhaps upon release it was (I heard terrain advantages like height weren't even considered by the game...) but now?

Shallow is the wrong word. The simulation fidelity of battle fighting is increased, with more stats to fine-tune. You can select different ammo types, instead of choosing between just 2 with a special ability. There is line of sight in the battle map, and the stances system on the campaign map. There are army traits, and an improved public order system. There are dozens and dozens more factions, and the same goes for units. There's a correct distinction between pike and hoplite units, and improved battlefield controls and a better camera allowing for more cinematic camera angles. The tactical map. Greater variety in battle types (combined land/sea, more unwalled settlements, etc), and a greater focus on the land battles which IMO are more fun that sieges which were constant in Rome 1. There's settlement garrisons, the province system which makes overlooking a huge empire easier, and edicts. You can recruit regional troops from areas you have invaded to improve your unit roster and variety. The diplomatic system, although perhaps lacking a few options, gives a big in-depth run-down of why factions like or dis-like you, and there are some new diplomatic options such as non-aggression pacts and the distinction between defensive and military alliances.

That doesn't sound shallow to me. People whine about the lack of a family tree, accuse the game of being shallow and down-graded for consoles, then ignore all the great stuff that's been added.

You stuck with the idea of a 1:1 copy. I've never said that. Redoing RSII is like redoing RII. If you create RII do you make an exact copy of RI? No you don't. You do improve it. Otherwise I could argue like you did just right now. Why do I need a Rome II, I have Rome I on my hard drive. Its right there. Why not something completely new? ^^

Anyways we are loosing ourselves here in details. As I said different opinions here and there

Good night.

[Sebidee]

But causeless, I would trade all of that to see who my general's daddy is!!!

[Hetairos]

I don't think a making Rome 2 a carbon copy of Roma Surrectum is really whats need, I mean they already exist. Also Rome 2 may be shallow in some areas but in others it has quite a bit more depth than Rome 1. At least vanilla, and that's the point of the thread and poll.

And another thing Alec. As far as I remember Rome 1 didn't have night battles, that was added in Barbarian Invasion. Just sayin'.

And today I am sayin' read my posts ^^:

As said before, you can compare Rome II to a bottle of milk only that it wouldn't be a very good comparison. Comparing Rome II to Rome: Total War, Europa Universalis: Rome or even Roma Surrectum II, Europa Barbarorum, Rome: Total Realism and any other game (modder or not) is a very fine comparison.

In the same fashion I could ask, is this poll really fair? I think the results of the poll tend to a higher amount of "No" only, because the question reads highly suggestive. If you don't think twice the likelihood of voting no is extremely high. If you would remove the modded vs unmodded it would be a fairly different story.

Not to mention that people forget that modding does nothing else than add content to the existing game features. Hence, modifications do nothing else then representing the game itself. I would have liked to see a more fair and less suggestive thread like can you compare Rome: Total War with Rome II or Roma Surrectum II to Divide et Impera.

So, from my viewpoint the poll does not really give us some representative insights. If you wanted to prove a point continuing the discussion of yesterday you could have asked:

"Is it fair to compare a patched and fully supported Rome: Total War with a still developed and to be patched / supported Rome II?" But even than you didn't had to open a new thread to prove that. Since, I agree that it is clearly not fair IF you give a final statement like: Rome II is a bad game and will never be like Rome: Total War. BUT for the discussion about the future of Rome II and the call for making it even better, it is inevitable and completely necessary to compare it to its fully patched, supported and modded predecessors like Rome: Total War or Shogun II.

Same as yesterday: If you want to give CA a green card to do whatever they want to, go on. However, I highly doubt that you really want that.

What? Why port it? Firstly, why it would make sense to port those mods into Rome II:

1.) Because Roma Surrectum II is one of the most legendary, immersive and in-depth modification out there.
2.) Because EB is the the modification that equals the bible of historic research.
3.) Because those mods contain the hard work of a decade and countless modders and researchers and ancient history doesn't change

Secondly, because its pretty clear that I am trying to make a point with that post above + EBII was ported to TWM2 (yes not to RII, because of impossible ^^) and I highly doubt that it was ported 1:1 (or carbon copy as you said), but made even better.

The entire point of the post was to show how shallow Rome II is right now and that it needs a huge amount of additions to be able to ever mod anything into it that is even close or similar to RSII, EB or RTR status. Hence, why it is pretty clear why it is very fair to compare modded RTW with unmodded TWRII. Since its not a matter of the mod, but a matter of what can be done at all.

PS: I am playing RTW pretty much every day: Weather changes from clear to snow, from clear to rain, from clear to fog, from light rain to heavy rain, from light snow to heavy snow and vice versa. When you start a night battle it can happen that you see a dawn , if you play a daylight battle it can happen that the sun set. During the day the time of the day changes as well and it is visible in the color of the sky and so on. It really adds some dynamics and immersion to battles.

And as you just compared Rome II to Rome: Total War (yes, it is a valid comparison if modder or not does not matter at all). Rome II adds a provincial system, stances (although somewhat broken) and army legacies. Seasons, sea battles and what not other features have been in Shogun and previous TW titles.

I don't know what you try to achieve, like to convince others or what not. I don't see the point of not comparing or discussing the game and asking for improvements. Right now it looks like you want to advocate CA to continue with its business practices and giving them a green card of doing with the game what they want.

PS: Just out of curiosity. Did you guys ever seriously play or even install EU:R, RSII, EB or RTR?

Because as said above I think that pretty much everyone who has experienced RTW and its mods is gathering in the one corner of disappointment over Rome II and everyone who has not, especially the younger generation gathers in the other corner loving the game as it is. So why convince each other here on who is right or not? Nobody is, we just pursuit different goals. As I said I many times said that Rome II has great aspects, did I hear an acknowledgement of you guys giving us the right to ask CA for more depth?

[Sebidee]

I don't know what you try to achieve, like to convince others or what not. I don't see the point of not comparing or discussing the game and asking for improvements. Right now it looks like you want to advocate CA to continue with its business practices and giving them a green card of doing with the game what they want.

PS: Just out of curiosity. Did you guys ever seriously play or even install EU:R, RSII, EB or RTR?

Well in fairness, CA probably have the most right to do what they want with their game. If they do it your way then they will piss off some people, if they do it someone else's way it piss off others.

It doesn't matter if everyone else installed those mods. The mods should not be considered simply because mods of that caliber don't exist yet for Rome 2. CA should not have been expected to follow those mods and people are getting upset over nothing.

And by the way where is the cut off point? You were earlier about night battles, a feature that wasn't added until a year later in a fully paid expansion pack.

People like to say Rome 1 is better than Rome 2.

What they should be saying is Rome 1 and it's two fullsized expansion packs plus your choice of one of three massive mods and a decade of nostalgia is better than Rome 2. Even though I still wouldn't agree with that.

[Hetairos]

Well in fairness, CA probably have the most right to do what they want with their game. If they do it your way then they will piss off some people, if they do it someone else's way it piss off others.

Mate, it is up to you, but this kind opinion gives them the freedom next time to launch a even worse release and don't even care about you. And I highly doubt CA will piss off anyone, by making Rome II more mod friendly and releasing what I just wrote a few messages before:

- Add a Battle Map Editor
- Add a Campaign Map Editor
- Enable UI Coding (not only reskins)
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Buildings and Traits
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Descriptions and Texts
- Unlock or De-Hardcode the Database
- Add a Population System
- Add a Family Tree
- Add Roads
- Enable Intro / Cutscene Modding
- Enable Sound Effects and Voice Modding
- Remove Torching Down Gates and Improve the Siege AI
- Add Diplomacy Option: Trade Region
- Release a Scripting Doc
- Add the Senate
- Fix Night Lighting
- Add Dynamic Weather to the Battle Maps
- Add Dynamic Day & Night Cycle to the Battle Maps
- Improve the Battle AI

It doesn't matter if everyone else installed those mods. The mods should not be considered simply because mods of that caliber don't exist yet for Rome 2. CA should not have been expected to follow those mods and people are getting upset over nothing.

It does since if you have never played RSII you are not to judge about its content and depth. Where I have played all of them, vanilla, expansions and mods. You are off here, we are not upset because of not having a mod, but of not having the ability to create it. Not for nothing many modders stay away from the warscape engine and especially Rome II. But if you want to limit yourself to a very narrow point of view and don't compare the game to any other game or modification its up to you. Remember though that the entire principle that governs the modern world nowadays (capitalism) is based on competition. While you want to remove any competition from your discussions here. Competition, adversity and scarcity of resources is the principle for evolution and improvements.

And by the way where is the cut off point? You were earlier about night battles, a feature that wasn't added until a year later in a fully paid expansion pack.

People like to say Rome 1 is better than Rome 2.

I have never said that. I said that it has more depth and Rome II has better graphics instead. We do want more depth in future and if we do not call for it, why would we even care about it.

What they should be saying is Rome 1 and it's two fullsized expansion packs plus your choice of one of three massive mods and a decade of nostalgia is better than Rome 2. Even though I still wouldn't agree with that.

Again trying to remove competition here and seeming frightened to compare the new game with a 10 years old predecessor by saying its unfair to compare it with its expansions and so on. What if I throw in and start to complain that its unfair to compare Rome II with Rome: Total War because Rome: Total War is 10 years older. So unfair to compare a game from 2013 with it that yet has to see its best times? Wouldn't that be unfair as well? Not to mention that nowadays we have so much more possibilities and tools in the gaming industry, also that Rome II came with a 40% bigger budget ^^ and Rome II had the ability to use its own motion cap studio...

[Gigantus]

Comparing ten years of intense (at least the first five years) developing\modding with less then one year, even when ignoring technological development? That's a rhetorical question where I am concerned, not one that needs a poll. Regardless from which angle you look at it.

But it appears to have been a major part of the base of the upheaval since the release of R2.

[LestaT]

Comparing ten years of intense (at least the first five years) developing\modding with less then one year, even when ignoring technological development? That's a rhetorical question where I am concerned, not one that needs a poll. Regardless from which angle you look at it.

But it appears to have been a major part of the base of the upheaval since the release of R2.

Nostalgia. If only people actualy remembers what mods are there for RTW 10 months after the game is released.

[perifanosEllinas]

Sebidee,it seems like you have decided to make a personal crusade here to prove mad everyone who disagrees with your opinions on Rome 2.I find what you're doing very distasteful and out of place to say the least.

[Aenima]

Sebidee,it seems like you have decided to make a personal crusade here to prove mad everyone who disagrees with your opinions on Rome 2.I find what you're doing very distasteful and out of place to say the least.

And I find that to be an exaggeration, to say the least. Did you see a certain poster talk about how Rome 2 has more historical inaccuracies than RTW, and how "less was more" in regards to settlements with RTW, but that Rome 2 was sorely lacking in settlements? Seb isn't entirely wrong when he says that a lot of people are prone to hyperbole, and I certainly agree that there are some people who take Rome 2 bashing and RTW-loving to ridiculous extents.

[perifanosEllinas]

And I find that to be an exaggeration, to say the least. Did you see a certain poster talk about how Rome 2 has more historical inaccuracies than RTW, and how "less was more" in regards to settlements with RTW, but that Rome 2 was sorely lacking in settlements?

Yes my friend,I did.And I disagree with this poster's opinion on this specific subject,but he has the right to say his opinion freely.

[eXistenZ]

Voted no, simply because a lot of people i heared complaining, played Rome 1 almost exclusivly (or for 90% of the time) with mods, and have only played rome 2 vanilla (and often not recent).

Games never change their core. If you got your enjoyment out of a big overhaul mod, its silly to expect that the next basegame will provide that exact same experience.

[Lord Baratheon]

Why? Is Rome 2 that bad that you are afraid it will look bad when compared to mods for a 10 year old game? If Rome 2 vanilla isn't better than any Rome 1 mods then it's in fact a failure. Because if it isn't an improvement over both vanilla and modded Rome 1 then it has failed it's primary purpose, to better the original game. Modded or unmodded.

Rome 1 was released 10 years ago. Comparing any of its mods with Rome 2 is legit to me. The things that the players most want in Rome 2 are not the super historical acuracy of EB or RS2. No, its things that were in the original game such as family trees and a civil war that makes at least a bit of sense.

Voted no, simply because a lot of people i heared complaining, played Rome 1 almost exclusivly (or for 90% of the time) with mods, and have only played rome 2 vanilla (and often not recent).

Another misrepresentation of Rome 2's critics. I played the original game to death before I even touched a mod, whereas I have yet to play unmodded Rome 2. Plenty of others have the same story.

[Sebidee]

Why should I compare RTW2 to RTW1 if I am playing RSII, is there a UN directive some international agreement that prevents the comparison with RSII ? Of course I can compare them if I want.

If I prefer the grass in Fable 3 to the grass in RTW2 I can make that comparison there is nothing intrinsically unfair about that its just a comparison, likewise if I compare the UI in RSII to the UI in RTW2 there is nothing intrinsically unfair about that either in fact trying to disallow that comparison is really what is unfair.

I think you are taking the word 'compare' a little too literally. It was my mistake to use that word. What I mean is it fair to expect Rome 2 to be like Rome 1 with mods or is it far to equate the mods to the vanilla Rome 1 as if CA actually made them.

[Anna_Gein]

As Modestus already said in the other thread, I think it is fair as mods do within the limitation of the game and offer a different utilization of the game mechanics. While R2 has not beneficed from as many years of modding as RTW we can already observe a good deal of increased limitations that would prevent chore aspect of RTW mods to be repeated in R2. Most importantly all the civil and internal faction management. All the different utilisations of traits and ancillaries + building are impossible in R2.

[DeliCiousTZM]

.