ROME II Free- LC & Daughters of Mars DLC- OUT NOW

[Destraex]

What most upsets me still is the navies and naval warfare being a joke and pretty shallow (no pun intended)
Second to that is the feeling that each and every side on the battlefield feels very similar to play.

An example. THe unit called horse runners should introduce a new tactic the germans used to use with light troops hanging off horses.......... nope. Just a reskin.

CA managed to get the clone feeling going like no other total war thus far without clone troops!!!

[ABH2]

but they existed nonetheless. For instance there are historical records of gladiatrices, just as there are records of Lusitani women fighting alongside the men.

1. Name the pitched battle, or attack on the Romans where Lusitani women fight alongside the men. I'll be waiting. Again, we have examples of women in attacked cities taking up arms to defend themselves as a last resort. It would be stranger if that didn't occur when an enemy army sacked an entire city.
2. Gladiators didn't fight on the battlefield. I don't care if there was the occasional oddity of a female gladiator.

Gladiators existed as entertainment for the Romans. They were there to kill and be killed. Whether they threw particular women into that role on occasion has nothing to do with what should be depicted on the battlefield.

And whether Boudica existed or not, people don't even get the account we do have right. She wasn't out there swinging a sword and leading the troops from the front at the Battle of Watling Street. She gave a speech. The planning and fighting? Done by men. She was, AT BEST, a political leader.

[Humble Warrior]

1. Name the pitched battle, or attack on the Romans where Lusitani women fight alongside the men. I'll be waiting. Again, we have examples of women in attacked cities taking up arms to defend themselves as a last resort. It would be stranger if that didn't occur when an enemy army sacked an entire city.
2. Gladiators didn't fight on the battlefield. I don't care if there was the occasional oddity of a female gladiator.

Gladiators existed as entertainment for the Romans. They were there to kill and be killed. Whether they threw particular women into that role on occasion has nothing to do with what should be depicted on the battlefield.

And whether Boudica existed or not, people don't even get the account we do have right. She wasn't out there swinging a sword and leading the troops from the front at the Battle of Watling Street. She gave a speech. The planning and fighting? Done by men. She was, AT BEST, a political leader.

Absolutely correct. Wisely done it could be good, but this is just total fantasy without common sense at all. Galdiator women? yes they fought in the arena, usually against EACH OTHER. They shouldn't even have near equal stats to male galdiators. And then out fighting too? Romans would NEVER have females out on the battlefield. Never. that's just the way it was. Deal with it. Oh and they were never as common as male gladiators since some found it distasteful. It was more a gimmick, `Are you bored, senators? Well fear not! New entertainment today- Female Gladiators!!`

Even civilian women would've despised women fighters in most parts of the world.

There are far too many female fighters that it's turning the game into a ridiculous sham, impossible to suspend disbelief.

I play other games when I want fantasy, like Oblivion where there are plenty of nimble thin girls wielding huge maces totally ridiculously- But I expect that where lizard men and cats talk and magic exists.

A fighting woman was a rare thing that few people would have seen in the entirity of their lives in the Classical days. That's why Bouddica was such a surprise and Amazons are a fairy tale, good to tell the lads at night fires. Complete nonsense.

It's not sexism, it's just the Truth.

[The Noble Duke Of York]

Absolutely correct. Wisely done it could be good, but this is just total fantasy without common sense at all. Galdiator women? yes they fought in the arena, usually against EACH OTHER. They shouldn't even have near equal stats to male galdiators. And then out fighting too? Romans would NEVER have females out on the battlefield. Never. that's just the way it was. Deal with it. Oh and they were never as common as male gladiators since some found it distasteful. It was more a gimmick, `Are you bored, senators? Well fear not! New entertainment today- Female Gladiators!!`

Even civilian women would've despised women fighters in most parts of the world.

There are far too many female fighters that it's turning the game into a ridiculous sham, impossible to suspend disbelief.

I play other games when I want fantasy, like Oblivion where there are plenty of nimble thin girls wielding huge maces totally ridiculously- But I expect that where lizard men and cats talk and magic exists.

A fighting woman was a rare thing that few people would have seen in the entirity of their lives in the Classical days. That's why Bouddica was such a surprise and Amazons are a fairy tale, good to tell the lads at night fires. Complete nonsense.

It's not sexism, it's just the Truth.

Actually it's looking increasingly likely that your version of the truth is a tad passe and you can thank modern Archaeology's discoveries for upending your world-view.

http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/...armatians.html

Looks like CA might be a little more in line with what is now known about nomadic warrior societies in Eurasia than those beating their hairy male chests here about the absurdity of a female warrior possibly existing. Phew thankfully CA look to be doing their homework. The author of the above work is a well-known and respected Archaeologist and the above is published in an academic journal in that field.

[Pistola Pablo]

I bought the DLC played and its OK - no game changer just good - I'm happy with it. I didn't buy DLC for a while as a silent protest in which the game was going - but I purchased all the DLC at the last sale 75% off - and I liked it! Played Hannibal at the gate and thought it was damn good - what the campaign game should have been - anyways the Daughter of Mars DLC gets a pass from me.

[Garensterz]

Now this is just insulting

[rafmc1989]

Now this is just insulting

Aren't you satisfied by this DLC? It's powered by Brazzers!

[ABH2]

Some of the infantry units can form wedge. (don't know if any could before.) and a gorgeous leather texture on some of the Suebi armour.

The wedge formation being given to infantry by CA leads me back to thinking we are going to get a Britain mini-campaign along with a Battle of Watling Street historical battle.

[Monglor]

It's worth bearing in mind folks that the Total War series is about alternate history, not actual history. Is it hypothetically possible that a king or emperor or tribal chief might decide to train women to fight? Yes. So it is appropriate for it to be there. To be honest I've always felt that the games lacked imagination in that regard anyway. Once you are established in a campaign of a Total War game you're usually well outside the historical situation of the time, and it's perfectly reasonable to have ahistorical units included in order to accommodate that.

For example suppose you're playing a game and the Iceni and the Egyptians become the world powers and have a big old battle over Italy. Do you think that the soldiers and equipment involved in that war would have born a close resemblance to the weaponry those forces actually used during that period in reality? Almost certainly not.

That doesn't mean that the game has to go fully overboard and include things like Chinese mercenaries with rockets and time travelling men from the moon, but a little common sense goes a long way.

[Huberto]

It's worth bearing in mind folks that the Total War series is about alternate history, not actual history. Is it hypothetically possible that a king or emperor or tribal chief might decide to train women to fight?

A lot of things are hypothetically possible in history. But not all hypotheticals are created equal. Some are interesting, immersive and thought provoking and some are just plain dumb.

[SunWulf]

It's worth bearing in mind folks that the Total War series is about alternate history, not actual history. Is it hypothetically possible that a king or emperor or tribal chief might decide to train women to fight? Yes. So it is appropriate for it to be there. To be honest I've always felt that the games lacked imagination in that regard anyway. Once you are established in a campaign of a Total War game you're usually well outside the historical situation of the time, and it's perfectly reasonable to have ahistorical units included in order to accommodate that.

Amen...

[ABH2]

Is it hypothetically possible that a king or emperor or tribal chief might decide to train women to fight?

The number of things hypothetically possible are endless. Had these cultures actually used women in planned combat roles on a regular basis, you may have a point. None of them, besides MAYBE the Scythian tribes did.

[Symphony]

If seeing 4/army limit units being sometimes used by 2 AI factions (as a player, you have zero need to recruit them) really does that much damage to your immersion....did you really have that much immersion before this freeLC?

[ABH2]

To add to this 'hypothetical' scenario where women could have been trained to fight in most of these cultures, the reason it's implausible is because the manner in which they fought as well as anything cultural that would have made it extremely difficult if not impossible for any leader to arm large amounts of women.

Why is it possible that Scythian tribes may have had some women fighting? Because their style of warfare wasn't based on infantry and melee fighting. It was done at a distance, based on maneuverability and the bow. Even then, I'm still very skeptical on the numbers they would have employed or if females would have regularly took part in even small scale raiding let alone actual campaigns in these cultures.

The idea that you can just train women to use a sword, spear, and carry a shield the same as men is simply false. This isn't some sexist rant. It's biological fact. Strength and speed plays a large role in combat. This goes without saying. Even today, the elite female athletes in the world are closer to top high school athletes than the top males in terms of ability, and it's not hard to point out actual stats to prove that (if you are into sports at all, you would have probably noticed this). Take a look at the top female sprinters that we know at the Olympic level, and compare their times to those of the top high school male athletes in the same events. High school athletes often times don't just come close, but out perform them. The top female tennis players? They struggle to compete against even lower ranked males. One prominent female tennis player has stated that her male coach can beat her even as he's aged. When he was a professional, he was barely ranked among the men. I don't know how much of this discussion the mods are going to allow and I may already be walking some line in even pointing out these hard facts.

Biology is biology. No ancient culture would have armed hundreds of women with spears and tried to organize them into formations with spears and swords in a pitched battle. It would have been slaughter. This is why they didn't fight.

I say this as someone who has no problem opening up combat roles in the modern military world to women who are capable of meeting the physical requirements necessary to do the job. There aren't many of those, though, and no amount of wishing it were so changes that reality. This isn't a nature vs. nurture debate. There are real biological differences in strength, speed, and stamina between the sexes.

So, this hypothetical? I mean, sure, as a hypothetical it would have technically been possible in some very odd circumstance, but it would have made no sense to do it. Your average female 'warrior' trained to fight would have struggled to deal with untrained levies on the battlefield.

[jackwei]

Romans or Greeks would never let their women fight on the battlefield because if they did then it would cause a series decline in their population leading to lower birth rates and possibly extinction with fewer generations of children being born, also if men could have children fair enough but they can't so what sense would it be sending all your women to die as your tribe or Kingdom would be on verge of ceasing to exist.

I am sure a tiny minority of women would fight from tribes but no way could a woman gladiator could match a man gladiator as they were worth two Roman soldiers.

There are some people in CA who has always wanted it and they got their wish as in this age it is about political correctness forget history, its accuracy which is irrelevant now that is why man has become so weak now.

[Humble Warrior]

Romans or Greeks would never let their women fight on the battlefield because if they did then it would cause a series decline in their population leading to lower birth rates and possibly extinction with fewer generations of children being born, also if men could have children fair enough but they can't so what sense would it be sending all your women to die as your tribe or Kingdom would be on verge of ceasing to exist.

I am sure a tiny minority of women would fight from tribes but no way could a woman gladiator could match a man gladiator as they were worth two Roman soldiers.

There are some people in CA who has always wanted it and they got their wish as in this age it is about political correctness forget history, its accuracy which is irrelevant now that is why man has become so weak now.

Yes, there are some in CA who are controlled by some 'whiteknight' desire as if they think they're making some great stride for the Human race or something...
One of the simplist and most obviious reasons. Even today, it's not the smartest of ideas to have women fighters on the battlefield. You don't put out the people who create your future population out to die in their thousands in war. Would any smart tribe HONESTLY have most of their women fight wars and lie on the battlefield in their thousands(and no they don't have magical no-death forcefields, they die like any one else).

Only a nation that has a huge surplus of women and isn't interested in its future existence would want that. The only reason we can do it today is because we do have a huge surplus of people to waste.

Let's not forget, there has not been one war or battle in HISTORY where women have died in their thousands like men on the Somme or in 18th century warfare or in Classical times or whenever. It has never happened in the past, and, hopefully it won't have to happen in the future. It's dumb to encourage such foolishness in games.

I just don't think people think about what they want until it happens.

[perifanosEllinas]

The free additional units to the Suebi are welcomed.

For the DLC with female units I can only say one thing: "I came,I saw,I facepalmed hard.".

[LexLuthor]

You guys are all heckling this, but aren't the female units optional? (Don't like it, don't buy it)

I know you're all bummed about this DLC release, but I think I saw someone mention that this is something CA probably produced in a day or two, and is hardly their main stride of development. I couldn't agree more with that opinion and I think in the next month or two we will start seeing announcements for more patches and, if you want it, DLC.

- Lex

[Huberto]

You guys are all heckling this, but aren't the female units optional? (Don't like it, don't buy it)

I know you're all bummed about this DLC release, but I think I saw someone mention that this is something CA probably produced in a day or two, and is hardly their main stride of development. I couldn't agree more with that opinion and I think in the next month or two we will start seeing announcements for more patches and, if you want it, DLC.

- Lex

I think the criticism is based on the notion that the DLC says....something. It may have taken 1/2 a day to assemble but it's not a random event or without a point. So the interesting question to explore is -- what is the point, exactly? Same as with the exploding bee hives or what not.

Also, anyone know how I can get the no extra charge DLC that was automatically installed yesterday out of my game, by the way? Are there setting or files I can remove or disable?

[Humble Warrior]

I wait for the day when a game company makes a game with the same mechanics as Total war, but with a strong ethos to recreate the times as it truly was, not as we in the 21st would like it.

I want to TIME-TRAVEL back and view it as it was, that's why I bought Shogun Total War all those years ago. If I wanted a modern 21st century game with everything just like it is now, I would've bought a modern game where it might actually be feasible to have everything like it is now.

I want to see the barebones harsh reality, the slavery, the battles, the merciless routing of petrified soldiers. One of the reasons I really like ROME the series is because it pretty much kept exactly to how it was, it treated slaves as slaves were, women, as women were, men suffered what they must, etc, etc, etc.. it didn't pander to 21st century wims, like women warriors... (well it started to lose it a little in season 2).

CA just doesn't have the love for history of the times that they need. It's not about women fighters even, that's besdes the point, it's just the whole fact they don't care to recreate an amazing time in Classical history 2000 years ago. Someone had a quote that maybe CA are incompetent or maybe they just don't give a about history. And I think that touches it with a needle.