I dont really get the new raze city feature

[RedGuard]

@4:00
Why raze the whole region if you're gonna want it back in the future? why not let the enemy take it and destroy both armies piece meal like in all games previous. a siege is easier to take out an army than an open battle hence why the rome 2 ai cheats and always "chooses to face you on the field"

Unless you're in a massive retreat and fleeing several regions at once I see no reason to ever do this, unless your the romans and burning all along your border to slow down a enemy. but if its your own land you might as well capture it.

I can just see it now, the ai fleeing into the ocean right after burning its last city to the ground rather than let you capture it. this feature just doesn't make much sense to me and lends itself to both exploitation for the player and the ai (who probably wont know what to do with it)

also its quite unrealistic to torch a whole region within a turn with an army heading your way, it should sometimes fail

[craziii]

it is something you have the option to do if you find the AI armies overwhelming. Burn a province completely and AI would take a long time to rebuild it. giving you time to respond. That is the purpose of the new feature according to the 30 min full video I watched. In attila, the western roman empire was over stretch, so this is the option + major feature ca provided for the campaign gameplay.

[Octavius Vatco]

really? they talk about Plagues as if it's a new feature? When all of that was already done pretty well in the original Rome Total War......

[RedGuard]

really? they talk about Plagues as if it's a new feature? When all of that was already done pretty well in the original Rome Total War......

most of the "new" features are old ones that were stripped in previous games and put back in lol. I think this is and civvies (which were in city view) are the only new feature ive seen thusfar.

Crazii, that be great if the AI was actually interested in taking cities but if there is an overwhelming force of enemies they'll just bypass the burned cities and keep coming for you. unless there is some kind of scorched earth attrition. even so, Id exhaust every other option before I burn down a city I spent turns building myself, and I rather have them capture it every time than burn it down.

[Huberto]

I can just see it now, the ai fleeing into the ocean right after burning its last city to the ground rather than let you capture it. this feature just doesn't make much sense to me and lends itself to both exploitation for the player and the ai (who probably wont know what to do with it)also its quite unrealistic to torch a whole region within a turn with an army heading your way, it should sometimes fail

Yes I quite agree. They're grasping at "features" now in order to make this game appear to be different and get it out in February. I honestly they're implementing this for the nuclear bomb animation.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Except the Western Empire never razed entire provinces. In fact after Aremorica rebelled the Romans allegedly improved the farming infrastructure there (Merobaudes, Pangeyric II)

[lilalex20]

It also has offensive capabilities they said in one of the videos. I personally like because sometimes I rather not take region or go past historical borders, this way I can go on a European tour of raping and pillaging. As long as it doesn't get out of hand I think its a cool rp feature in my book.

[PointOfViewGun]

@4:00
Why raze the whole region if you're gonna want it back in the future? why not let the enemy take it and destroy both armies piece meal like in all games previous. a siege is easier to take out an army than an open battle hence why the rome 2 ai cheats and always "chooses to face you on the field"

Unless you're in a massive retreat and fleeing several regions at once I see no reason to ever do this, unless your the romans and burning all along your border to slow down a enemy. but if its your own land you might as well capture it.

I can just see it now, the ai fleeing into the ocean right after burning its last city to the ground rather than let you capture it. this feature just doesn't make much sense to me and lends itself to both exploitation for the player and the ai (who probably wont know what to do with it)

also its quite unrealistic to torch a whole region within a turn with an army heading your way, it should sometimes fail

As far as I remember it's what Flavius Aetius did to slow down and hurt the Attila's horde in real life though it might just be what I read in The Sword of Attila. I suspect that it will work the same way. Invading army will likely get a lot of negative bonuses to army replenishment and settlement construction. You might want to consider such an option once the Attila's horde arrive in much superior numbers that even a siege can't take them down. So, you'll raze the border provinces which will cause enemy armies to endure casualties and get slowed down. Meanwhile, you can use that precious time to pull some armies to your borders. Each turn represents 3 months. It takes a long time to build but I'm sure 3 months is enough to simply burn buildings and farms.

[Aenima]

It also has offensive capabilities they said in one of the videos. I personally like because sometimes I rather not take region or go past historical borders, this way I can go on a European tour of raping and pillaging. As long as it doesn't get out of hand I think its a cool rp feature in my book.

My thoughts exactly. I've always wanted to be able to seize enemy settlements and put them to the torch, thus securing the frontier, but it's never really been feasible. It'd feel more realistic than the strategy of previous TW games whereby you'd seize it, torch everything and then leave, which never felt all that fun.

[Humble Warrior]

My thoughts exactly. I've always wanted to be able to seize enemy settlements and put them to the torch, thus securing the frontier, but it's never really been feasible. It'd feel more realistic than the strategy of previous TW games whereby you'd seize it, torch everything and then leave, which never felt all that fun.

CA are making a bigger issue out of this than is warranted, but it cannot be denied that some armies did wipe out cities (burnt to the ground) just because they wanted to. Even if it gave them no real benefit at all except for the `fun` of killing and pillaging. We know Boudicca did this- I suspect long pent-up revenge is also a factor.

I wonder what the framerates will be like when included with lots of men. I suspect we won't be seeing greater than 6000 men on the battlefield without severe slowdown once the fires starts.

[PointOfViewGun]

CA are making a bigger issue out of this than is warranted, but it cannot be denied that some armies did wipe out cities (burnt to the ground) just because they wanted to. Even if it gave them no real benefit at all except for the `fun` of killing and pillaging. We know Boudicca did this- I suspect long pent-up revenge is also a factor.

I wonder what the framerates will be like when included with lots of men. I suspect we won't be seeing greater than 6000 men on the battlefield without severe slowdown once the fires starts.

The thread is not on dynamic fire. It's on abandoning a settlement.

[Son of Horus]

Unless you can use it to withdraw armies who are under siege, this feature seems fairly "pointless". Sure, there's some point in it, but it's about as worthwhile as sacking the city, where in Rome 2, it's better to just Raze or Occupy, despite it being the option. It's a "rare battle".

[RedGuard]

My thoughts exactly. I've always wanted to be able to seize enemy settlements and put them to the torch, thus securing the frontier, but it's never really been feasible. It'd feel more realistic than the strategy of previous TW games whereby you'd seize it, torch everything and then leave, which never felt all that fun.

and if you actually bothered to read the op i mention its offensive capabilities. but defensively or for the example they use in the video, its just pretty dumb and I don't even get why anyone would ever select to "abandon settlement" thus destroying all thier buildings and money they've worked hard to put into it. even as a last resort I'd just rather let them capture it than destroy everything. on the other hand making foreays into germania and burning down the villages makes sense, but remember they'll be doing the same to you most like. or they'll be burning down thier regions before you even get there.

I can see the ai skipping your army to go drop a nuke on a village you will need in the future

[Heathen Storm]

and if you actually bothered to read the op i mention its offensive capabilities. but defensively or for the example they use in the video, its just pretty dumb and I don't even get why anyone would ever select to "abandon settlement" thus destroying all thier buildings and money they've worked hard to put into it. even as a last resort I'd just rather let them capture it than destroy everything. on the other hand making foreays into germania and burning down the villages makes sense, but remember they'll be doing the same to you most like. or they'll be burning down thier regions before you even get there.

I can see the ai skipping your army to go drop a nuke on a village you will need in the future

Tactically, I can see it being useful while playing the Romans. Stretched too thin, with too few armies to fend off the incoming hordes it could be kind of a "if I can't have it, neither can they" kind of tactic.

[Le_Swede]

I can see the option being a great way to deal with one of those pesky smaller factions who refuses to make peace with you while at the same time they only have one settlement which is placed strategically bad. Instead of outright conquering them and occupying their territory you could instead annihilate the whole nation from the surface of the earth which serves the triple purpose of destroying a annoying foe, granting you some lovely cash and creating a no-man's land buffer between you and any other faction. This is especially true if we don't, which I think is the most plausible outcome, get trading of regions back.

[Huberto]

I can see the option being a great way to deal with one of those pesky smaller factions who refuses to make peace with you while at the same time they only have one settlement which is placed strategically bad. Instead of outright conquering them and occupying their territory you could instead annihilate the whole nation from the surface of the earth which serves the triple purpose of destroying a annoying foe, granting you some lovely cash and creating a no-man's land buffer between you and any other faction. This is especially true if we don't, which I think is the most plausible outcome, get trading of regions back.

How realistic is "annihilating the whole nation from the surface of the earth" in any war, let alone one taking place in the 5th Century? Childish fantasy and stupid strategy game gimmick imo.

[PointOfViewGun]

How realistic is "annihilating the whole nation from the surface of the earth" in any war, let alone one taking place in the 5th Century? Childish fantasy and stupid strategy game gimmick imo.

Really? Wasn't extermination of unwanted nations or groups of people a common practice back then? Mithridates did it around 88 BC to wipe out the Roman presence from Anatolia by massacring them. Known as Asiatic Vespers. Romans similarly destroyed Carthage as well. Destroying an entire nation, city, or group of people is very realistic.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Except the Western Empire never razed entire provinces. In fact after Aremorica rebelled the Romans allegedly improved the farming infrastructure there (Merobaudes, Pangeyric II)

The moment the game begins, you diverge from history and start heading into an alternate timeline.
While Rome never practiced scorched earth to such a magnitude, if they've set their minds to it, there is really noting stopping them from going through with such a policy, other then perhaps a lack of the necessary ruthlessness (depends primarily on who's in charge at the time). Its no less historically implausible then say, the eastern empire falling a thousand years too early, a situation which the game accommodates just fine.

Either way, I have no trouble at all with this feature. Scorched earth is a valid military strategy, if a painful one. I just hope it wrecks unit replenishment for an enemy after he takes the burned out province, either forcing the enemy to slow down its invasion or allowing victory by attrition.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Hold on; can you actually utterly annihilate the city and its province for good? Or is it one of those "raze" options that will eventually let you refound the city at a later date?

[craziii]

Hold on; can you actually utterly annihilate the city and its province for good? Or is it one of those "raze" options that will eventually let you refound the city at a later date?

it is alot more devastating then the current rome 2 form. you basically burn everything. the entire province, every settlements goes back to zero. it will take a long time to rebuild if I understood it correctly, but you can rebuilt.