Rome I, Rome II, and hoping for Attila - random thoughts
A few days ago, just out of curiosity, I reinstalled Rome I and played some of it, with latest mods (only way to play).
1. Despite all the mods, the graphics are definitely dated. The mods have done a good job in upgrading battle environments, but it's still greatly inferior to Rome 2. The different models for individual solders, the overall interface in the campaign, etc etc.
2. Despite the bad graphics, Rome 1 is more REAL. It's hard to explain, but somehow it's got more character and gives more of a Roman feel to it. The music, the non-stylistic icons, and Legions actually holding in formations while fighting.
3. You really feel like you are managing an empire. The cities are living and breathing cities, with population growing, wealthier/more populated regions, and city buildings that actually looked real (as opposed to stylized icons). I don't know why, since population is mostly a concept that didn't matter too much in Rome I, but I really felt "Good" when a city grew big enough on it's own to go to the next size city. It felt natural, more real than just paying money to upgrade, and it really gave a realistic feeling to the world - Rome was rich, large, and populated, as was Asia Minor and Egypt, while Gaul and Germany were tiny settlements that gave almost no income at first. It's a nice contrast to Rome II where every province was a similar blank canvas, and it mattered more what you built in your slots and how many ports. Despite the title of Rome II, it didn't really matter if it was Rome or some random city in Gaul. Rome's province of Italia isn't even that rich of a province - Africa or really any sea-side province with lots of ports would be much richer. In Rome I, Roman/Italian cities were much, much richer than Barbarian settlements, and even after 50 year, 100 years of Roman rule a Gaullic city is still going to be much poorer than Rome. That felt "right" to me.
4. One key difference was how you could actually play a 1, 2 city nation and build up pretty well, as you could build pretty much every building in your city. In Rome II, you pretty much have to expand ASAP because with 1 region you can't really recruit units, get food, and make money all at the same time, due to building slot restrictions.
5. By the mid-game Rome I wasn't that fun. It was too realistic, and managing a huge empire was too tedious - building constantly in too many regions (I don't trust governor AI), and the AI's crappy armies became a cakewalk. Rome I really lacked that realm-divide type mechanism to make it challenging after mid game. I stopped playing after I got a largish empire.
After playing Rome I again it's clear there were some parts that was worse than I remembered - building management was nice when you had 1-3 provinces but terrible when you had 20+. I wish CA would combine the good parts with Rome I with Rome II for Attila.
#1 on this, and really, REALLY hope fertility achieves this, is make the provinces UNEVEN. UNBALENCED. Rome I felt good because the map wasn't balanced - a settlement in Germany will never be as great as Rome or Carthage, due to the massive population difference. In Rome II besides a different army roster the Barbarians didn't feel uncivilized or poor. Their provinces had the same money, food, income, development as Rome. Heck, owning all of Libya could support the same size army and income as owning Italia, which just doesn't make any sense. Having LARGE regional differences will make it less arcade-like and more like the real world. Owning the center of civilization should matter more than owning empty plains, wild underpopulated forests or empty deserts (something totally missed in Rome II).
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ashmizen
