Why politics and power is terrible

[eXistenZ]

Going back to an old title to add content is by itself not a bad thing. It becomes so when what you do, does more harm than good. My reasons why this update is something that does way more bad things than good things.

1) First off, and this is incredibly important. It breaks mods. A lot of players had a finetuned collection of mods to get the game they want. With this update, a lot of mods will be obsolete. Bigger mods will probably be updated, but the fate of other mods is uncertain. There was an equilibrium, and that has been disrupted for no good reason.

2) secondly, this update doesnt fix any of the problems vanilla rome 2 had (agent spam, bad diplomacy, bad CAI). It just adds a shallow gameplay layer to it (why shallow is explained below). If anything, it reminds people of, even though rome 2 has come a long way, there are still a lot of flaws and frustrations about it.


3) now onto the gameplay itself and why it is just one big failed opportunity.

a) Its good statesman have a use, the problem is their abilities are so irrelevant

-Administrators make it even easier to just conquer and leave regions as they are pacified more easily/ to steamroll the AI. you never need to garrison settlement anymore.

-Diplomats get themself killed or make things worse in 80% of the cases. I have a -75 diplomacy modifier with one faction, thanks to incompetent diplomats, even though they had good gravitas. And even when they succeed, +5 or 10 relations barely does anything

-you should never have a lack of food, organising feasts is just a waste of money

And does the AI use its statesmen? offcours not. In over 150 turns I didnt receive one diplomat from an AI faction. Imagine how much more immersive it would be if the AI uses this new feature to have some interaction with you and you can actually respond to it in the way they do.


b) Having secession is a more realistic and interesting way of handling big empires than a random civil war. The problem is that the loyalty system feels so artificial and unresponsive that it doesnt improve the game, on the contrary. Loyalty gets a penalty for each imperium level, and in itself doesnt have any positive benefits. The only benefit you get is not having a secession. Even though loyalty might be high, opposing parties will still do their annoying things of trying to bribe/adopt or even kill your family members. And now you can't even retailate against it, because it will drop loyalty. The AI tries to assassinate my king (twice), and I can do nothing against it (purging or other things just increases the risk of secession). I do get to deal with their petty pieves of not liking foreigners, or wanting more farms,... Imagine that really working this system gave real benefits. Like increased research speed, or more tax from regions that are in control of a loyal clan. Or a morale boosts to troops of loyal clans. Now its mainly dealing with annoyances. Its a system that punishes you for not dealing with it, but offers no rewards for using it. that's bad design


c) Also, political events are incredibly poorly designed. In fact, the only new political event I had was "riot in the capital". 8 times, for no good reason. That doesnt help my immersion. It gives me the feeling you were lazy and didnt bother to make any more (other culture groups might have more, but why give politics to all factions if you only focus on a few). There are so many possible things that you could have made events around, and you didnt do it. thats just sad, and again, makes it feel artificial.

d) the government system is another wasted opportunity. When out of a choice of options, one option is superior to the others (empire in this case), its not a choice anymore. You will visit this screen twice in a whole campaign. First time to see what you need to form an empire, the second time to actually press the button. That has little added value. Imagine that different goverment types actually required you to make a choice, or different government types help with each of the different victory conditions. For example, the confederation gives a bonus to recruitment and military costs, while the empire receives an economic and cultural boost to help with those victory conditions. Its again a shallow addition



Summary: power and politics is a wasted opportunity to improve rome 2 and does more harm than good. The only improvement is the UI for skill trees. Except we already had the excellent TTT mod for it. It very painfull to watch how CA squandered another opportunity to do something for its historical fans, instead of giving the impression the historical games are being worked on by trainees and B-teams.

[Basil II the B.S]

Isn't it still in beta version?

[eXistenZ]

Judging from previous beta paches/updates, there will be barely any changes in the final version. I doubt any of the points i raised will profoundly change

[Diocle]

They may produce a new patch, if needed, to improve the new patch. Don't be so tragically negative eXistenZ, you'll see, the new expansion and the new patch, in the right hands, will be great.

[Garensterz]

In all seriousness I'm just waiting for the next historical title to be, you know, has depth? And battles to actually feel authentic this time rather than feeling like a sub par RTS which averaging 5 mins per battle.

Things I wanted to see in the next historical TW:

Campaign Lists

-Diplomatic Annexation (Because having a system of a "Total War" game play is getting old and repetitive)
-Political/Royal Intrigues
-An actual war timer (So that a truce would actually make sense)

Battles Lists

-Basically... Make a sensible BAI
-Add more historical offensive formations such as (if equipped with swords and shields) slow charge, or (if equipped with muskets or great war weapons) a better looking fire and advance just like ultimate general
-More Defensive Formations
-Bring back those authentic general speeches that MTW2 had
-Tactical Retreating
-Bring back mass pushing
-Scrap all matched combat (because it looks very unrealistic for mass fighting. In 1v1 fighting it does but not for total war)
-Add more ambience for units in combat. Such as vocal marches, (you know just like in the film alexander where phalangites shouts haro hiki or something while they march offensively) or whistle sounds when they're going to charge or stopping for a formation


Now lets see how lazy the Creative Assembly truly is when developing games.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

The thing that annoys me the most about features is that they keep spreading them over all their titles and tend to leave most of them out of their new titles...

I don't quite understand why that is, think about Guard Mode, it was a feature that made using ranged units without worrying that they will rush through in front of your melee line and get slaughtered (-.-) because their target run off range, why was it not present in Rome 2 and Attila? It was brought back in Warhammer, but warhammer is missing many of the features in R2, while having new features? Why?

Why not keep all the good stuff and only eliminate things that are bad?

[Garensterz]

The thing that annoys me the most about features is that they keep spreading them over all their titles and tend to leave most of them out of their new titles...

I don't quite understand why that is, think about Guard Mode, it was a feature that made using ranged units without worrying that they will rush through in front of your melee line and get slaughtered (-.-) because their target run off range, why was it not present in Rome 2 and Attila? It was brought back in Warhammer, but warhammer is missing many of the features in R2, while having new features? Why?

Why not keep all the good stuff and only eliminate things that are bad?

Most likely for business strategy, to keep consumers to hope for more. Popular sports game developers use this strategy a lot when they're running out of ideas, so it's basically a way to control consumers into saying "finally they have implemented "x" feature!" While in reality they're just cycling through those features every year.

Well that's how you easily please the newcomers for the title at least.

[Anna_Gein]

I am amazed 4 years after release CA is still trying to impose a political system based on families relations without representing actual families.

Carthage and Rome are oligarchic republics. In the menu we are litteraly choosing to play a family yet none are to be find in the gameplay.

Most factions are traditional monarchies yet there is no royal families.

Lolwut ?

[Basil II the B.S]

Good point. I miss Shogun 2.

[Julianus Flavius]

Well a lot of the complaints may be able to be fixed with mods, depending how many of the effects of various government types, statesmen, clans and so forth are modifiable. That being said, I agree that it's stupid the devs themselves haven't put more effort into these things. Just today I saw a mod on the Attila steam page that fixes longbow animations by porting the bow animation from Rome 2. That is not something the modding community should have to fix. That is something the devs should be responsible for.

[Boicote]

Overall, I'm happy with this update. The political system much better when compared with the previous one (ex. now separatist regions are close to each other; political parties have their own "ideology"; foreign policy has impact in internal politics, etc).
Anyone else remember this?




However, I also recognise that you made some good points in your OP.

[eXistenZ]

But civil war is way easier to avoid in emperor edition than it was in the original rome 2. I agree its a better system than the original, but it could have been so much more with just some simple tweaks. It's like they put more work in the new loading screens than this....(also, why would you have 400k in the bank?)


I finished my campaign last night, and the risk of secession throughout the entire game was 0%. I barely bothered with the system, because as I said, it offers no rewards for doing more than necessary with it. The only thing I did was, as in the previous versions, ensure I had a large enough amount of senators/nobles to get the benefits of public order and tax. The agendas ofthe different clans didnt influence my actions at all. I just did what I would normally do. And like Anna_gein said, a clan system without a family tree looks and feels stupid. they are all just some random dudes to me. Political events were minimal (just some more riots in the capital, every time with the same response). I learned that im not ever gonna bother with diplomats, as they only make things worse. Overall it was a negative addition


So yes, it will be up to modders again to fix this and hopefully add some depth to it. Only it's not a sure things all modders will go back to this game, 30 months and 3 AAA titels later.

[fightermedic]

The thing that annoys me the most about features is that they keep spreading them over all their titles and tend to leave most of them out of their new titles...

Why not keep all the good stuff and only eliminate things that are bad?

so true.. That's the one thing that drives me nuts... I like the new politics System quite a lot, even though it needs some real balancing, but GOD DAMN WHY IS THIS NOT IN ATTILA??? It just makes me sad.. The horde and raze mechanics from Attila are SUCH an awesome thing, that Rome 2 needs so badly :/

[Boicote]

....(also, why would you have 400k in the bank?).

I agree with you. The huge amount of money in the late game is annoying. The game should have some kind of "inflation system" to balance this (ex. high imperium level--> buildings should cost more money)

[Welsh Dragon]

I disagree. I think Power & Politics is a great addition to Rome 2, and one I am very happy they have done. I find the new politics system enjoyable, and the more you engage with it, the more interesting and useful it becomes.

Government types add to Factions character, and allow you to essentially tweak your Faction's Traits if you want to. Yes Empire is the most powerful, but that's because it's your end goal. It also requires the highest Imperium Level and has the greatest drawbacks while you are transitioning between Government Types. In my current Cimmeria campaign I started out as a Kingdom (useful for early recruitment,) but now my early recruitment phase is nearly done and my military is more stable I'm considering switching to a League (for reduced upkeep and increased Military Research Speed.) Or I could go Politiea (to give my Public Order a boost and make my Civil Research better.) I haven't even considered Empire yet, because I've still a way to go to get the Imperium for it, and the other Government Type effects are better for me at this stage of the Campaign.

Statesmen actions are another aspect I like. I've had good results with Diplomats, (gaining useful buffs but with a risk,) Administrators (helped me out with a couple of Public Order problems, and will probably become more important in Empire Divided what with Plagues hitting Public Order,) and Feasts (which will probably become more important in Empire Divided what with Banditry hitting Food Levels.)

I do agree that it would be nice if the other factions also had internal politics and used Statesmen, but I understand why they don't. (AI probably wouldn't handle it, and it would probably lead to longer turn times as 100 different factions all do their internal politics.

The new Secession and Civil War system allows for a more realistic Civil War (instead of the map randomly breaking out in splotches of different factions, you have organised factions gathered together, and have a good idea which areas may be problem areas should one break out.) Also means you have to put more thought into how you develop your empire. In my first Secession, which was caused by losing the Party Leader in battle to a good AI move, I lost my main recruitment province, and fighting another front I hadn't prepared for, meaning I found myself having to adapt.

Loyalty to me seems anything but artificial. If you mouse over it you can see exactly what factors are effecting Loyalty, and your actions can and will impact it. Losing the Party Leader to an enemy army hit my Loyalty enough to trigger a Secession, which felt natural to me because his supporters were really angry I'd got him killed.

I also find I engage with my characters more, and find much more gameplay from the new Politics system than I ever would from a Family Tree. I'm certainly using it more. The special trait that your Faction Leader gets sets them apart, and makes them more than just another general. Meanwhile the leaders of other parties and their successors can also have a big effect due to their special party trait. Going from a leader who "Likes Barbarians" to one who "Hates Barbarians" can have a big effect on loyalty, and when you have multiple parties with conflicting party traits, balancing them is quite an interesting challenge.

The changes made to Agents are to me also a good move, making Poisoning units less effective and fixing the exploit where you (or the AI) could use manipulation to far exceed the Agent limits.

As for mods. Yes, it breaking mods is unfortunate, but hardly unexpected and to me that is definitely not a reason not to do it. CA have already made the current patch (Patch 17) available through the Betas Tab, so people can continue to use their mods designed for the existing game. And if some modders choose to update their mods to P&P and not maintain a Patch 17 version, to me that is an issue to take up with those modders.

In conclusion, I think this is a good feature. But maybe it's one that really depends on the type of player you are. If you didn't enjoy vanilla Rome 2 then this may not change your mind about it. But if you did, then this only adds more gameplay and enjoyment, and means I'll likely continue to play Rome 2 for years to come.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

P.S. As for having lots of money at end game, I think Corruption is meant to counter that. Maybe it needs to be toned up for higher levels.

P.P.S. As for Attila features in Rome 2, I definitely don't want Attila's Raze mechanic in Rome 2 as I hate it. The Horde mechanic doesn't to me fit either. It's fine for periods of great migration, but is to me not appropriate for "Nomadic" Tribes who had defined lands and areas and would regularly camp in the same places each year.

[Alwyn]

Yes, it could be very frustrating if the new patch breaks a mod you really like. Having said that, as Welsh Dragon said, they explained in the patch notes how to keep patch 17 if we want to. All we would need, then, would be a patch-17 version of a mod - which should already exist. It shouldn't take too long to post a patch 17 version of a mod which already exists - no further modding work would be needed to do that.

I agree with Welsh Dragon (I'm also a fan of playing Cimmeria and look forward to seeing what they are like with the new patch). Your first Secession sounds like a challenging event. Being able to see the traits which affect the loyalty of other parties - and the way that one trait changes when a new party leader arises - looks good to me, too. Speaking of 'looking good', the ability to make the user interface larger makes a big difference to me.

Yes, having a lot of money in the late game could reduce the challenge - even so, I like moving from the early campaign when hiring one mercenary unit feel like an extravagance, to the late game when I have a large empire which can afford an army composed mainly of mercenaries. For factions which lack attrition resistance expanding into desert or snowy areas of the map, being able to afford attrition-proof mercenaries helps a lot. Also, I simply enjoy being able to recruit different units in different parts of the map, and seeing how they combine with my faction's roster.

[eXistenZ]

"and the more you engage with it, the more interesting and useful it becomes."

Like said before, this is not true. There are no rewards for dealing with the system in a good way, there is only a penalty when you do it badly (and getting a faction leader killed is bad play). I never even considered the particular wishes from other clans, (why would i stop trading with barbarians if it brings me money, just so mr grumpy can have +4 loyalty?) and my secession risk was 0% throughout a 180turns campaign. So there is no challenge. And even if there was, pay a measly sum of money and get the loyalty

High loyalty doesnt bring any benefits, and doesnt even stop the AI factions from killing/bribing/corrupting your family members. thats why it feels non relevant and is badly designed. When you set up your provinces well, you get rewardd with more income or better troops that are recruited. If you sync the general abilities well with the army traditions, you get rewarded. Thats not the case for loyalty, where your only reward is "no secession". Thats not a reward. So yes, while secession is better than civil war, it still something you only have to deal with when you play badly and therefore has limited added value

You can see why the loyalty is specificly that number, true. it will also shows you a penalty for difficilty and imperium level...(so at least partly artificial). As long as it is above zero, who cares


Most mods won't come out in two versions, so the argument "just roll back" isnt valid (as ive also said before). Some will be updated, some will not. Making your heavily invested and tweaked collection go into the trashcan, all for a badly designed update.

[Welsh Dragon]

"and the more you engage with it, the more interesting and useful it becomes."

Like said before, this is not true. There are no rewards for dealing with the system in a good way, there is only a penalty when you do it badly (and getting a faction leader killed is bad play). I never even considered the particular wishes from other clans, (why would i stop trading with barbarians if it brings me money, just so mr grumpy can have +4 loyalty?) and my secession risk was 0% throughout a 180turns campaign. So there is no challenge. And even if there was, pay a measly sum of money and get the loyalty

High loyalty doesnt bring any benefits, and doesnt even stop the AI factions from killing/bribing/corrupting your family members. thats why it feels non relevant and is badly designed. When you set up your provinces well, you get rewardd with more income or better troops that are recruited. If you sync the general abilities well with the army traditions, you get rewarded. Thats not the case for loyalty, where your only reward is "no secession". Thats not a reward. So yes, while secession is better than civil war, it still something you only have to deal with when you play badly and therefore has limited added value

You can see why the loyalty is specificly that number, true. it will also shows you a penalty for difficilty and imperium level...(so at least partly artificial). As long as it is above zero, who cares


Most mods won't come out in two versions, so the argument "just roll back" isnt valid (as ive also said before). Some will be updated, some will not. Making your heavily invested and tweaked collection go into the trashcan, all for a badly designed update.

Just because something is not true for you doesn't make it not true. My experiences have already been very different to yours, as I've already covered. You think it's badly designed, I think it's great. Fine, difference of opinion, it happens.

I like some of your ideas to do with loyalty, and yes I think they would add something to the mechanic if High Loyalty had further positive effects. Why not provide that feedback on the official forums, where the designers can see it and perhaps act on it (if not in this update, then a future one.) But even without them I think it's a good system, as I've already explained.

And no, the argument to "just roll back" is very relevant. You have that option. Games are designed to be played Vanilla, and so updates are also designed for Vanilla. If you choose to use mods, you accept the risk that an update or other factor may break them at some point. It's unfortunate, but it's the way it is. By offering the option to play with earlier patches, CA are doing about as much as they can do to help those who enjoy mods, short of not updating the game. If your favourite mods don't all end up compatible with the same Patch, that's a mod issue, not a game issue.

As for mods, it really does sound to me like the issue is more an over-dependency on mods, than the game being updated. If the modders who make the mods you want to use choose not to maintain two versions, then why not take it up with them? Or learn to mod the game yourself and make the game play exactly how you want it (within limits?)

I've spent years being repeatedly told that I'm playing Rome 2 wrong because I'm not interested in mods. And that the game I play so much and have so much fun with is terrible without mods, when I know that for me that certainly isn't the case. So I'm very happy to see the game I play and enjoy getting new content and an update that I think adds a lot to the game. Those that enjoy mods have had tons of new content over the past few years, and will continue to be able to use most or all of it. It's about time those of us that don't enjoy mods get something new, and even better as it's so unexpected.

I'm sorry if this means it breaks some of your mods and you may have to play the game a little differently to how you have. You aren't enjoying it, I'm sorry about that too. But it doesn't make the update "terrible." At best it makes it "terrible for you." Just like not doing this update just because it breaks mods would be "terrible for me." It's impossible to please everyone.

So I stand by everything I said. I think it's a good update, I'm having fun with it and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with the Empire Divided campaign. I hope it's a success and we see more updates and content for Rome 2 or other Total War games in future. And who knows, maybe it will spur on (and allow) modders to reach new heights of modding, for those that do enjoy them. In the long run, we may both be winners.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[eXistenZ]

there are no positive effects to loyalty, so there cant be any "further positive effects"......

And even when not talking about mods (also when you wait 30 months and 3 AAA titels to give a new update, you should have left it as finished), I have shown why the changes are terrible, even for vanilla. In fact, all remarks in the opening post are about vanilla, except one line. Yet the response consists about 70% talk about mods....

And sorry to break your bubble, but these are facts:

Administrators make it easier to steamroll an already fairly incompetent AI
diplomats do more harm than good (I got 7 killed, even more wounded. It turned two neutral factions in enemies)
Feasts are irrelevant, if you dont have a suprlus of food, you're playing badly
high loyalty has no benefits --> bad game design
Political events are shallow. I had the same event ten times in one campaign. And it was the only new event i ever had. But sure, thats my fault.....
Government screen is irrelevant most of the game (compared to real government systems like in civ 6 or eu4)



And thats without the flaws of vanilla rome 2 that CA didnt even bother to look at (like an AI thats in forced march too often, or agents that can still halt entire armies with one action). I dont mind games being updated, I do mind it when its done in a poorly way to throw a cheap bone at the historical fans you've been ignoring

[Welsh Dragon]

there are no positive effects to loyalty, so there cant be any "further positive effects"......

I compliment you on your idea, and your response is to criticise the way I worded it.

And I would say "keeping other political parties loyal, thus preventing Civil War" is a big "positive effect."

And even when not talking about mods (also when you wait 30 months and 3 AAA titels to give a new update, you should have left it as finished), I have shown why the changes are terrible, even for vanilla. In fact, all remarks in the opening post are about vanilla, except one line. Yet the response consists about 70% talk about mods....

Well when the first thing you do is complain about it breaking mods, and how those that choose to use mods "equilibrium" has been "disrupted for no good reason" you rather set the tone and subject for the whole discussion. Especially when it's on top of the discussion we had in the other thread.

And sorry to break your bubble, but these are facts:

No bubble broken, no problem. As for "facts," well here's a few of mine:

Administrators make it easier to steamroll an already fairly incompetent AI

...If you choose to exploit them in that way. If, on the other hand, you use them selectively as another tool in you toolbox (a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer if you will) they are a useful asset.

diplomats do more harm than good (I got 7 killed, even more wounded. It turned two neutral factions in enemies)

And I've had only one killed across the multiple campaigns I've started to try out different things. I've also received a number of useful bonuses, reinforced my positive relations with some factions, and turned an enemy into a friend with them. It comes at a risk, and I've been burned a few times too, which is why you have to be careful how you use them.

Feasts are irrelevant, if you dont have a suprlus of food, you're playing badly

Well I said I enjoy these games, I never said I was any good at them... I've found it useful a couple of times, when I've lost key food settlements to revolt, secession or enemy action, or had other issues. I suspect it will really come into its own in Empire Divided, where Banditry sounds like it can really effect your food totals. And again, it's another tool in your toolbox.

high loyalty has no benefits --> bad game design

High loyalty has the benefit of giving you more of a cushion should you take a large Loyalty hit. I certainly wish I'd had more of a cushion when I lost the party leader in battle (which you attribute to bad play, and I attribute to the AI playing well.)

Political events are shallow. I had the same event ten times in one campaign. And it was the only new event i ever had. But sure, thats my fault.....

I quite like that event, as you can make use of it in different ways. Yes it would be nice to see more events, and again I get the impression Empire Divided is going to have a lot more. Also never said it was your fault.

Government screen is irrelevant most of the game (compared to real government systems like in civ 6 or eu4)

And I've been using it frequently, so again it comes down to different players playing differently.

And thats without the flaws of vanilla rome 2 that CA didnt even bother to look at (like an AI thats in forced march too often, or agents that can still halt entire armies with one action). I dont mind games being updated, I do mind it when its done in a poorly way to throw a cheap bone at the historical fans you've been ignoring

I don't have a problem with agents being able to slow down or halt an army. It's why I use my own agents to counter it. Yes AI is a little too forced march happy at times, but it's my experience the same can be said of players. I definitely don't consider it "a cheap bone" for the historical fans, as I'm finding it quite interesting.

Anyway, you and I aren't going to change each other's opinions on this, so may I suggest that neither of us is "right or wrong," we're just expressing the views which are "right" for us.

So how about we agree to disagree?

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.