Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Rome II worth it?

  1. #21
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,272

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
    That is ultimately why I favor the older games over Rome 2. The game engine was initially designed for Napoleonic warfare and then adapted to ancient infantry battles.

    Despite all the improved graphics, the massively expanded campaign map, the increased unit roster and faction list, I still think the older games (Rome I and Medieval II) did a far better job of accurately depicting melee combat than does Rome II. As much as I enjoy Rome II, I still find myself cringing at times when opposing infantry forces blob into each other or glitch around terrain objects. These shortcomings of this new game engine were in Empire as well, but were somewhat bearable as the majority of combat took place at range, and melee combat was a secondary focus. In Rome II, it's just too hard to ignore.
    Fair points. Warscape is an Empire-Napoleonic engine indeed. I actually enjoyed Napoleon very much to tell you the truth, but admittedly the engine under performs when it comes to close combat eras.

  2. #22
    Turek's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chaos Wastes
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
    The newer total war games are perhaps a bit more "polished" than the older ones.

    My main gripe with the newer ones (Rome 2, and Empire to a lesser extend) lies with the tactical battles. They're just not that challenging and are not well-depicted.

    The AI still doesn't have much of a clue on how to use its forces, tactically or strategically. The same can be said for the older TW games, though oddly enough the most challenging TW battles and campaigns I can recall occurred on modded Rome I and Medieval 2 campaigns. Rome Total Realism was by far the best Rome I mod (Europa Barbarorum was decent, but not as fleshed out). Third Age Total war is my ultimate favorite, though I'm perhaps biased due to my love of Tolkien's books. The point is, as dated as both of those game engines are, those games gave me the toughest challenges (both on the campaign and tactical maps), in spite of the AI's shortcomings. I can still recall quite vividly the blood and grinding assaults my Silvan armies made into Mordor; every major battle had me fighting against their armored trolls, which were a pain to deal with. I have never found any of the major battles in Empire or Rome 2 to be as challenging or as immersive; that's a huge disappointment since Creative Assembly promised to improve upon the AI, but never followed through with those promises.

    The campaigns can be fun and immersive, but there are some features taken out (micromanagement of city development, character/agent development and retinue management). Rome 2 isn't bad (at least no that most of the bugs have been patched up); but for all the hype and development dollars that went into that game, I certainly expected something much better than what I got.

    I'd wait until the game goes on sale. I never felt that it was worth the full value price that CA was asking for it (and all of its DLC's).
    The AI was something that I was looking forward to in RTWII, both in tactical combat and in strategy/diplomacy. I've read accounts that claim that the AI is indeed better, but what you wrote implies it's not necessarily so. It does make sense though if they're using the same AI from the TW:Empire/Napoleonic, that it wouldn't be as suited to melee oriented combat. I agree on that the tactical AI works surprisingly well in RTW and MTWII, at least for as long as you're not entering cities. As a side thought, the AI actually doesn't always have to be logical in what it does in order to provide an enjoyable fight - real commanders and the way that their forces act are not logical either. The knee-jerk way in which the AI reacts to the players actions (in RTW/MTWII and other games) could be considered to be a relatively plausible simulation of ad-hoc warbands or low tier military in battle.

    I haven't tried Third Age myself, but I remember one of my friends spent hundreds of ours playing it. It has been on my do-list ever since, hope I will get there some day.

    The streamlining of the game mechanics is something I was expecting, as it is the trend with newer games. It's a double-edged sword really, and I feel that it leads more often to a just simpler games with less options, that are less enjoyable play. Especially when there's a history of complicated mechanics within a game series, it's hard to look at the new versions and not to think that we've lost something here.

    Yup I've decided that I will give RTWII a go, but I'm definitely waiting for a significant sale. I've already bought a ton of TW games both in retail and in Steam so I think I've funded CA generously enough during the years.

  3. #23
    Turek's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chaos Wastes
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by San Felipe View Post
    You have RII which has a variety of limited settlements, but it has great environments. RII is a great game to play.

    AE is also great but complex.

    So you have vanilla RII, DEI and then Attila's AE.

    Download all three, and see which one you like.


    If you want to just exp RII as it is - try it out.
    Indeed DEI and AE were something that seemed interesting, thanks for confirming that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Caledoni View Post
    Don't worry too much about the DLC either. I have all but the last one but only actually play the Grand Campaign and all my favourite factions are available with the base game.

    I'm sure I will get round to them eventually but there are hundreds and hundreds of hours of diverse gameplay on offer with just the base game or even with a faction pack or 2.

    at 17EUR it's a steal
    Thanks for the info, good to know. It's easy to get overboard with DLCs when you don't actually even need them for most of game.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    I think the game is worth it. The latest piece, Rise of the Republic, is very good. (I play without mods.)
    Thanks for answering!

  4. #24

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔Greek Strategos♔ View Post
    Fair points. Warscape is an Empire-Napoleonic engine indeed. I actually enjoyed Napoleon very much to tell you the truth, but admittedly the engine under performs when it comes to close combat eras.
    Is it the same engine then that is used in Warhammer tittles? Because fight there are way more enjoyable.


    On the subject of is Rome 2 worth it. I honestly think Attila is a better game (mind I play Attila with Fall of The Eagles which is from the same DeI guys)
    1. Internal politics are better there. You don't have 100+ useless options that you never use like Rome 2.
    2. Combat mechanic is better
    3. City building has a bit depth to it
    4. Naval battle is challenging
    5. Campaign AI is better.

    The only thing the map is ugly. Rome's 2 Emperator Augustus map is the best.

    Rome 2 is only playable with DeI mod for me. But the game is still a turd with very shallow mechanics. Classic antiquity is appealing to more people and on screen Rome 2 looks really interesting but Attila imho has more depth to it.

  5. #25
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,272

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmm1234mm View Post
    Is it the same engine then that is used in Warhammer tittles? Because fight there are way more enjoyable.
    Heavily tweaked according to Devs.

  6. #26
    Grimmy's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Where I'm at.
    Posts
    735

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quick answer, yeah. It's worth it now.

    Longer answer...

    Yeah. It's worth it. There's bound to be parts and pieces of the game you don't like or wish had been done differently, but rest assured... there's a mod for that.

  7. #27
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,272

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmy View Post
    Quick answer, yeah. It's worth it now.

    Longer answer...

    Yeah. It's worth it. There's bound to be parts and pieces of the game you don't like or wish had been done differently, but rest assured... there's a mod for that.
    There is a mod for almost anything after 5 yrs Anything not hard-coded ofc.

  8. #28
    Clint_Eastwood's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    San Francisco/Los Angeles
    Posts
    276

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScipioTheGreat View Post
    I have seen a few mentions of that mod, but never anything related to actual content. I wonder if they’re able to maintain a sizable user pool with ModDB as their platform
    The mod is doing extremely well as they have there own website, they are also on ModDB and on Steam...I understand that they do not wish to host on TWC and they have a large fan base already from 2013 to date! You should give the mod a go as it is something really different and diverse to anything that i have played recently. The CAI and BAI is simply amazing and they have spent a lot of time and effort on this area. Toon & Bran have collaborated really well and they certainly have delivered a top class mod in my opinion.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    There are some things that will really disappoint you as it did for all of us. It seems already mentioned:
    - no modifiable campaign map
    - limited buildings in each region
    - not the most optimised performance but it has come a LONG way.

    Overall I've put in more hours with Rome 2 than I have with MTW2 (I think) at this point.
    the DEI mod is fantastic. For me though I think the Hellenika mod is the best with the "Wrath of Sparta" DLC. The only problem here is we are still praying for the teamto find time to updatesince Hellenika is only playable on patch 17

  10. #30
    Hoplite of Ilis's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    2,121

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Turek, Rome 2 is not worth your time or money. Especially since you know/played real TW games like RTW/M2TW. Rome 2 is STEPS back. And if you're thinking mods for Rome 2 from day 1, then it's obvious the game is twice as worthless. You can deduce as much from the opinions already given to you. It will only ruin your TW experience. Try getting it for free if you must - make your own conclusions.

  11. #31
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,562

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turek View Post
    The AI was something that I was looking forward to in RTWII, both in tactical combat and in strategy/diplomacy. I've read accounts that claim that the AI is indeed better, but what you wrote implies it's not necessarily so. It does make sense though if they're using the same AI from the TW:Empire/Napoleonic, that it wouldn't be as suited to melee oriented combat.
    I've played a lot of Empire and Rome II. While I don't think the AI is better all of the time, I see better AI behaviour in Rome II, tactically and strategically.

    While I enjoy Empire, I rarely see the AI carry out naval invasions (unless I'm using Bran Mac Born's amazing campaign AI mod, or unless I wait until about the 1760s). The campaign tends to play out in broadly the same way each time, for example Spain conquers Portugal and Morocco while the Marathas conquer the rest of India (unless the player intervenes). In Rome II, I see more naval invasions and the campaign plays out in different ways (the same factions don't always expand in the same way). Playing as the Iceni in Rome II, I've seen AI factions landing armies in Britain; playing as Britain in Empire, I've never seen that.

    I've seen a significant improvement in AI aggression in Rome II since the Ancestral patch. Before that patch, I played a Carthage campaign using an aggressive AI mod. After the Ancestral patch, I played a Carthage campaign without mods. In the first campaign, Syracuse took two regions in Africa and stopped expanding, while Rome didn't land any troops in Africa. After the Ancestral patch, without any mods, Rome landed armies in Africa, took four regions and kept expanding. Previously, some players campaigned that AI factions didn't recruit high-tier units; in the second campaign, Rome brought Legionaries and even First Cohorts.

    In the battlefield, in Empire, there are all sorts of issues. Cavalry (including generals) charge line infantry head-on instead of attacking from the flanks and rear. The AI keeps moving units back and forth across its line, so they get tired. (As before, using an AI mod such as those by Bran Mac Born can significantly improve the battlefield experience.) The player can use exploits such as stretching infantry lines super-thin to reduce casualties, wiping out cavalry by targeting the ground in front of them with cannon and moving the player's units out of the narrow field of fire of enemy cannon (when they're using gabionades). While the AI will still make mistakes in Rome II, I see better flanking and the battles are more challenging, for example I see the AI using cavalry sensibly, charging the player's skirmishers or general, then sending them to charge again (which tends to be how players use cavalry). I've seen more AI aggression on the battlefield since the Ancestral patch. Before, a naval landing near a port city would usually be unopposed, the defenders would wait in their city streets - now, they'll tend to form up on the edge of the city and attack the player while they're finishing landing their troops. Since the Ancestral patch, Rome II players can't stretch melee infantry into super-thin lines anymore - I like that.

    While I know that some players have very different views, I'm enjoying my Rome II campaigns a lot. People often say that Total War games are too easy. It's true that some Rome II campaigns aren't challenging (especially if the player expands fast in the early campaign and if the player is a Total War veteran). As I see it, Rome II offers lots of ways to make your game more challenging. Some factions start controlling several regions, others start with just one. Some factions have particularly strong units in some areas or decent all-round rosters, others are more limited or specialised. Some factions are likely to have powerful opponents early on, or are surrounded by potential foes, while others have less powerful (or equally powerful) neighbours and are near the edge of the map. Some factions have equally strong armies and navies, others have better soldiers than marines (or the other way around).

    [Edit to add]

    If you enjoy a campaign as, say, Cimmeria, but found it a bit too easy, there are other similar factions which can tweak the difficulty level. For example:
    - If you enjoyed Cimmeria's ability to field hoplites and horse archers but felt that their starting position gave you too much of an advantage, you could play as Colchis
    - If you liked the starting position and felt that Cimmeria's combination of heavy spear infantry and fast, ranged firepower was too strong, you could try Armenia (which also starts with several regions and also has a good range of horse archers, but has weaker infantry, at least initially)
    - If you liked playing a Greek colony but felt that Cimmeria's early-campaign opponents weren't strong enough, you could play as Pergamon, Massilia or Syracuse.
    - If you wanted a much harder campaign and enjoyed Cimmeria's horse archers, you could try playing a Nomad faction which relies mainly or entirely on cavalry.

    While some players miss features from earlier games (such as watchtowers), I like the new features of Rome II, such as the true line of sight system (finally, light cavalry are useful for their main actual purpose), the variety of fighting styles of opponents (taking on Seleucid pikes and heavy cavalry on an open field under a blue sky is a very different experience from fighting the stealthy Suebi in a misty forest), the variety of battles (combined land and sea battles, battles in unwalled cities, sieges and ambushes) and, as explained above, the variety of factions. While some factions have limited rosters (such as Colchis), I enjoy using the in-game mechanics to overcome this, for example by creating client states or satrapies to recruit levy units (for nations which can do this), or by finding allies or mercenaries.
    Last edited by Alwyn; November 10, 2018 at 09:09 AM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    I can confirm your points entirely, Alwyn.
    Proud Non-Citizen and Goth

    Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly. (Morticia Addams)


  13. #33
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,477

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    #MeToo Alwyn. And just for record, AI in Vanilla Med2 is also not great and combat...after Med2, I was fed up with cyclo charges for life... What´s more, going back to TWs without naval combat si boring. I can live with that in WH but R1/Meds..nope. Missing it too much even the not so realistic beach landings
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  14. #34
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    904

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Very well said Alwyn. I particularly like your point on the way that difficulty in game is not just a matter of the difficulty settings, and so some factions such as Colchis offer an extra level of difficulty in the form of start position and roster.

    All the best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  15. #35
    Bran Mac Born's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,991

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    I would say the game is worth playing using the WARS OF THE GODS-ANCIENT WARS overhaul mod because it is a challenge and fun. Try it. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil...54&searchtext=

  16. #36

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    I've avoided more modern TW titles. Loved Rome 1. Absolutely love Med 2. Loved Empire, despite all its issues -- but that's where the games showed serious signs of decline for me.
    I just got Rome 2 the other week. I hated how simplistic and stripped bare Shogun 2 was. I really didn't expect much from R2. But i have to say, what i've seen so far has been very good. The horrendous issues with melee combat since Empire have been mostly resolved. Charges of infantry feel more impactful. Cavalry charges seem less ridiculous. Infantry don't all move like racecars (like Shogun 2). There's less glitchy scripted combat animations going on. And there's a fair amount of depth to the game -- there's traits that actually function properly (not as well done as Rome and Med2, but infinitely better than Empire/Napoleon/Shogun 2's awful trait system). There's some depth to the skill trees for units. Agents feel the best in any TW to date (lots more to do than just KILL/SABOTAGE/PASSIVELY BUFF).

    I like it. I'm pleasantly surprised. It's definitely worth a try.
    But two major let downs: naval combat and, much more seriously, campaign map AI.
    Empire's naval combat, despite poor AI, was incredible. Rome 2's is just too arcade-like. Ram, ship usually instantly destroyed, battle over. Very little in the way of tactics. Just a dice roll as to whether pathfinding will ram the ship, as if another ship crosses its path too close, it'll go braindead and do nothing.

    As for campaign map AI...it's awful. To put it into perspective: i accidentally captured Carthage with a small fleet. I blockaded it for a few turns hoping their much bigger navy floating around Libya wouldn't attack me...they never did. Then i clicked the city and saw the option to give battle. I figured that must be a battle for the port or something. Nope. Captured the city.
    I reloaded and backed off. They never garrison the city. They can't even control public order or food production, so their garrison is never at full capacity. Eventually another AI army, less than half a stack, besieged them, while the Carthaginian big navy was in port. The next turn they moved their huge navy towards Spain for no reason, leaving the city undefended. Lost the city. To a desert tribe.

    In Shogun 2, the AI was aggressive to a silly level. You'd get factions on the other side of the map loading up a ship with troops to attack your settlement at the expense of their own to some other faction. In Rome 2, the AI won't attack anything, and i'm 80 turns in. If i attack another faction they'll just sue for peace every turn. If i land an army on their shores they'll offer vassalage. And just about every AI settlement is struggling with public order or food, so i feel like i'm cheating if i use an agent on them.

    For all the things i've been pleasantly surprised by, the campaign map AI has been a severe letdown. Maybe it's because i'm playing Rome, who obviously have the advantage of being super powerful. But the game's named after that faction. You'd expect a decent playing experience rather than a steamroll from turn 1...

    So yea. Worth it, because they've really improved a lot of aspects of the game on this horrendous engine. But beware, the AI is a letdown.

  17. #37
    Turek's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chaos Wastes
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Sorry guys, haven’t had the time to check the thread for a while. All answers are greatly appreciated!

    Quote Originally Posted by Badnercalabrese View Post
    There are some things that will really disappoint you as it did for all of us. It seems already mentioned:
    - no modifiable campaign map
    - limited buildings in each region
    - not the most optimised performance but it has come a LONG way.

    Overall I've put in more hours with Rome 2 than I have with MTW2 (I think) at this point.
    the DEI mod is fantastic. For me though I think the Hellenika mod is the best with the "Wrath of Sparta" DLC. The only problem here is we are still praying for the teamto find time to updatesince Hellenika is only playable on patch 17
    Hmmm agreed those are all minuses, but the limited buildings thing is only one that I have serious issues with. I can’t seem to understand the logic behind this, other than arbitrary game mechanics for the sake of game mechanics.

    DEI keeps coming up, it will certainly be the first mod I’ll go after. I’ll put Hellenika on my list too. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite of Ilis View Post
    Turek, Rome 2 is not worth your time or money. Especially since you know/played real TW games like RTW/M2TW. Rome 2 is STEPS back. And if you're thinking mods for Rome 2 from day 1, then it's obvious the game is twice as worthless. You can deduce as much from the opinions already given to you. It will only ruin your TW experience. Try getting it for free if you must - make your own conclusions.
    Thanks for answering. This was the initial impression I had, and for some parts I still expect this to be true (simplification of game mechanics). However, I will most probably still buy the game when they release the “Ultimate Edition” with all the DLCs and put it in 75%+ sale. Definitely in no hurry though, still enjoying RTW/MTW2 and all the mods.

  18. #38
    Turek's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chaos Wastes
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    I've played a lot of Empire and Rome II. While I don't think the AI is better all of the time, I see better AI behaviour in Rome II, tactically and strategically.

    While I enjoy Empire, I rarely see the AI carry out naval invasions (unless I'm using Bran Mac Born's amazing campaign AI mod, or unless I wait until about the 1760s). The campaign tends to play out in broadly the same way each time, for example Spain conquers Portugal and Morocco while the Marathas conquer the rest of India (unless the player intervenes). In Rome II, I see more naval invasions and the campaign plays out in different ways (the same factions don't always expand in the same way). Playing as the Iceni in Rome II, I've seen AI factions landing armies in Britain; playing as Britain in Empire, I've never seen that.

    I've seen a significant improvement in AI aggression in Rome II since the Ancestral patch. Before that patch, I played a Carthage campaign using an aggressive AI mod. After the Ancestral patch, I played a Carthage campaign without mods. In the first campaign, Syracuse took two regions in Africa and stopped expanding, while Rome didn't land any troops in Africa. After the Ancestral patch, without any mods, Rome landed armies in Africa, took four regions and kept expanding. Previously, some players campaigned that AI factions didn't recruit high-tier units; in the second campaign, Rome brought Legionaries and even First Cohorts.

    In the battlefield, in Empire, there are all sorts of issues. Cavalry (including generals) charge line infantry head-on instead of attacking from the flanks and rear. The AI keeps moving units back and forth across its line, so they get tired. (As before, using an AI mod such as those by Bran Mac Born can significantly improve the battlefield experience.) The player can use exploits such as stretching infantry lines super-thin to reduce casualties, wiping out cavalry by targeting the ground in front of them with cannon and moving the player's units out of the narrow field of fire of enemy cannon (when they're using gabionades). While the AI will still make mistakes in Rome II, I see better flanking and the battles are more challenging, for example I see the AI using cavalry sensibly, charging the player's skirmishers or general, then sending them to charge again (which tends to be how players use cavalry). I've seen more AI aggression on the battlefield since the Ancestral patch. Before, a naval landing near a port city would usually be unopposed, the defenders would wait in their city streets - now, they'll tend to form up on the edge of the city and attack the player while they're finishing landing their troops. Since the Ancestral patch, Rome II players can't stretch melee infantry into super-thin lines anymore - I like that.

    While I know that some players have very different views, I'm enjoying my Rome II campaigns a lot. People often say that Total War games are too easy. It's true that some Rome II campaigns aren't challenging (especially if the player expands fast in the early campaign and if the player is a Total War veteran). As I see it, Rome II offers lots of ways to make your game more challenging. Some factions start controlling several regions, others start with just one. Some factions have particularly strong units in some areas or decent all-round rosters, others are more limited or specialised. Some factions are likely to have powerful opponents early on, or are surrounded by potential foes, while others have less powerful (or equally powerful) neighbours and are near the edge of the map. Some factions have equally strong armies and navies, others have better soldiers than marines (or the other way around).

    [Edit to add]

    If you enjoy a campaign as, say, Cimmeria, but found it a bit too easy, there are other similar factions which can tweak the difficulty level. For example:
    - If you enjoyed Cimmeria's ability to field hoplites and horse archers but felt that their starting position gave you too much of an advantage, you could play as Colchis
    - If you liked the starting position and felt that Cimmeria's combination of heavy spear infantry and fast, ranged firepower was too strong, you could try Armenia (which also starts with several regions and also has a good range of horse archers, but has weaker infantry, at least initially)
    - If you liked playing a Greek colony but felt that Cimmeria's early-campaign opponents weren't strong enough, you could play as Pergamon, Massilia or Syracuse.
    - If you wanted a much harder campaign and enjoyed Cimmeria's horse archers, you could try playing a Nomad faction which relies mainly or entirely on cavalry.

    While some players miss features from earlier games (such as watchtowers), I like the new features of Rome II, such as the true line of sight system (finally, light cavalry are useful for their main actual purpose), the variety of fighting styles of opponents (taking on Seleucid pikes and heavy cavalry on an open field under a blue sky is a very different experience from fighting the stealthy Suebi in a misty forest), the variety of battles (combined land and sea battles, battles in unwalled cities, sieges and ambushes) and, as explained above, the variety of factions. While some factions have limited rosters (such as Colchis), I enjoy using the in-game mechanics to overcome this, for example by creating client states or satrapies to recruit levy units (for nations which can do this), or by finding allies or mercenaries.
    You were mainly writing about the AI but I have to make a quick comment the naval combat itself. Naval warfare always sucked in older TW games soo much and screenshots of the combat between ships and the landings were one of the things that made me instantly click RTWII to my wishlist. Pretty much anything is better than those zooming shipstacks of doom.

    On the subject of AI – it is interesting how this seems to divide people. Could it be that the Ancestral patch you mentioned was the watershed here, and the people that had bad experiences were playing the game before it? Personally, knowing the kneejerk way RTW/MTW2 worked I was assuming that AI would be one of the things that were surely better in RTWII. Even though others have indicated that this woudln’t be the case, I’m still inclined to think so, if not for anything else but the fact that it’s been 10 years in between of RTW and RTWII. Could be wrong though, as passing of time does not actually guarantee positive development.

    I loved placing watchtowers and forts in TW games, but in the end they are not such a big thing and their meaningfulness depends on the overall strategic map mechanincs. The actual line of sight mechanics beoynd ambushing units are simply great. The same applies to to the different kinds of variety that you described, from units to terrain and environment, is always welcomed. Relating to the variety and the experience, one thing that is not debatable about RTWII, is how gorgeous it looks in the screenshots and videos. Absolutely stunning.

    Thanks for providing such a detailed opinion/analysis on the subject of AI, and for the tips you included on how to play the campaign (I will also have to try out the Bran Mac Born AI you were writing about for the TW:Empire, been using Darthmod to this day). Thanks also to other people expressing their agreement on what Alwyn wrote.

  19. #39
    Turek's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Chaos Wastes
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bran Mac Born View Post
    I would say the game is worth playing using the WARS OF THE GODS-ANCIENT WARS overhaul mod because it is a challenge and fun. Try it. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil...54&searchtext=
    Right, for some reason I can’t seem to realize that mods exist outside of TWCenter. Found it on https://www.moddb.com/mods/wars-of-t...s-ancient-wars too. From what I’ve briefly read your mod looks just amazing, and is conveniently tackling (among all things) the AI issues that have been addressed on this thread. Thanks for the link!

    Also funny how I was just reading the instructions on how to use your TW:Empire AI mod with DarthMod, after reading and answering Alwyn’s and other people’s posts, and then you were literally the next person posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by EllEzDee View Post
    I've avoided more modern TW titles. Loved Rome 1. Absolutely love Med 2. Loved Empire, despite all its issues -- but that's where the games showed serious signs of decline for me.
    I just got Rome 2 the other week. I hated how simplistic and stripped bare Shogun 2 was. I really didn't expect much from R2. But i have to say, what i've seen so far has been very good. The horrendous issues with melee combat since Empire have been mostly resolved. Charges of infantry feel more impactful. Cavalry charges seem less ridiculous. Infantry don't all move like racecars (like Shogun 2). There's less glitchy scripted combat animations going on. And there's a fair amount of depth to the game -- there's traits that actually function properly (not as well done as Rome and Med2, but infinitely better than Empire/Napoleon/Shogun 2's awful trait system). There's some depth to the skill trees for units. Agents feel the best in any TW to date (lots more to do than just KILL/SABOTAGE/PASSIVELY BUFF).

    I like it. I'm pleasantly surprised. It's definitely worth a try.
    But two major let downs: naval combat and, much more seriously, campaign map AI.
    Empire's naval combat, despite poor AI, was incredible. Rome 2's is just too arcade-like. Ram, ship usually instantly destroyed, battle over. Very little in the way of tactics. Just a dice roll as to whether pathfinding will ram the ship, as if another ship crosses its path too close, it'll go braindead and do nothing.

    As for campaign map AI...it's awful. To put it into perspective: i accidentally captured Carthage with a small fleet. I blockaded it for a few turns hoping their much bigger navy floating around Libya wouldn't attack me...they never did. Then i clicked the city and saw the option to give battle. I figured that must be a battle for the port or something. Nope. Captured the city.
    I reloaded and backed off. They never garrison the city. They can't even control public order or food production, so their garrison is never at full capacity. Eventually another AI army, less than half a stack, besieged them, while the Carthaginian big navy was in port. The next turn they moved their huge navy towards Spain for no reason, leaving the city undefended. Lost the city. To a desert tribe.

    In Shogun 2, the AI was aggressive to a silly level. You'd get factions on the other side of the map loading up a ship with troops to attack your settlement at the expense of their own to some other faction. In Rome 2, the AI won't attack anything, and i'm 80 turns in. If i attack another faction they'll just sue for peace every turn. If i land an army on their shores they'll offer vassalage. And just about every AI settlement is struggling with public order or food, so i feel like i'm cheating if i use an agent on them.

    For all the things i've been pleasantly surprised by, the campaign map AI has been a severe letdown. Maybe it's because i'm playing Rome, who obviously have the advantage of being super powerful. But the game's named after that faction. You'd expect a decent playing experience rather than a steamroll from turn 1...

    So yea. Worth it, because they've really improved a lot of aspects of the game on this horrendous engine. But beware, the AI is a letdown.
    Thank you for your post. Reading your introduction, I can easily identify from where you’re coming from. I loved RTW, MTW2 and very much liked TW:Empire too. I actually haven’t played TW Shogun series at all since my main interest is in the European/Eurasian/North African history, but I do of course recognize the simplification aspect you mentioned from other games and hate it with a passion. In some ways, what you summarized is pretty much along the line of my mindset towards RTWII, with the exception of your thoughts on the AI.

    I don’t know whether or not you were talking about playing with mods or the vanilla versions, but the combat mechanics issues with melee, charges, etc. are in my mind something that can be always resolved with proper modding, as do things like troops/character stats and traits. Naturally it would be nice if these things were resolved by the developers but yeah.. we work with what we got.

    Campaign map agents were something that one of my friends also praised. This would be a most welcome change.

    Once again, it’s interesting that you too have such a different experience on the AI when compared to some other people. I’m curious, have you played the game recently, after the Ancestral patch Alwyn wrote about? In addition, were you playing the vanilla version or using any mods (that might modify the AI)? What’s also interesting is that you dislike the naval combat in RTWII. Could it just be that the combat fundamentals of the period are more primitive when compared to TW:Empire, in which the naval combat is more centered around the ranged attacks?

  20. #40
    Bran Mac Born's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,991

    Default Re: Rome II worth it?

    Turek I will promise you this-my campaign Ai and battle Ai settings for Wars of the Gods is the best ever on any Rome 2 mod- The ai will give as good as it gets'. If you play on Hard or Very Hard campaign you will be chomping on the bit-a major struggle and a hell of a challenge There a many submod i made for it for different playing styles- so try out any campaign- works for all DLC campaigns. Report back Good times.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •