Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

  1. #21

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    I didn't like a single thing about Rome 2.

  2. #22
    Ballacraine's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near the Beer!
    Posts
    2,048

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    Immersion.

    Especially in battle, but also even on the strategy map.

    I never got that with Rome 2
    In faecorum semper, solum profundum variat.

  3. #23
    Sir Furlong's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    771

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Besides the trait system, the army limits and the building slots that have already been mentioned, I prefer Rome I to Rome II for the following main reasons:

    1. Skype (or maybe Zoom in our pandemic era) diplomacy. I get why many people found the old system a chore, but I think it was much more realistic. Establishing diplomatic relations was not a simple process and embassy interception was actually a very efficient method of preventing your enemies from forming hostile coalitions. Chatting with a bald guy resembling a 2nd rate actor from a sword & sandal movie, who spouts random tough phrases through a small window, seems stupid.

    2. Automatic replenishment. Logistics basically play no role in Rome II. You can attack whatever region you want, without bothering to establish a link between the expedition and your empire. Praetorians can casually replenish in recently annexed Lusitania in a matter of a few turns. Back in Barbarian Invasion, there was a long line of reinforcements, stretching from Mesopotamia Gaul, full of heavy Sogdian infantry and elephants. Also, you no more care about your soldiers. As long as the casualties do not surpass an an arbitrarily imposed percentage, everything will be fine. In Rome I, even if you annihilated your enemy, your invasion would eventually come to a halt, due to battle casualties and garrisoning, unless strong reinforcements were constantly being sent to the front.

    3. Distance from capital. It was a great mechanic, affecting your income and public order in the most isolated settlements. It nicely simulated the challenges the larger empires faced. Expansion became more difficult and less profitable, which eventually led to the stabilisation of the frontier, even if the enemy was technically much weaker. In my current campaign as Persia against the Alans and the Byzantines, I am actually bleeding money, despite my outstanding victories, because of the enormous expenses and moderate profits. It doesn't matter much, because my treasury was already immense, but that problem lies with the broken economy not the distance from capital feature. In newer games, they try to implement late-game challenges through very sloppy methods, like Realm Divide, the unintentionally hilarious civil wars of Rome II and Attila the Cockroach with his ''Lazarus-was-an-amateur-at-resurrection'' Huns.

    These are all such good points, needing to actually use diplomats is a bit tedious but definitely adds flavour and simulates how hard it would be to negociate with far away empires.
    “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
    C.S. Lewis

  4. #24
    Petroniu's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    2,323

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    Population - the fact that when you recruit 240 men for a unit your town loses them. The fact that they have added a feature to remove that is showing how many people actually do not appreciate this game for its real values.
    Replenishing units - you actually have to CARE about where you can recruit units, which type and how fast you can move them to your army - you know, like ACTUAL GENERALS DID! I saw mod requests for auto-replenishing - again, so many people play the later games on auto mode with everything streamlined and forget how far from reality they are (which is what made these games fun in the beginning, not magical abilities at a press of a button).
    Complex and detailed building trees (yes, I find these more complex and detailed than the rock, paper, scissors from newer games) - I got to give it to 3K that they have a complex building system and I am unfamiliar to the Warhammer series as it seems too much of a lore to get into yet the other games have streamlined the building system so much that it was boring. I always knew what to build to get money and that was it. In the original game you can actually build different buildings in different cities depending where they are and you get all the buildings, including walls and all the barracks, etc, not stuff that are artificially preset by the devs because they considered only Antioch was a big enough city to have walls out of all of Syria.
    Modding - I mean, this has kept me into the game until now, for sure. I have made so many personal mods, trying so many different stuff. I just love it! I do spend more time modding and testing stuff than actually playing a complete campaign.
    (smaller thing but for me it matters a lot) Short campaigns - you can actually focus on your local foes and have closure at the end. Having to conquer half of the map is sooo boring, especially as the late game is still an issue for TW games because they have few options to add to make it interesting that does not kill the fun in the early game (like giving always care to the faction politics to avoid civil war or rebellions and all the other organization and administration things a big empire actually has to handle like tax systems, local governorship, proper and balanced local and central leadership representation, cultural and religious differences, etc, plus, invasions).

    There are some negatives though, I have to admit:
    AI - the AI is an idiot, plain and simple. Especially in battles.
    Unit balancing and countering - phalanxes rape anything and those bastards can run with them in their hands without losing cohesion and can also do 180 degrees turns after being flanked by heavy cav. WTF!? A good side here is that the AI is an idiot.
    Diplomacy - aaaah, they improved it in the ReMastered but having someone as your protectorate still does not count as you winning over them like in the newer games and also you are unable to recruit from them or order them to send you troops or help you around.
    RTWRM - back to basics

  5. #25

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    TTK is lower in Rome 1 than Rome 2. The times i tried battles in rome 2 they could take so long that i would get frustrated. It just makes the battle no fun if it takes 20 minutes for 2 units to battle it out.
    Also Rome 1 has better charge physics and battle physics. Rome 2 forces in that mocap 1v1 duel stuff that might look cool but it works way worse imo.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    Quote Originally Posted by Petroniu View Post
    Population - the fact that when you recruit 240 men for a unit your town loses them. The fact that they have added a feature to remove that is showing how many people actually do not appreciate this game for its real values.
    Replenishing units - you actually have to CARE about where you can recruit units, which type and how fast you can move them to your army - you know, like ACTUAL GENERALS DID! I saw mod requests for auto-replenishing - again, so many people play the later games on auto mode with everything streamlined and forget how far from reality they are (which is what made these games fun in the beginning, not magical abilities at a press of a button).
    Agree 100%. Auto-replenishment is such a bunch of . And being able to recruit while out in the field, lame.

  7. #27
    Barkhorn1x's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Davie, FL
    Posts
    667

    Default Re: Give a reason why you prefer Rome I over Rome II

    Quote Originally Posted by EgyptianNecrophiliac View Post
    Agree 100%. Auto-replenishment is such a bunch of . And being able to recruit while out in the field, lame.
    Agree 1,000%. A real strategy game should make the player use some "strategy" to be successful.
    "Après moi le déluge"


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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