Rome II General Info Thread

[[ptx]]

Exactly my thoughts, Japan was so limited and uninteresting unit variety wise. I think I quit Shogun 2 after about ten hours. Least played Total War for me so far. Asia Total War would've been pretty damn interesting.

Same. Recently tried the game again, with both Rise and Fall of the Samurai campaigns... quit after just a few hours.

[Beauchamp]

i'd like to see some ancient total war

[okiN]

Exactly my thoughts, Japan was so limited and uninteresting unit variety wise. I think I quit Shogun 2 after about ten hours. Least played Total War for me so far. Asia Total War would've been pretty damn interesting.

Empire had the exact same problem as well. They've promised to reverse the trend now, that just means that with a little luck they'll go back to something approaching the RTW level of variety. Nothing like Europa Barbarorum.

[Teeth]

Empire had the exact same problem as well. They've promised to reverse the trend now, that just means that with a little luck they'll go back to something approaching the RTW level of variety. Nothing like Europa Barbarorum.

Not sure if I'm more excited about EB 2 or Rome Total War 2. Well atleast they have to deal with very different civilizations even if they go for a similar Europe map. Can't get away with a mere dozen different unit types there.

I'd wish CA would take a proper historical approach just for once, its not like they lack the manpower. Did the arcadyness of the Total War games make anyone happy really?

[okiN]

I, for one, wouldn't have enjoyed RTW without the ninjas.

[Ninja_Khorin]

Me neither.

(click to show/hide)

I had to 

[Smoothrich]

Personally I find the single player of any Total War game to be absolutely awful and boring, and only care about there being a competitive multiplayer.  It is a sub par strategy game that if you play it well, you end up auto resolving your battles because you have a stupid advantage and its not worth the load times, or if you have strong armies to fight, you end up going against a horrible AI that will charge your perfect defense positions or not respond to basic maneuvers like flanking light infantry or cavalry.  It doesn't really matter what the setting is, if the gameplay is repetitive, lacks depth, and features trash AI.

However add a human commander and balanced army sizes/strength on each side, remove the Paradox Game 4 Babies campaign, and suddenly the game fills its own unique niche, an RTS with no stupid base building or "macro" and is just about battlefield tactics, using your armies strengths and exploiting your opponents weaknesses.  This is why I feel Shogun 2 is by far the best game of the series, because it doesn't have a worthless shit multiplayer matchmaking mode and isn't all about guns blobs and artillery like Empire/Napoleon.  Its the only reason I'm looking forward to Rome.  I don't know how anyone can play these games single player and actually enjoy themselves either.  It sucks!

[Turboflex]

Smoothrich you would prolly like World in Conflict, if anyone still plays it.

[Teeth]

(click to show/hide)

Personally I find the single player of any Total War game to be absolutely awful and boring, and only care about there being a competitive multiplayer.  It is a sub par strategy game that if you play it well, you end up auto resolving your battles because you have a stupid advantage and its not worth the load times, or if you have strong armies to fight, you end up going against a horrible AI that will charge your perfect defense positions or not respond to basic maneuvers like flanking light infantry or cavalry.  It doesn't really matter what the setting is, if the gameplay is repetitive, lacks depth, and features trash AI.

However add a human commander and balanced army sizes/strength on each side, remove the Paradox Game 4 Babies campaign, and suddenly the game fills its own unique niche, an RTS with no stupid base building or "macro" and is just about battlefield tactics, using your armies strengths and exploiting your opponents weaknesses.  This is why I feel Shogun 2 is by far the best game of the series, because it doesn't have a worthless shit multiplayer matchmaking mode and isn't all about guns blobs and artillery like Empire/Napoleon.  Its the only reason I'm looking forward to Rome.  I don't know how anyone can play these games single player and actually enjoy themselves either.  It sucks!

Go play Medieval 2, download Stainless Steel, get BGR IV, play it on VH/VH. Pick a faction with a difficult starting position. Enjoy,  it's intense, challenging and rewarding.

Actually what I always liked about Total War singeplayer is getting to the point where your economy is so strong that you can have all the army you want, getting that first full stack with top quality units. Then I just quit and start a new campaign. The starting phase, where you have to make important diplomatic, economic and military decision to transform your underdog faction into a superpower never fails to entertain.

Seriously, mods.

[Adamar]

^ Agree. The AI should just forge aliances and throw themselfs at you as you get stronger, so you never run out of a challange while you're conquering the world.

[marco1391]

Personally I find the single player of any Total War game to be absolutely awful and boring, and only care about there being a competitive multiplayer.  It is a sub par strategy game that if you play it well, you end up auto resolving your battles because you have a stupid advantage and its not worth the load times, or if you have strong armies to fight, you end up going against a horrible AI that will charge your perfect defense positions or not respond to basic maneuvers like flanking light infantry or cavalry.  It doesn't really matter what the setting is, if the gameplay is repetitive, lacks depth, and features trash AI.

However add a human commander and balanced army sizes/strength on each side, remove the Paradox Game 4 Babies campaign, and suddenly the game fills its own unique niche, an RTS with no stupid base building or "macro" and is just about battlefield tactics, using your armies strengths and exploiting your opponents weaknesses.  This is why I feel Shogun 2 is by far the best game of the series, because it doesn't have a worthless shit multiplayer matchmaking mode and isn't all about guns blobs and artillery like Empire/Napoleon.  Its the only reason I'm looking forward to Rome.  I don't know how anyone can play these games single player and actually enjoy themselves either.  It sucks!

I agree almost totally, also what's more frustrating about the single player for me it's the AI and the difficoulty settings changing and "boosting" the AI troop stats instead of providing a real strategical challenge on the battlefield
that's why after getting a tw I always end up doing something like 5 customs and than head straight to mp(that imo is one of the best regarding rts)

[Turboflex]

the AI is A LOT better in new games like STW2, even all the modding in the world like SS/BGR can't fix AI behaviour enough to compete with 5 years of improvements on the back-end by CA. As much as I love MTW2 (I still play it) it does show its age when you load up STW2 and compare. That's why I am very excited to have all the engine/AI improvements added over the past 5 years between MTW2 and STW2, and now more added to this new game which also is a much better setting than the limited Japan.

[Teeth]

the AI is A LOT better in new games like STW2, even all the modding in the world like SS/BGR can't fix AI behaviour enough to compete with 5 years of improvements on the back-end by CA.

Which is mostly due to the AI being incredibly hard to mod. Give the resources that CA has to the devs of SS and we would have a much better game entirely.

[gazda]

rome 2 will be relased, and will probably have higher poly count per armor then warband

[Chagan_Arslan]

Personally I find the single player of any Total War game to be absolutely awful and boring, and only care about there being a competitive multiplayer.  It is a sub par strategy game that if you play it well, you end up auto resolving your battles because you have a stupid advantage and its not worth the load times, or if you have strong armies to fight, you end up going against a horrible AI that will charge your perfect defense positions or not respond to basic maneuvers like flanking light infantry or cavalry.  It doesn't really matter what the setting is, if the gameplay is repetitive, lacks depth, and features trash AI.

However add a human commander and balanced army sizes/strength on each side, remove the Paradox Game 4 Babies campaign, and suddenly the game fills its own unique niche, an RTS with no stupid base building or "macro" and is just about battlefield tactics, using your armies strengths and exploiting your opponents weaknesses.  This is why I feel Shogun 2 is by far the best game of the series, because it doesn't have a worthless shit multiplayer matchmaking mode and isn't all about guns blobs and artillery like Empire/Napoleon.  Its the only reason I'm looking forward to Rome.  I don't know how anyone can play these games single player and actually enjoy themselves either.  It sucks!

Well your talking about RTT type of games, there was an old game but still with much better mechanics in battle than TW, called warhammer dark omen

Single player campaign can be enjoyable as it gives you background for the battles you do, but your right AI is horrible and provides no challange at all. They keep promising good AI before each release yet still put all the effort to bring better graphics (face animations in rome II WOWZ!)

btw. Smoothrich you were around 500-600 on 1vs1 in shogun right ? ;] i thought i saw you there hehe