Rome II

[Yskonyn]

I am with MJ on this. Especially the 'uncanny valley' discription. I have read an article about that theory, in fact. And I think its a thing that a lot of gamers suffer from.
Afterall, we have seen it all, right?

[mikeck]

I think there are several things it does better than Shogun. First, it gives my individual legions personality. Each legion has its own insignia and own tradition developed over time. I have one legion I use for attacking large towns that have engineering bonuses and missle defense bonuses for example. That tradition stays with the legion and not any particular unit.

Second, the game combines naval and land warfare tactically. I can use a nearby navy, Ina. Tactical battle, to land on shore and aid my land forces.

Third, more options for armies and navies on the Campaign map with stances. Navies can be told to patrol, pirate, etc and armies can entrench, ambush, for e march, etc all with their own advantages.

There are many things it does better than Shogun 2, and many not as well.

Comes down to this: people that want to do find a reason not to like the game will find them. Those like me who love TW and want to like it, will find reasons to like it and look past some of the other things people complain about. I just haven't had many bugs and the game runs smooth. I find the tactical AI to be good and I find the campaign AI to be aggressive. At this point, I can't comment on enemy army composition as I have really only fought some week powers. I DO use a mod that greatly Increases tax bonus and decreases unrest penalties. This helps the AI maintain an economy. I so find the Ai to be weak in the area of diplomacy ..dec of war as well as trades and alliances.

Is this a reason to crap on the game? I mean, is this the first game where the AI had trouble operating its economy as well as the player? I don't have a dog in the fight. I already own it and I have been playing steadily since the day it came out. I love it and every mod I add makes it better. If someone else wants to deprive themselves of a great game because the Ai can't cope with their 100% cavalry army the. So be it.

Now I'm not saying everyone that hates it is wrong, sometimes people have a good reason or they just DON'T like it, that's fair of course. I think that some people-as MJ mentioned- have unrealistic expectations and choose to cling onto a minor issue and claim it makes the game unplayable.

There are graphical and other tech issues people are having. I understand their frustration. I have not had any so merrily I go on conquering the med. I don't like formation issues, AI army sizes and weak diplomacy, but it's still fun.

Radios' building mod
Yarkis personal battle mod
Radios AI mod
Uniform improvement mod

All these help make the game better.

[Toonces]

The best part of this thread is watching your auto-correct mangle your posts Mike!   ;D

[mikeck]

You shot your feces

[mikeck]

I mean, you shut your face

Sausage fingers + iPhone at work= major autocorrect issues

[MengJiao]

Now I'm not saying everyone that hates it is wrong, sometimes people have a good reason or they just DON'T like it, that's fair of course. I think that some people-as MJ mentioned- have unrealistic expectations and choose to cling onto a minor issue and claim it makes the game unplayable.

There are graphical and other tech issues people are having. I understand their frustration. I have not had any so merrily I go on conquering the med. I don't like formation issues, AI army sizes and weak diplomacy, but it's still fun.

Radios' building mod
Yarkis personal battle mod
Radios AI mod
Uniform improvement mod

All these help make the game better.

  I agree, there are plenty of good reasons to dislike the game.  I would have preferred something more focused and not on Rome -- say the Levant in 500 BC with seasons and smaller regions.

   But, given what it is trying to do, it does a reasonable job. -- Still I'm ready for some modding so that's next.

[undercovergeek]

I mean, you shut your face

Sausage fingers + iPhone at work= major autocorrect issues

I won't quote your big post as it looks epic in size on my phone but this post sums up far more eloquently than I could what I want to see, what I feel - a post from the soul of someone immerssed and invested in the game - its brilliant - bravo

[Toonces]

Just seen this review. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/06/total-war-rome-ii-review

This is surpringly much how I feel about Rome 2.

It's a good game, but in context of Total War leaves me wanting.

If I'd never played a Total War game ever before, I would probably be drooling all over the place.

[Boggit]

Now I'm not saying everyone that hates it is wrong, sometimes people have a good reason or they just DON'T like it, that's fair of course. I think that some people-as MJ mentioned- have unrealistic expectations and choose to cling onto a minor issue and claim it makes the game unplayable.

There are graphical and other tech issues people are having. I understand their frustration. I have not had any so merrily I go on conquering the med. I don't like formation issues, AI army sizes and weak diplomacy, but it's still fun.

Radios' building mod
Yarkis personal battle mod
Radios AI mod
Uniform improvement mod

All these help make the game better.

  I agree, there are plenty of good reasons to dislike the game.  I would have preferred something more focused and not on Rome -- say the Levant in 500 BC with seasons and smaller regions.

   But, given what it is trying to do, it does a reasonable job. -- Still I'm ready for some modding so that's next.

Sounds like good mod material. The closest I get to that is playing Slitherine's Chariot game, which is "OK", but very dated now and you've little troop control - which I guess is the historical reality.

[Boggit]

Just seen this review. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/06/total-war-rome-ii-review

This is surpringly much how I feel about Rome 2.

It's a good game, but in context of Total War leaves me wanting.

If I'd never played a Total War game ever before, I would probably be drooling all over the place.

+1

What I don't get with CA is how they seem to learn so little about the gameplay with each iteration of the franchise. True the graphics get prettier, but that's only half the picture. One example, with Empire until Shogun2 you couldn't arrange unit cards, although you could previously. It's as though the development team is not learning by experience as it goes, or just doesn't listen to their customers. On the face of it this just seems a dumb way to operate. Thank God we have some decent nodders, or the shelf life of some of the TW series would have evaporated years ago.

[Arctic Blast]

Just seen this review. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/06/total-war-rome-ii-review

This is surpringly much how I feel about Rome 2.

It's a good game, but in context of Total War leaves me wanting.

If I'd never played a Total War game ever before, I would probably be drooling all over the place.

+1

What I don't get with CA is how they seem to learn so little about the gameplay with each iteration of the franchise. True the graphics get prettier, but that's only half the picture. One example, with Empire until Shogun2 you couldn't arrange unit cards, although you could previously. It's as though the development team is not learning by experience as it goes, or just doesn't listen to their customers. On the face of it this just seems a dumb way to operate. Thank God we have some decent nodders, or the shelf life of some of the TW series would have evaporated years ago.

Why would they focus on anything else when every iteration of the game sells? There's no incentive to spend time and resources on anything but graphics.

[Nefaro]

Sounds like good mod material. The closest I get to that is playing Slitherine's Chariot game, which is "OK", but very dated now and you've little troop control - which I guess is the historical reality.

Less troop control would be a good thing in Rome 2, since the AI can't do anything but all-out charge or sit on a flag.  I'm serious when I say that instead of having a cake walk over a poor AI opponent, I'd rather just have an elaborate pre-battle setup and basic plan system like that in Spartan or Chariots of War.  It would cut the need for a sophisticated tactically oriented AI and level the field.  Obviously CA, themselves, have never been happy with their own tactical AI since they just ripped out the one from Shogun 2 (the best thus far by a wide margin) and started fresh.  I propose that having this kind of option for resolving the battles would give more of a challenge (and make them faster, too).  Having such an option would be good for a better challenge, in the end.  Nevertheless, the tactical AI can probably do somewhat fair with a couple tweaks and removal of the victory flag locations which it so often mindlessly turtles on, to it's own detriment.

My biggest complaints, however, are in regard to the campaign map AI in Rome 2.  The numerous AI armies wasting away with attrition?  Okay, I've overlooked that at the moment.  Dividing it's forces into multiple smaller armies - I thought this had been mostly curbed in Shogun 2, but it's back since the change to the way armies form and recruit (which are great additions, btw).  Armies standing about, doing nothing unless they outnumber you two-to-one or all their cities are taken, has provided little challenge.  It's not doing what it did fairly well in Shogun 2, and that's a disappointment. 

But the worst thing I've seen so far is the AI factions self-destructing because it will not build enough happiness inducing buildings.  I've progressed to a mid-game stage and they've all plummeted into a constant state of rebellion, with large rebel armies popping up and capturing their regions.   I would call this game breaking AI behavior.  There are even dormant rebel armies, that had spawned during a previous faction owner's rebellion-laden ownership, now sitting around on the map doing nothing.  Hell, they still just stand around quite a bit while their spawning faction is still there.  I'm not even sure the spawned rebel armies are attacking cities all that often, but they evidentally reach whatever magic troop strength ratio the AI requires to attack, enough to occasionally get off their butt and attack something. 

I've played Rome 2 for over forty hours and I see some great stuff in there.  Unlike some people, I don't think it's "dumbed down".  Quite the opposite with all the new features.  Unfortunately the AI often doesn't know how to use the new features, and is even self-destructive.  I keep giving this another go, and yet another go, but I'm only finding the issues get worse as my current game progresses.  The real tragedy will be when CA stops making patches and moves on to developing their next title.  I have a feeling it'll be before they properly get this one done, because they've done it before.  I still hold some hope that the AI gets fixed, and they don't screw anything else up in the process, but we shouldn't be too surprised if it doesn't get done in the end.

Perhaps I've entered the realm of Frothing Hater, but the longer I play the more and greater problems I find. 

[Gusington]

^Maybe with time I will get to that point but I just haven't come close yet. I am starting to see the AI having trouble with morale and food, but I was too in the early hours. Now I am learning. Maybe...MAYBE...the AI can adjust itself?

[Nefaro]

Maybe...MAYBE...the AI can adjust itself?

I keep playing, in the hopes that it does just that, but so far no luck.  I'm not sure if I want to start a fresh campaign if, twenty or thirty hours in, the AIs begin self-destructing again.  Hearbreaking.  :'(

[Gusington]

Perhaps a patch in the not too distant future can remedy this. This concerns me only because I have seen it starting too. But I have also seen things that other people have said are not there, like AI factions fighting each other, being aggressive on the strategic map and not being stupid on the tactical map.