Rome II

[Gusington]

True but he was to old to have experienced anything first hand in an ancient military by around 500 BC.

[GDS_Starfury]

some tales say he fluffed Socrates.

[Gusington]

I've read that too. Filthy [really] old man.

[MengJiao]

Yeah, I restarted twice already because I realized that defeat was inevitable. It's rare in a TW game for me to really get a beat down...but playing Athens on normal is tough

  One of the fun things about the Wrath of Sparta DLC is that it's pretty small and plays pretty fast, so you don't get that feeling of being trapped in the routine of running a slowly growing monster empire.  Or, at least, as Athens, I haven't experienced that yet -- more like the continual racing around to shore up at least some parts of a small, collapsing empire.

[GDS_Starfury]

that actually makes it sound like more fun.

[Martok]

As I didn't wish to derail another thread, I'm posting my thoughts on the Wrath of Sparta DLC here... 



In short, I enjoy it.  I feel it recreates the world of the Peloponnesian War about as well as a TW title can. 

WoS obviously lacks the deeper political & diplomacy aspects that played such a significant role in the actual conflict, but I think that's simply a limitation of the current game engine (and therefore to be expected).  The strategic AI appears to be okay, although it struggles as Athens (which is understandable, given I do too!).  One could wish for more playable factions (Corinth and Persia especially), and I would have loved to seen an extended map including Sicily and/or Egypt, but I don't know if I can consider these actual criticisms.  Within the limitations of the map restrictions and game engine, I've found Wrath of Sparta to be a pretty solid, if unspectacular, experience thus far. 



The two main critiques I've seen regarding the DLC are that: 

1.)  The battles are mostly hoplite vs. hoplite action (which can get boring), and

2.)  the fanboys can't just roll over everyone when playing as Sparta.  ::) 


Regarding the first critique, well this *is* DLC covering ancient Greek warfare after all!  So yes, WoS doesn't boast as much unit diversity, and while cavalry and missile troops do still have their place, battles to indeed tend to focus around lines of hoplites pushing at each other.  It admittedly can get monotonous at times, but terrain and army composition still matter enough that I've not found it to be that big a problem.  In the end, I suspect this is simply one area where the DLC suffers from trying to faithfully recreate the warfare of the time period; realistic = boring (at least for some). 

Regarding the second critique:  I don't think I really need to address it to you guys here, do I?  :P 



Ultimately, I think the main caveat for Wrath of Sparta is that you have at least some interest in the setting/time period.  At what price point you'd want to pick this up at is another matter:  If, like me, you have a strong interest in ancient Greek history and/or the Peloponnesian War, I'd say there's no reason not to go ahead and just purchase it now; there's certainly $15.00 worth of entertainment to be had in this DLC.  If you have only a mild/passing interest in this time period, you may want to wait for a sale before grabbing it. 

[Gusington]

Thanks man. Since my interest in the era is not particulalry strong, I've decided to wait for a sale.

[Nefaro]

I think the omission of Sicily and Egypt is a mistake from a historical standpoint.  Especially Sicily since that Athenian mistake sealed their fate.

I suppose the Athenian wealth and sea power aren't really modelled in the TW DLC anyway (sea power is worthless in Rome 2), along with the greatly changing politics all around, so asking for a geo-poli sim out of it is too much.

[Martok]

Thanks man. Since my interest in the era is not particulalry strong, I've decided to wait for a sale.

You're welcome Gus.  Yeah, in your case, that's probably what I would recommend as well. 

I think the omission of Sicily and Egypt is a mistake from a historical standpoint.  Especially Sicily since that Athenian mistake sealed their fate.

From a historical standpoint, I agree.  From a gameplay standpoint, however, it doesn't affect things as much. 

A major reason for that is because poor Athens is deprived of half her empire in the DLC (and thus a great deal of her resources that could be brought to bear against Sparta & co.).  Instead, most of Athens' holdings in Asia Minor are split off into the separate "Ionian League"; it remains a full ally of Athens, but that's it.  I'm sure it was all done out of a simple desire to keep Athens from being too powerful at the campaign's start -- which is fair enough -- but I think this was a case of over-correcting. 


In any case, I suspect expanding the map to include Sicily and/or Egypt would have necessitated/warranted a full-on separate title/standalone expansion (which I'm sure the devs didn't have the time and/or resources for). 

I suppose the Athenian wealth and sea power aren't really modelled in the TW DLC anyway (sea power is worthless in Rome 2), along with the greatly changing politics all around, so asking for a geo-poli sim out of it is too much.

Not very well, at least.  Certainly the devs tried to do what they could -- the city of Athens itself does have decent income, and it does receive certain bonuses to constructing/recruiting naval units -- but yeah, the game itself isn't the most well-suited to reflecting Athenian naval power.  In addition, the aforementioned splitting of Athenian territory between her empire and the Ionian League dilutes her power further. 

Not to mention, of course, that Sparta is the faction that receives the most love in this DLC.  ::)  Not that the others are ignored -- it's clear that someone did their homework (and/or was knowledgeable about the period to begin with), and that the DLC in general was a labor of love for at least of the devs -- but sadly it's not much surprise that the eponymous city's arch-rival got nerfed to improve their chances at victory.  Gotta pander to them fanboys at least a little! 

[Rayfer]

Started my second try at Total War: Rome II-Emperor Edition and still can't seem to survive, no less win. I've selected what the game calls 'easy' starts and set the difficulty at easy as well...and yet I can't seem to get the hang of it. Questions... Research; what is best early on; war or the civic improvement items, better to focus on one or jump back and forth between the two? Expansion; start early on out of the gate or wait awhile, and if so, how long is reasonable? Any other tips on how to thrive/survive in the ancient world?

[Nefaro]

Started my second try at Total War: Rome II-Emperor Edition and still can't seem to survive, no less win. I've selected what the game calls 'easy' starts and set the difficulty at easy as well...and yet I can't seem to get the hang of it. Questions... Research; what is best early on; war or the civic improvement items, better to focus on one or jump back and forth between the two? Expansion; start early on out of the gate or wait awhile, and if so, how long is reasonable? Any other tips on how to thrive/survive in the ancient world?

Which faction are you playing?  Some have more difficult starts than others.

For research, I generally go with two or three military slots first.  Often infantry upgrades.  Then I do a few to improve the public order and a little economy. 

The longer you have to post a bunch of troops in a conquered city, to wait for the public order to rise back up so, the more their big expense is going to waste while just sitting there.   Plus you get economic bonuses when their PO goes into the black.  Nobody wants a rebellion on their hands, either. 

So making sure I have public order in hand early on is essential and I always plan to research some stuff that gives me more fairly early.  Faster turnaround of conquests and you can use more troops more often in the field, on the next upcoming additions to your empire.

I tend to keep a sizable amount of the low monthly cost infantry in each army for awhile, and back them up with a few of the first higher quality ones unlocked in the initial short Mil research run.  After getting some of the public order (and whatever econ that may have came with it), next is whatever may be needed.  Often more Military since constant expansion is the norm, but moving to whatever suits my fancy after the initial Infantry+Public Order early research.   

That's my general approach to research, anyway.   Obviously I put a high value on Public Order and armies with a quality infantry core with this one.  Some factions are much more Cavalry focused, but cav costs a lot so even then I go with the infantry approach (initially).

[Sir Slash]

I agree with Nefaro. The faction you play determines a lot of the difficulity you'll have. Rome was pretty easy, Carthage hard as hell, the Barbarian factions kind of in the middle. The Seleucids start with a large empire but with a large number of enemies. Sparta and Athens start with one city and are very tough to expand. Macedon is not too bad to play. Regardless, early on get your food output started then money and military. Look to your traditional enemies for trouble early, like factions that culturally clash with yours and don't be afraid to buy someone off to leave you alone if they're too strong for you. If you've got food, you'll generally have happy citizens and money, and if you've got money, you can always expand your military quickly or rent-an-army(mercs). I like to go for the Tech I can develop quickest whatever kind unless there's a specific need that I think will benefit my faction. There's also always the Radious mod and some others that make gameplay a little easier if it helps.

[Gusington]

Rome 2 and Attila have been the most difficult of the series for me. I did win as Armenia in Rome 2 but I have not won a game in Attila yet. The Last Roman DLC is the same way. I got destroyed as the Roman Expedition twice in short order. Before quitting in nerd rage, I lowered he difficulty. Now I own North Africa and am moving on, and having fun. The difficulty levels should be more varied though. There's too much difference befween Easy and Normal. And Normal plays like Hard used to.

[Sir Slash]

I got fartherest as the Germans in Rome 2 but enjoyed playing the Seleucids most because you're a big power at start and have to try to hold together your empire with everybody gunning for you. Playing as Rome, avoid war with Carthage until you're really ready for it as they will never quit fighting you and the war will break your bank. While others are waiting to feed upon your dying corpse--- from experience. I'm not finding the Last Roman to be too hard as the Romans, up in Italy clearing-out Goths now with lots of money, food and 3 full armies. But no telling where Justinian will send us off to next.

[Rayfer]

Nef....I am playing Massilia, one of the Greek States. But I also tried Iceni, one of the Britannic Tribes.  Both were listed as 'easy' as an Initial Challenge.