Total War: Rome II

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[aeroblade56]

Lol Aero, i dont agree at all.

Ok so you don't agree that rome has a wider zoom and its way closer then necessary?.





I can see almost all of italy( i could if i changed the area)

where as i can hardly anything on the other picture. Is it truly necessary for a campaign map which is meant for strategic purposes to be zoomed in so you can see your units move across a board?. it would be like playing risk with a bunch of friends and sticking your nose into australia to make sure no one crossed the ocean.

Rome has elephants to for fucks sake  and guess what Rome has dogs and you guessed it another faction HAS SAVAGE DOGS EHRMAGHERD. Guess what 3-4 factions have chariots as a special type of unit.

Some factions are different parthia is pretty unique.

another note is it's totally unacceptable for CA to butcher this game with the stupid requirements by computers. i run a 1000$ rig i built last year and on medium/low it kicks my ass and turns take up to 2 minutes. i can run Coh2 on ultra everything without my water cooling fan buzzing but as soon as i turn on rome it sounds like some sort of dishwasher.

Also some of the gameplay demos and what not are totaly deffirent then the game it's self i for one hated the unit potraits in Shogun 2 and i saw a gameplay with actually potraits like the old rome or empire total war instead its just shogun 2.0

[Heartmann]

He fact that u cannot zoom out is in fact something I find gives the world a grander feeling because for som inexplicable reason causes the feeling of grandeur in the sense that he world is to large to be able to witness it in one frame.

I know Rome can have elephants and dogs but Rome does not have war elephants unles unless its visa mercenary units and also as I said factions have a similarity due to the fact when two tribes live close proximity they influence each other what ever also have the facts of ppl just regonizing that there where certain ways of having armies and equipment that where more effective Han other so they imitated those most effective.

I mean you still get gladiators, but yea it's cant be to unique and historically accurate. And tbh I still maintain that they have done a good Jobb of encapsulaiting the different factions cultures and era era related units^^

[PonySlaystation]

One thing is for sure. RomeTW I had way better musical score.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuSGbw1zu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGO6AWoFXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAlMaVYIzqw

Ok so you don't agree that rome has a wider zoom and its way closer then necessary?.

Who the hell cares? the game has so many issues and this is what you complain about??? The campaign map has been that way since EmpireTW.

[Spartan_Marine88]

another note is it's totally unacceptable for CA to butcher this game with the stupid requirements by computers. i run a 1000$ rig i built last year and on medium/low it kicks my ass and turns take up to 2 minutes. i can run Coh2 on ultra everything without my water cooling fan buzzing but as soon as i turn on rome it sounds like some sort of dishwasher.

My 700$ rig handles Rome fine on Ultra its actually optimized alot better then COH 2 which is optimized to Nvidia and Intel Chipsets alone.

[EIRRMod]

If you have troubles with framerate on a decent rig - turn on 'unlimited video memory' - this solved the issue for my friend on this computer.

[PonySlaystation]

After playing the original rome total war, I don't see why they changed so many core mechanics when they worked so well in the original. Why not just remake the game with better graphics and combat AI. The two things that can always be improved, add in some extra content and you have a great game. RTW and MTWII were the highpoint of the series. From there on it's goes down and Rome II is at the bottom.

[EIRRMod]

Other than the shitty AI, I actually like all of the changes to the mechanics tbh.

[Spartan_Marine88]

After playing the original rome total war, I don't see why they changed so many core mechanics when they worked so well in the original.

I liked Rome, but honestly there was a reason the mods where so much better.

[brn4meplz]

After playing the original rome total war, I don't see why they changed so many core mechanics when they worked so well in the original. Why not just remake the game with better graphics and combat AI. The two things that can always be improved, add in some extra content and you have a great game. RTW and MTWII were the highpoint of the series. From there on it's goes down and Rome II is at the bottom.

I'm probably biased here because of interest in Japanese history but I think Shogun 2 was the best. Unit pool to keep things balanced, enough clan variety for campaign. Besides, the dynamic between continuing to use Archers or getting Matchlock units is just so nice.

If they could have made Shogun 2 less of a Seige fest it would have been better, but for me it has the best Battles yet. I still have hope for Rome 2 though.

[PonySlaystation]

Other than the shitty AI, I actually like all of the changes to the mechanics tbh.

It's not so much change, more like removed and dumbed down features. So unless you think less is more it's really not better.

I liked Rome, but honestly there was a reason the mods where so much better.

So? It's like that for every total war game. It's because they take the original concept and improve upon it. It was still a solid game, not much to complain about.

I'm probably biased here because of interest in Japanese history but I think Shogun 2 was the best. Unit pool to keep things balanced, enough clan variety for campaign. Besides, the dynamic between continuing to use Archers or getting Matchlock units is just so nice.

If they could have made Shogun 2 less of a Seige fest it would have been better, but for me it has the best Battles yet. I still have hope for Rome 2 though.

I agree Shogun II was good. It was a big step up from Empire. But siege battles were still awful and there was little unit variety. You say clan variety but they all had the same units.

[brn4meplz]

Yeah and from a Balance standpoint, I like that they had similar units. Way easier to balance then Empire and Rome and Medieval and how screwed up they were for years.

[PonySlaystation]

Empire only had line infantry though, very little unit variety.

[XIIcorps]

Empire only had line infantry though, very little unit variety.

but thats how battles in the period were fought.
Cant fuck with history pony

[AmPM]

It's not so much change, more like removed and dumbed down features. So unless you think less is more it's really not better.

So? It's like that for every total war game. It's because they take the original concept and improve upon it. It was still a solid game, not much to complain about.

I agree Shogun II was good. It was a big step up from Empire. But siege battles were still awful and there was little unit variety. You say clan variety but they all had the same units.

It's crazy how armies are made up of relatively similar standardized units! Almost like it was organized and planned around their capabilities and requirements!

[PonySlaystation]

but thats how battles in the period were fought.
Cant fuck with history pony

But military service, training, equipment, firing drills and formations differed a lot between countries.

[aeroblade56]

But military service, training, equipment, firing drills and formations differed a lot between countries.

That's why in empire if you noticed alot of the US infantry have slower reloads then the prussian/ british equivalent.

The long rifles are the slowest loaders in the game compared to windbusche from austria or ferguson rifles from britian.

[Spartan_Marine88]

But military service, training, equipment, firing drills and formations differed a lot between countries.

That 'a lot' during that time usually meant how many men long was the line, how deep and thats pretty much the end of it.

[NightRain]

In Empire there do seem to be certain elements in each individual line infantry batallion. Prussian ones have highest morale, Russian one the weakest etc.

[PonySlaystation]

That 'a lot' during that time usually meant how many men long was the line, how deep and thats pretty much the end of it.

That's not true.

The Swedish Caroleans had regiments of pikes and it was believed that rifles at the time were inaccurate therefor most of the training was focused on discipline and melee combat. Their battlefield tactic was offensive, they would march towards the enemy until they saw the whites in their eyes, then fire a volley and charge into melee. The idea was that God chose who dies on the battlefield therefor it's pointless to cower or retreat. This is in great contrast to the armies of Great Britain and France who relied heavily on prolonged musket fights. The Swedish Empire was also known to rely on german mercenaries during wartime.

The Russians had conscription and lifetime military service meaning their morale was lower and many infantrymen were in their 30s and 40s. They didn't have much shooting practice because their rifles were in poor condition and ammunition was expensive, like the Swedes their Infantry relied on bayonets and some men were known to never fire their muskets. But their main focus was artillery, the idea was that infantry in very large numbers can distract the enemy while the cannons win the battle. Russia's infantry is not entirely without merit however, they did have a proud guard tradition (elite infantry). The same cannot be said about their guard cavalry formation since they were mostly ceremonial and it is believed that rank was gained more for a man's ability in the Empress' bed than for any other consideration.

As for Prussia. The average time for military training of a regiment back then was 3 months. The Prussians had an entire year of training and they received the best equipment possible. Compared to their population they had a lot of troops but compared to other nations they had very few armies. Then we have Austria with their cavalry and light infantry and the Spaniards with their bayonets. The only countries that have a somewhat similar military force and battlefield tactic are Great Britain and France and even then they had regional regiments like Scottish, Irish and German regiments that were heavily specialized.

[XIIcorps]

That's not true.

The Swedish Caroleans had regiments of pikes and it was believed that rifles at the time were inaccurate therefor most of the training was focused on discipline and melee combat. Their battlefield tactic was offensive, they would march towards the enemy until they saw the whites in their eyes, then fire a volley and charge into melee. The idea was that God chose who dies on the battlefield therefor it's pointless to cower or retreat. This is in great contrast to the armies of Great Britain and France who relied heavily on prolonged musket fights. The Swedish Empire was also known to rely on german mercenaries during wartime.

The Russians had conscription and lifetime military service meaning their morale was lower and many infantrymen were in their 30s and 40s. They didn't have much shooting practice because their rifles were in poor condition and ammunition was expensive, like the Swedes their Infantry relied on bayonets and some men were known to never fire their muskets. But their main focus was artillery, the idea was that infantry in very large numbers can distract the enemy while the cannons win the battle. Russia's infantry is not entirely without merit however, they did have a proud guard tradition (elite infantry). The same cannot be said about their guard cavalry formation since they were mostly ceremonial and it is believed that rank was gained more for a man's ability in the Empress' bed than for any other consideration.

As for Prussia. The average time for military training of a regiment back then was 3 months. The Prussians had an entire year of training and they received the best equipment possible. Compared to their population they had a lot of troops but compared to other nations they had very few armies. Then we have Austria with their cavalry and light infantry and the Spaniards with their bayonets. The only countries that have a somewhat similar military force and battlefield tactic are Great Britain and France and even then they had regional regiments like Scottish, Irish and German regiments that were heavily specialized.

yes and again pony their is a limit to what the empire engine could handle.
also there is always going to be a compromise between historical accuracy and playability.