Rome II

[Gusington]

After almost being wiped out as Armenia, down to one army and one city, I have now surged forward with Antony and Pontus along side of me and we have systematically cleaved the Parthian Empire in half! Definitely one of the more interesting, if not the most interesting, campaign of TW I've played.

[Sir Slash]

Good job Gus. The world could always do with fewer Parthians. O0

[mikeck]

Ok, when this game came out I loved it. I loved the design choices and the graphics.
I had a few bugs but just didn't experience the bugs that many did. I felt like a lot of people exaggerated the "bad" because they didn't care for te new features like provinces,
Food, happiness, etc.

So, I'm just kind of curious if those of you who originally disliked Rome 2 for reasons of design have come around to appreciate it or play in spite of it?

How are you finding the AI? I always thought it was decent but I think now it is equivalent to Shogun 2.

Just curious because I basically got run out of the "Wargamer" forums for suggesting that it was a great game...but I'm a fanboy so it's hard to say if it's just me

[undercovergeek]

i think were all fans, wont go as far as fanboys, but fans

ive personally never had a problem with any TWs, apparently Rome I was horrendous, never noticed it, Empire? Rome II? didnt see what the rest saw - ive loved them all

there are still some on other forums that roll their eyes and say 'huh, that peace of trash, did it get any better?' about rome II - more fool them i say

[LongBlade]

So, I'm just kind of curious if those of you who originally disliked Rome 2 for reasons of design have come around to appreciate it or play in spite of it?

How are you finding the AI? I always thought it was decent but I think now it is equivalent to Shogun 2.

Just curious because I basically got run out of the "Wargamer" forums for suggesting that it was a great game...but I'm a fanboy so it's hard to say if it's just me

I was initially hesitant to like Rome 2. The province management felt substantially different than previous games.

However, over time it grew on me and now I really don't like going back to the old games. I've tried to fire up Shogun 2 a couple of times and it just doesn't cut it for me.

As for the AI - the tactical battles seem tougher. Not sure the strategic AI has improved much. Personally my strategy for tactical battles is to bring three armies to crush one. Then I just auto resolve the battle and move on.

[Gusington]

I have had a couple of duh moments with the AI in my latest campaign. It seems like if I don't go close enough to some enemy units, thry will stand still or not know where to move. If I get closer to them, something s triggered and they get more aggressive. Doesn't happen all the time though.

[MengJiao]

Ok, when this game came out I loved it. I loved the design choices and the graphics.
I had a few bugs but just didn't experience the bugs that many did. I felt like a lot of people exaggerated the "bad" because they didn't care for te new features like provinces,
Food, happiness, etc.

So, I'm just kind of curious if those of you who originally disliked Rome 2 for reasons of design have come around to appreciate it or play in spite of it?

How are you finding the AI? I always thought it was decent but I think now it is equivalent to Shogun 2.

Just curious because I basically got run out of the "Wargamer" forums for suggesting that it was a great game...but I'm a fanboy so it's hard to say if it's just me

  Well, I'll repeat most of what I've said about Rome II and TW:  When Shogun2 came out, I was really fed up with TW.  I had an irrational dislike for Empire and Napoleon and I was ready to hate Shogun2 -- BUT the demo was wonderful so I happily played Shogun2 and FOTS.

   When Rome II came out, I was somewhat wary, but I now think it is slightly better than Shogun2 and FOTS.  I think with the WOS (Wrath of Sparta or Waiting Under Some Spartans WUSS) expansion and the Attila thing, I'm going full fanboi: I'm going to enjoy them irrationally no matter what.  So this doesn't tell anyone much (which is the problem with being a fanboi -- you have to drag in your irrational response more or less because you can't help yourself) -- but I think Rome II always had a lot of potential and with WUSS and Attila it should really start to shine.

[MengJiao]

Holy crap!  The War is finally coming to the Total War series (specifically, as an add-on to Rome II).  So pumped!!!   

Guess this will make me finally buy the game  :D

I do wish the new campaign pack was named just about anything other than The Wrath of Sparta, though.   

I mean, seriously?  Why not just call it, I don't know...THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, perhaps??!!   

  I'm not sure the map covers enough territory to be a full Peloponnesian War.  There's no playable Satraps or Syracuse or Egypt (where the Athenian disasters opened the way for opposing them in Greece).  So the focus is an imaginary Greece.  What exactly Sparta has to be wrathful about is probably a marketing thing of some sort: we need Persian Money!  scream the Spartans and the Marketing people!

  Given all that, you are really in a pre-Persian War situation, when Sparta might really have been concerned about being trapped in a peninsula with some states that were expanding economically and demographically while Sparta was working hard to remain as static as possible.  So the situation is really more like 530 BC rather than 430 BC.  Which makes sense if you are going to have a hoplite and trireme oriented tech tree.  In 530 Sparta would have the only hoplites with any training at all while Athens would still be somewhat agricultural and even tribal.  Corinthia would be the big economic power and Ionia would not be revolting against Persia.  I suppose they might not even have been conquered by Persia yet.

[Sir Slash]

I like the game much more than at launch now that we've hit 16 patches but I still think Shogun 2 is a better game overall. This is the first TW game that I've not bought all the add-on DLC's not just because I'm cheap but they don't seem to add a lot to the game. But I'm really looking forward to Attila and it's new features. I'm not in love with Rome 2 but if it took all it's stuff and moved-out, I'd get drunk and sit around in the dark feeling sorry for myself.

[Nefaro]

Ok, when this game came out I loved it. I loved the design choices and the graphics.
I had a few bugs but just didn't experience the bugs that many did. I felt like a lot of people exaggerated the "bad" because they didn't care for te new features like provinces,
Food, happiness, etc.

So, I'm just kind of curious if those of you who originally disliked Rome 2 for reasons of design have come around to appreciate it or play in spite of it?

How are you finding the AI? I always thought it was decent but I think now it is equivalent to Shogun 2.

Just curious because I basically got run out of the "Wargamer" forums for suggesting that it was a great game...but I'm a fanboy so it's hard to say if it's just me

It's in good condition now.  Keep in mind that it took 16 patches, some of them pretty large, to get here.  Yes, I experienced regular bugs and screwy AI behavior.  Crashes, units falling through the terrain & ships floating across land in battles, AIs suicidally attacking those terribly implemented flags (so glad those were removed!), I could go on about the state it was in at release.  Spent a lot of time waiting on "the next patch" in between short runs, but it's paid off in the end.

I could see it's potential even after release when it was buggy and had an unfinished AI.  Although I don't like the family influence mechanics at all.  They're dull and serve little purpose other than draining the state coffers, instead of personal wealth, to little gain.  It's as if they wanted to capture a CK2 family events system and completely bungled it with the equivalent of the EU3 "Comet Sighted" type events that just punished you all the time at random.  I also felt the province grouping was unneeded.  Likewise the dusty brown filter over the graphics.  It's as if they were just changing stuff to say they did, and not for any ideal purpose.  The campaign map also ran like shit, and still doesn't do all that great after having been addressed in numerous updates, but it's manageable now.  Lack of UI art, as in past TWs, that helped provide that extra bit of period flavor.  Despite these complaints, some of which have been improved through updates or mods, it's in a good state now. 

It's strengths are having a huge map and a good variety of factions to choose from, and a nice array of troop types.  And part of my favorite eras in history (probably #1), so that's a big plus.  I still think Shogun 2 was a higher quality production but Rome 2 has finally come close to that level, and surpassed it in at least one area (such as troop type variety).

[Nefaro]

I'm not in love with Rome 2 but if it took all it's stuff and moved-out, I'd get drunk and sit around in the dark feeling sorry for myself.

O0

I would certainly miss it too, nowadays.

[Martok]

After almost being wiped out as Armenia, down to one army and one city, I have now surged forward with Antony and Pontus along side of me and we have systematically cleaved the Parthian Empire in half! Definitely one of the more interesting, if not the most interesting, campaign of TW I've played.

Kewl!  Those are often the most fun campaigns to play.  O0 

[Gusington]

I hope I can get to my victory conditions in time. Right now I am just about at year 0. Anyone know what year the Augustus campaign ends?

[MengJiao]

I think you are all being rather unfair; they were in their time a superb fighting machine, but they were also the authors of their own downfall.

Of course they were good soldiers.  They certainly weren't as invincible as often portrayed.  Other city states had hoplite soldiers who could obviously compete with them. 

  The question of what Spartan about Sparta is also somewhat confusing.  The ten thousand that Xenophon (an Athenian who joined up with a force raised and trained by Sparta and paid by Persian Satraps) led up country (or inland or overland -- Anabasis) remained loyal to what they could figure out to be Spartan interests, but they were Spartan only in training and cohesion.
  And then there is the period during the 2nd Pelopennesian war where Alcibiades (an Athenian) ran Sparta to the point that he took one of the queens (a woman even) as a mistress before being run out of town (at which point he had been run out of Athens and Sparta and was about to be run out of various Satrapies as well).

[LongBlade]

And then there is the period during the 2nd Pelopennesian war where Alcibiades (an Athenian) ran Sparta to the point that he took one of the queens (a woman even) as a mistress before being run out of town (at which point he had been run out of Athens and Sparta and was about to be run out of various Satrapies as well).

Sounds like a typical Saturday night for Star.