Every game after Rome 2 was a derivative of it
A modification as it is called
Rome 2 singlehandedly sustains CA for 10 years and only pharaoh and ToB flopped
>Autoresolve: Total War >Enemy generals will constantly stay out of range of your armies and instead attack your settlements >Can barely differentiate units by voice or card. All Gallic units will shout "GAULS" and "GAULS LOVE THE OPEN ROAD" with no variety >Slot system reached its worst, modern form
Rome 2 was the beginning of the end for CA. They should be glad it wasn't the end.
In R2, the optimal strategy is to build an army entirely of cheap heavy infantry and use that full stack to autoresolve every battle with small losses.
>Enemy generals will constantly stay out of range of your armies and instead attack your settlements
I actually like that. AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player is based. After all, why go after an army when I could just attack your settlements which directly harms your resources and compromises your operational capacity while directly strengthing my own?
Strategy > tactics
It would be fine if you, the player, could detach a small, fast-moving force to catch their armies while stationing your main army in the vulnerable settlement.
But the game doesn't let you do that because you would have to create another army, and said army would move at the exact same speed (or slower, because the new general doesn't have the movement speed trait).
Rome 2 made all the mistakes the series has been doubling down since. Frick this game. >morale doesn't matter anymore >troop quality is all that matters >multi region provinces >huge garrisons >100s of shitty factions all over the map
yeah dude no the total war battles are so good that the company is thriving and totaly not fricking dead now . >inb4 it s not just the battles
yeah and all the players are moving to paradox games and manor lords when it comes out
yeah dude no the total war battles are so good that the company is thriving and totaly not fricking dead now . >inb4 it s not just the battles
yeah and all the players are moving to paradox games and manor lords when it comes out
Sorry, anon, but the right to discuss is a privilege. Your lack of constructive criticism towards the newer Total War games demonstrates that you don't deserve that privilege.
doesn't matter anymore
quality is all that matters >pic related, me thinking about all the times I obliterated superior armies by cleverly maneuvering cheap units and breaking the enemy into a rout
>morale doesn't matter anymore
less of an impact compared to like shogun2 and medieval 2, where units routed much faster, true, but not to the point they would stand and fight forever, like in single entity hero units >multi region provinces
this has both up and down, the good things about it is that you can recruit province wild, many more units at once. the region sharing building effect helps alot too and allow you to build more different building
the downside can be fixed by just make like 3 provinces per region only, with bigger settlement and more building slots. >huge garrison
this is fine, it makes sieges more fun with more troops, especially in warhammer and attila >100s of shitty factions all over the map
in older games, it was because of the engine limitation of faction and province limits. that's why there were so many rebels, and grouped factions like the combined greek city states like in rome total war
rome2 is ass, shit ai and casual mechanics. attila is extremely good but no one plays it because its actually challenging so even people here don't give it much attention. creative assembly obviously didn't bother making more good games like attila as a consequence
>rome2 is ass >attila is extremely good
Attila is quite literally just Rome 2 with a brown filter and a more difficult but still easily cheesed campaign experience. It's just slightly less ass than Rome 2. Barbarian Invasion is unironically much better than Attila due to its campaign having more fun/interesting mechanics and the battle system actually being good.
Empire should have been the game that made you a cynical butthole about video games as well as game journalism since journos were fellating that broken pile of shit like nothing was wrong
Yeah, I fell hard after seeing the Carthage trailer, even pre-ordered the game because that was the only way to play as Gayreeks back then. Learned my lesson, never pre-ordered a game after that
I haven't played it since 2015. I heard that they fixed the politics system a few years ago. Do Civil Wars actually happen now? I feel like they intended civil wars to be like Shogun 2's realm divide with the caveat that they can be avoided if you play cleverly but the politics system was so simple and easy to game that it never happened.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
Yes, the provinces ruled by the disloyal parties secede and you have to conquer them all over again. Not the best way to portray civil wars imo, but there you have it.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
no
when you start a playthrough you are protected from succession for 20 turns and the loyalty penalty for purge lasts 10 turns
this allows you to use purge every turn for 10 turns
without oppostition party control they hold no control of your territories
if you keep their leaders as army-less generals they wont be able to fight back even if you push them into negative loyalty later
>Enemy generals will constantly stay out of range of your armies and instead attack your settlements
I actually like that. AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player is based. After all, why go after an army when I could just attack your settlements which directly harms your resources and compromises your operational capacity while directly strengthing my own?
Strategy > tactics
>AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player
the constant forced march away from any of your armies means the only way to interact with them it to wait for them to attack a settlement and finish them off while they are trapped or to just attack their cities
hunting down enemy armies is effectively impossible without a cavelry army supported with a spy for extra movement range
>hunting down enemy armies is effectively impossible without a cavelry army supported with a spy for extra movement range
Sounds a lot like what Union commanders had to go through when they were fighting Robert E. Lee in Virginia. If Lee wasn't the one initiating, there was basically no way of catching him and forcing him to fight a battle he wouldn't have the upper hand in. Only McClellan and Grant seem to understand that going around Lee's army, bee-lining for Richmond, and forcing Lee to come to THEM was the better strat.
I fricking hate how armies can move like they have fricking rockets on their back during forced marches yet during a retreat they can only move an few inches.
This is a real issue. "Retreat" is unpredictable in both direction and duration. Something simple would be any movement not spent during the player phase could be spent during the enemy phase for retreat, maybe even follow up. This would also organically create the forced march stance, since moving 100% would make you vulnerable.
It bugs me because so much of the game seems designed with the assumption that a army you defeat isn't instantly destroyed. Yet, in practice, pretty much every battle is until one side is totally annihilated.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Agreed. The "operational" layer of the game could use some work.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Honestly, I think moving away from a risk style map was a mistake. But if they are going to keep the map, and by all accounts they are, they should improve it more. The last major overhaul was Rome 2 adding stances, which arguably made certain issues worse.
If the game isn't going to simplify the operational aspect to facilitate more fun battles, then at least make that aspect of the game fun in it's own right.
>if you keep their leaders as army-less generals they wont be able to fight back even if you push them into negative loyalty later >if you game the system the system doesnt work.
lmao i love minmaxers ruining their own experience.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
Yes, the provinces ruled by the disloyal parties secede and you have to conquer them all over again. Not the best way to portray civil wars imo, but there you have it.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
no
when you start a playthrough you are protected from succession for 20 turns and the loyalty penalty for purge lasts 10 turns
this allows you to use purge every turn for 10 turns
without oppostition party control they hold no control of your territories
if you keep their leaders as army-less generals they wont be able to fight back even if you push them into negative loyalty later
[...] >AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player
the constant forced march away from any of your armies means the only way to interact with them it to wait for them to attack a settlement and finish them off while they are trapped or to just attack their cities
hunting down enemy armies is effectively impossible without a cavelry army supported with a spy for extra movement range
i have never ever looked at the political party screen nor interacted with it
such a useless mechanic and my campaign would pretty much be over if it was ever going to be a factor anyways
figured I'd ask here. What are the most fun factions to play for the following DLCs: >Hannibal at the Gates >Impertaor Augustus >Empire Divided >Wrath of Sparta >Rise of the Republic >Nomadic Cultures >Black Sea Colonies >Pirates and Raiders >Desert Kingdoms
I've recently realized that I bought all the DLC (on sale) and have only played the Greek States pack and the Caesar in Gaul campaign.
>hannibal at the gates
Rome and Carthage, obviously.
>Imperator Augustus. >Empire divided.
Depends on if you want to play as the Romans or against them. Either way, Persia and the "main" roman faction are good choices.
>Wrath of Sparta
Eh... no clue. Never really played it. Sparta, maybe?
>Rise of the Republic
Rome is pretty challenging, but fun. I personally like the North Italian factions.
>Nomadic Cultures
Scythia seems like the "Main" one.
>Black sea colonies.
Cimmeria, no question.
>Pirates and Raiders
Not really that fun to be honest. If you must try one, consider Illyria.
>Desert Kingdoms
Kush is my favorite. Though if you like playing in Arabia consider Saba.
The "main character" factions are always the most fleshed out and fun to play, so generally >Rome >Carthage >Sparta (though WoS is a shit campaign, Sparta at least feels a little more unique)
The only exception is I would say Rise and ED, because I've had fun with pretty much every faction in those campaigns.
No it was horrible and it became even more horrible when they injected wamen into positions of power and it still fricking horrible
On top of it theres no reason to play this instead of atilla which is better in every aspect.
Too bad you were filtered by it. A game for a real men where only strong survive. So back to your sissy roman gerkoid frickery in an inferior game.
I'm sorry you made a shit thread.
Was playing it just now. It's still kinda shit.
Divide et Impera or Imperium Surrectum?
>bloated garbage
neither
Frick off. Releasing buggy games just because you can patch it post release is never a good thing.
I agree, but I will still give them credit for fixing it.
That just gives gaming developers an excuse to release buggy games because they can just patch it anytime. No.
Every game after Rome 2 was a derivative of it
A modification as it is called
Rome 2 singlehandedly sustains CA for 10 years and only pharaoh and ToB flopped
I want to frick Centuri-chan, if you catch my drift
Pharaoh Flopped because according to a leak, it was originally developed as a DLC for Troy.
>Every game after Rome 2 was a derivative of it
Makes sense.
The game was such a shitshow on launch they are still essentially just selling upgrades.
I'm sorry that I bought into the pre-launch hype. It hasn't happened again.
Rome 2 is exactly the moment the franchise died. It's been a corpse ever since. Even Attila was saddled with Rome 2's shittiness.
>Autoresolve: Total War
>Enemy generals will constantly stay out of range of your armies and instead attack your settlements
>Can barely differentiate units by voice or card. All Gallic units will shout "GAULS" and "GAULS LOVE THE OPEN ROAD" with no variety
>Slot system reached its worst, modern form
Rome 2 was the beginning of the end for CA. They should be glad it wasn't the end.
I don't understand the point about autoresolve
I think he means you can use the autoresolve too much and avoid fighting the actual battles.
You can do the same in pre-Rome2 TWs THOUGH
In R2, the optimal strategy is to build an army entirely of cheap heavy infantry and use that full stack to autoresolve every battle with small losses.
You can do a similar thing with peasants in R1
That you can do shitty exploitative tactics doesn't ruin the game. You could just not do them.
>Enemy generals will constantly stay out of range of your armies and instead attack your settlements
I actually like that. AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player is based. After all, why go after an army when I could just attack your settlements which directly harms your resources and compromises your operational capacity while directly strengthing my own?
Strategy > tactics
It would be fine if you, the player, could detach a small, fast-moving force to catch their armies while stationing your main army in the vulnerable settlement.
But the game doesn't let you do that because you would have to create another army, and said army would move at the exact same speed (or slower, because the new general doesn't have the movement speed trait).
Rome 2 made all the mistakes the series has been doubling down since. Frick this game.
>morale doesn't matter anymore
>troop quality is all that matters
>multi region provinces
>huge garrisons
>100s of shitty factions all over the map
i was going to give you a serious reply but i realized you are probably a homosexual
have a nice day
No, you just realized you can't defend modern total war, because it's shit.
yeah dude no the total war battles are so good that the company is thriving and totaly not fricking dead now .
>inb4 it s not just the battles
yeah and all the players are moving to paradox games and manor lords when it comes out
have a nice day
>not a single argument in defense of nu-CA
Black person.
Sorry, anon, but the right to discuss is a privilege. Your lack of constructive criticism towards the newer Total War games demonstrates that you don't deserve that privilege.
t. CA community manager
doesn't matter anymore
quality is all that matters
>pic related, me thinking about all the times I obliterated superior armies by cleverly maneuvering cheap units and breaking the enemy into a rout
>100s of shitty factions all over the map
So anon, do (you) prefer rebels or small factions?
>morale doesn't matter anymore
less of an impact compared to like shogun2 and medieval 2, where units routed much faster, true, but not to the point they would stand and fight forever, like in single entity hero units
>multi region provinces
this has both up and down, the good things about it is that you can recruit province wild, many more units at once. the region sharing building effect helps alot too and allow you to build more different building
the downside can be fixed by just make like 3 provinces per region only, with bigger settlement and more building slots.
>huge garrison
this is fine, it makes sieges more fun with more troops, especially in warhammer and attila
>100s of shitty factions all over the map
in older games, it was because of the engine limitation of faction and province limits. that's why there were so many rebels, and grouped factions like the combined greek city states like in rome total war
rome2 is ass, shit ai and casual mechanics. attila is extremely good but no one plays it because its actually challenging so even people here don't give it much attention. creative assembly obviously didn't bother making more good games like attila as a consequence
>rome2 is ass
>attila is extremely good
Attila is quite literally just Rome 2 with a brown filter and a more difficult but still easily cheesed campaign experience. It's just slightly less ass than Rome 2. Barbarian Invasion is unironically much better than Attila due to its campaign having more fun/interesting mechanics and the battle system actually being good.
this game is why I will never preorder. This is the game that made me a cynical butthole when it comes to games.
Empire should have been the game that made you a cynical butthole about video games as well as game journalism since journos were fellating that broken pile of shit like nothing was wrong
Yes. I love this game don’t know what the hell anyone’s problem is. I still play it. Played 10 hours of arise of the republic this weekend
Honestly ppl not liking it seem to have autisticly focus on game features I have never even noticed
What is the best campaign for Rome 2 that isn't the grand campaign? What about the DEI campaigns?
I love Caesar in Gaul bc I like artillery and sieges. It’s just Roman legions marching across Gaul besieging everything.
But Rise of the Republic is one of the best campaigns any game had. More difficult and depth of strategy / ways to go / ways to play.
its pretty funny how this game is by far the most hated by hisTV boomers yet its also the most successful historical TW game.
setting sells
It sold well because CA lied through their fricking teeth during the marketing campaign
Yeah, I fell hard after seeing the Carthage trailer, even pre-ordered the game because that was the only way to play as Gayreeks back then. Learned my lesson, never pre-ordered a game after that
I haven't played it since 2015. I heard that they fixed the politics system a few years ago. Do Civil Wars actually happen now? I feel like they intended civil wars to be like Shogun 2's realm divide with the caveat that they can be avoided if you play cleverly but the politics system was so simple and easy to game that it never happened.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
Yes, the provinces ruled by the disloyal parties secede and you have to conquer them all over again. Not the best way to portray civil wars imo, but there you have it.
>Do Civil Wars actually happen now?
no
when you start a playthrough you are protected from succession for 20 turns and the loyalty penalty for purge lasts 10 turns
this allows you to use purge every turn for 10 turns
without oppostition party control they hold no control of your territories
if you keep their leaders as army-less generals they wont be able to fight back even if you push them into negative loyalty later
>AI actually playing intelligentlly and out meta-gaming the player
the constant forced march away from any of your armies means the only way to interact with them it to wait for them to attack a settlement and finish them off while they are trapped or to just attack their cities
hunting down enemy armies is effectively impossible without a cavelry army supported with a spy for extra movement range
Forched march was a mistake and I honestly think the game is way, WAY more fun if you remove it.
>hunting down enemy armies is effectively impossible without a cavelry army supported with a spy for extra movement range
Sounds a lot like what Union commanders had to go through when they were fighting Robert E. Lee in Virginia. If Lee wasn't the one initiating, there was basically no way of catching him and forcing him to fight a battle he wouldn't have the upper hand in. Only McClellan and Grant seem to understand that going around Lee's army, bee-lining for Richmond, and forcing Lee to come to THEM was the better strat.
I fricking hate how armies can move like they have fricking rockets on their back during forced marches yet during a retreat they can only move an few inches.
This is a real issue. "Retreat" is unpredictable in both direction and duration. Something simple would be any movement not spent during the player phase could be spent during the enemy phase for retreat, maybe even follow up. This would also organically create the forced march stance, since moving 100% would make you vulnerable.
It bugs me because so much of the game seems designed with the assumption that a army you defeat isn't instantly destroyed. Yet, in practice, pretty much every battle is until one side is totally annihilated.
Agreed. The "operational" layer of the game could use some work.
Honestly, I think moving away from a risk style map was a mistake. But if they are going to keep the map, and by all accounts they are, they should improve it more. The last major overhaul was Rome 2 adding stances, which arguably made certain issues worse.
If the game isn't going to simplify the operational aspect to facilitate more fun battles, then at least make that aspect of the game fun in it's own right.
Use ambush stance.
>if you keep their leaders as army-less generals they wont be able to fight back even if you push them into negative loyalty later
>if you game the system the system doesnt work.
lmao i love minmaxers ruining their own experience.
i have never ever looked at the political party screen nor interacted with it
such a useless mechanic and my campaign would pretty much be over if it was ever going to be a factor anyways
figured I'd ask here. What are the most fun factions to play for the following DLCs:
>Hannibal at the Gates
>Impertaor Augustus
>Empire Divided
>Wrath of Sparta
>Rise of the Republic
>Nomadic Cultures
>Black Sea Colonies
>Pirates and Raiders
>Desert Kingdoms
I've recently realized that I bought all the DLC (on sale) and have only played the Greek States pack and the Caesar in Gaul campaign.
>hannibal at the gates
Rome and Carthage, obviously.
>Imperator Augustus.
>Empire divided.
Depends on if you want to play as the Romans or against them. Either way, Persia and the "main" roman faction are good choices.
>Wrath of Sparta
Eh... no clue. Never really played it. Sparta, maybe?
>Rise of the Republic
Rome is pretty challenging, but fun. I personally like the North Italian factions.
>Nomadic Cultures
Scythia seems like the "Main" one.
>Black sea colonies.
Cimmeria, no question.
>Pirates and Raiders
Not really that fun to be honest. If you must try one, consider Illyria.
>Desert Kingdoms
Kush is my favorite. Though if you like playing in Arabia consider Saba.
The "main character" factions are always the most fleshed out and fun to play, so generally
>Rome
>Carthage
>Sparta (though WoS is a shit campaign, Sparta at least feels a little more unique)
The only exception is I would say Rise and ED, because I've had fun with pretty much every faction in those campaigns.
Sparta doesn't even have access to sea from it's starting location. Greece as a region is so fricked up in R2
He means in Wrath of Sparta.
Frankly, they should have been removed from the main game since they were basically a non player.
Gotcha, my bad.
No it was horrible and it became even more horrible when they injected wamen into positions of power and it still fricking horrible
On top of it theres no reason to play this instead of atilla which is better in every aspect.
Too bad you were filtered by it. A game for a real men where only strong survive. So back to your sissy roman gerkoid frickery in an inferior game.
no it sucked and doomed the series