Was the guy talking in the trailer actually supposed to be Attila? Because, and I could be way off base, I assumed Attila was generally agreed to possess "Asian or Mongoloid features"....whereas that was a white guy with a long beard.
I am not interested by this announcement. I'll keep playing Shogun 2, although it's very difficult to do any multiplayer on a mac.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Reinstalled due to Emperor Edition. The Campaign AI is definitely smarter.
The Battle AI still needs work. You can't even besiege a freaking camp properly. And I'm playing as Parthians, but the Skirmish AI makes some really stupid decisions and my horse archers still get caught by spearmen which makes no sense...
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
It looks to be like how FotS was to Shogun 2 and Napoleon was to Empire. A big game and then a focused, standalone expansion game.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited December 2014
Alright. Rome 2 200 turns Emperor Edition done.
....I like Rome 2's battles more than Shogun 2's...
The battles are actually pretty well optimized. I had a few weird moments where you got that choppy effect where dudes would just freeze than go for a second or two, but I think that was because the ambush map I had on had straining snow particle effects. Which looked really good.
The units (Especially Roman troops) DO stay in formation and they do keep it pretty well. Sometimes a little too well, like when they get attack on the left or right edge on the unit and they don't want to turn, or when they rout dudes and because of formation they sometimes don't fight other enemy units next to them. But, other than that, their formation works well and looks great
Animations look really good...and they work a little better than Shogun 2's more drawn out animations. Most of the 1v1 animation are short and concise, and the general attack animations, while they still look a little awkward and don't look like they connect to their target sometimes, are nice to see as one can really get a sense of multiple dudes ganging up on one guy. The formation based troops still keep formation pretty well despite the 1v1s.
I've gotten used to the white projectile trails. They still look dumb, but they are pretty helpful in tracking ranged attacks, especially with short ranged javelin units.
I still like the way Shogun 2 handled generals on the battlefield more. They still felt more valuable than the Rome 2 generals.
Enemy AI, at least in open field battles and unwalled town battles (I have yet to fight a walled battle attack) is actually improved from the start of Rome 2's release, and maybe even a little better than Shogun 2's.
Still don't like how the ballistae and the other siege units throw explosive ammunition. It made sense in Shogun 2, but in Roman times, they really should just be shooting big rocks or something.
The blood effects look better, although I have not seen one bit of gore. No decapitations, lost arms or anything.
I am really missing the walled siege experience, and I really wish they would allow the building of walls for all cities. Unwalled Syracuse and Jerusalem still doesn't make sense
I do like the culture and unit variety.
I do like Rome 2's battles more than Shogun 2's, but I still like FOTS's most of all. Then again, I'm biased towards musket and cannon based gameplay than sword and board, so it's not a surprise.
I still find the campaign gameplay by itself not as good as S2 or FOTS.
I like the new politics system. It makes logical sense and gives off a kind of Crusader Kings 2-lite vibe.
Still don't like the limited building spaces.
Still don't like how big the cities on the map are.
Still don't like that there's no turn-based economic growth. I have no reason to change taxes now because the opinion bonuses and maluses aren't that significant. I miss seeing my cities eventually tick up their values over time.
Still don't like limited armies.
Still don't like what they have done with generals.
Like I said, I do like the different variety of cultures and units. While similar, fighting Gauls is a slightly different experience from fighting Germans or Celt(iberian) tribes, and fighting Hellenic nations vs fighting barbarians or eastern factions do feel different from eachother.
I do now like the agents. I kind of felt that they were useless before.
I do like how they've really tuned down squalor and food consumption bonuses. The food consumption bonuses that are there make you specialize regions if you want to have a high tier building in them.
I don't know, there's something off about this campaign that makes me like it less than Shogun 2's. There's something else that I can't put my finger on besides what I said that I don't like.
However, I will rescind my statement that Rome 2 is a sub-par game. It has now been developed and patched in such a way that it is a very enjoyable experience. It's still not as good as Medieval 2 or Fall of the Samurai.
I'll need to play more siege battles to test them though. They're the only thing I haven't experienced in Emperor edition.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention THE UI STILL SUCKS! (Compared to S2 or MED2)
Hmm... Perhaps it's time I pick this game up again. I had as fun time with Rome 2 at release and beat the Grand Campaign twice (Pontus and Seleucids). The question is who do I choose this time? I don't really care for how the Barbarian factions play.
Fall of the Samurai was an expansion campaign, not a stand-alone deal (at least, not the way I bought it).
Very extensive modification though.
FotS was standalone.
Really? I run it through the primary game.
I had no idea you could play it standalone. What about Rese of the Samurai?
RotS was an expansion for which you needed Shogun II, FotS was an expandalone that you could buy and run seperately without owning Shogun II. If you owned both S2 and FotS, they integrate.
But it has the same exact campaign map minus some things all the way out where Baktria was I think.
Apparently, due to the global climate change at the time, there is a snow line that will, over years, progress farther south. That's neat.
As for Rome 2 DLC get the blood one. Also I like the greek states pack, because Sparta (and Athens). Dont have any of the other packs. None of them interested me.
Eh. I think I'll sit Attila out. Not hot on the setting, kinda close to Rome 2 for my liking, and nothing about the gameplay looks like a real draw. A shame.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
Like the unit cards, like how they put the map in the top-right of the screen FINALLY to save space.
I think that's a new city model.
I think it would be interesting if you could play as the Ostrogoths and upon taking Rome you could choose an option to dethrone their current leader and take any other land that they had left. I wonder if one could play as the Franks... Although that would be I think a century early.
ok folks what rome 2 DLC is worth buying? Even at 75% off, getting all of it is still pricey
I would also like to know this. I currently have the Blood pack and the Greek States pack.
I've had fun with 'Hannibal at the Gates', it's a smaller map and I like the faction/unit additions (I've played a near complete campaign as the Lusitani, I am a quarter Portuguese so I'm probably biased though lol). I'm also personally very interested in the second Punic war itself, so if you've ever read Livy or are into that time period it's well worth the couple bucks.
On the other hand, I've only heard negative comments about the "Caesar in Gaul" DLC, which is a shame because I'm a huge fan of Caesar's Gallic Wars Commentaries, but apparently there isn't much in the way of new content unless you're a fan of the Gallic factions which do get new units (though I always thought the Galatians were interesting), as well there have been a lot of complaints about the mid/end game civil war mechanics associated with the CiG campaign which have held me back from buying it so far
Nomadic Tribes are interesting if you're into cavalry although playing as a horde of horse archers = a ton of micromanagement during battles which gets annoying although the Massagetae get some nice heavy shock cav. You can already play as Parthia with their decent cavalry roster though in vanilla so your mileage may vary
How about the Beast pack or the Pirates and Raiders pack?
I just bought the Beast pack so can't give much hand's on info although, you do get 10 units for $0.74 which seems pretty good. The main negativity from TWII forums was that apparently several of the units were already hidden in vanilla files and it seemed like they cut some units out from release to sell as DLC (specifically the armored camels). Most of the units are for Eastern factions (Egypt and Parthia) but there are also a good bit of mercenary units as well which are for all factions controlling certain areas. Epirus and Gallic factions also get war dogs, if you liked using the Roman war dogs (always nice for taking out ranged units)
I haven't jumped on Pirates and Raiders yet as most of the commentary I've seen has been that the factions are a bit thin in terms of unit rosters. It does bulk up available mercenaries in Thracia/Dacia/Illyria though, and if you ever saw Spartacus and wanted to play as Thracians then it's a must of course. I would say it's definitely not worth $8, but $2? Eh, maybe
The main negativity from TWII forums was that apparently several of the units were already hidden in vanilla files and it seemed like they cut some units out from release to sell as DLC (specifically the armored camels).
As far as I know, all of the DLC units are part of the main download - your purchase of the DLC just unlocks them for you. This way you can fight matches against other players in MP who have DLCs that you don't. If they've been in there from the start, that might just mean that they've been planned as DLC all along, and were finished, but marketing decided on a different release schedule.
The main negativity from TWII forums was that apparently several of the units were already hidden in vanilla files and it seemed like they cut some units out from release to sell as DLC (specifically the armored camels).
As far as I know, all of the DLC units are part of the main download - your purchase of the DLC just unlocks them for you. This way you can fight matches against other players in MP who have DLCs that you don't. If they've been in there from the start, that might just mean that they've been planned as DLC all along, and were finished, but marketing decided on a different release schedule.
No I mean the armored camel model files were found by modders as part of the original 1.0 release, you're right that DLC gets released in updates; like I said almost all of the backlash I've seen has come from TWII forums and it's more of a perception like the backlash over certain horse armor DLC. I really don't care, just saying that's the main criticism I've seen against the Beasts DLC, not saying it's justified or anything. I think you're 100% spot on btw in terms of what actually went on
EDIT: Btw, speaking of DLC, Creative Assembly has said on forums that they will continue to run a New Content Team for Rome II, so while the new features of Attila won't be coming to Rome II, there should be more new Rome II DLC and patches coming down the road at least until the 2015 release of Attila
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
if you want a campaign that's most unlike the grand campaign, Caesar in Gaul is probably your best bet. more focused and on a smaller timeline so seasons and especially winter are a pretty big deal. slightly different tech trees and all, as well as political support.
honestly though Octavian's campaign is the best and most polished, though, and that's free.
And agreed about Atilla. The gameplay improvements don't seem significant enough and timeline is too similar to what we just played. They should have gone more medieval and make the most of the large Rome 2 map.
Total War: Dark Ages would be pretty great imo.
I also want a late Renaissance one.
Late renaissance would be fantastic. It's a great period that has barely any exposure, and saw massive changes in society, technology, and military doctrine.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
If they made Total War:Early Medieval, I would love to see them redo the Brittania campaign from Kingdoms set in the times after Arthur Pendragon, called Brytenwalda: Total War as an expansion.
Posts
Well, we know what the next one is now.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Was the guy talking in the trailer actually supposed to be Attila? Because, and I could be way off base, I assumed Attila was generally agreed to possess "Asian or Mongoloid features"....whereas that was a white guy with a long beard.
Eeeeehh.
The Battle AI still needs work. You can't even besiege a freaking camp properly. And I'm playing as Parthians, but the Skirmish AI makes some really stupid decisions and my horse archers still get caught by spearmen which makes no sense...
Very extensive modification though.
....I like Rome 2's battles more than Shogun 2's...
The battles are actually pretty well optimized. I had a few weird moments where you got that choppy effect where dudes would just freeze than go for a second or two, but I think that was because the ambush map I had on had straining snow particle effects. Which looked really good.
The units (Especially Roman troops) DO stay in formation and they do keep it pretty well. Sometimes a little too well, like when they get attack on the left or right edge on the unit and they don't want to turn, or when they rout dudes and because of formation they sometimes don't fight other enemy units next to them. But, other than that, their formation works well and looks great
Animations look really good...and they work a little better than Shogun 2's more drawn out animations. Most of the 1v1 animation are short and concise, and the general attack animations, while they still look a little awkward and don't look like they connect to their target sometimes, are nice to see as one can really get a sense of multiple dudes ganging up on one guy. The formation based troops still keep formation pretty well despite the 1v1s.
I've gotten used to the white projectile trails. They still look dumb, but they are pretty helpful in tracking ranged attacks, especially with short ranged javelin units.
I still like the way Shogun 2 handled generals on the battlefield more. They still felt more valuable than the Rome 2 generals.
Enemy AI, at least in open field battles and unwalled town battles (I have yet to fight a walled battle attack) is actually improved from the start of Rome 2's release, and maybe even a little better than Shogun 2's.
Still don't like how the ballistae and the other siege units throw explosive ammunition. It made sense in Shogun 2, but in Roman times, they really should just be shooting big rocks or something.
The blood effects look better, although I have not seen one bit of gore. No decapitations, lost arms or anything.
I am really missing the walled siege experience, and I really wish they would allow the building of walls for all cities. Unwalled Syracuse and Jerusalem still doesn't make sense
I do like the culture and unit variety.
I do like Rome 2's battles more than Shogun 2's, but I still like FOTS's most of all. Then again, I'm biased towards musket and cannon based gameplay than sword and board, so it's not a surprise.
I still find the campaign gameplay by itself not as good as S2 or FOTS.
I like the new politics system. It makes logical sense and gives off a kind of Crusader Kings 2-lite vibe.
Still don't like the limited building spaces.
Still don't like how big the cities on the map are.
Still don't like that there's no turn-based economic growth. I have no reason to change taxes now because the opinion bonuses and maluses aren't that significant. I miss seeing my cities eventually tick up their values over time.
Still don't like limited armies.
Still don't like what they have done with generals.
Like I said, I do like the different variety of cultures and units. While similar, fighting Gauls is a slightly different experience from fighting Germans or Celt(iberian) tribes, and fighting Hellenic nations vs fighting barbarians or eastern factions do feel different from eachother.
I do now like the agents. I kind of felt that they were useless before.
I do like how they've really tuned down squalor and food consumption bonuses. The food consumption bonuses that are there make you specialize regions if you want to have a high tier building in them.
I don't know, there's something off about this campaign that makes me like it less than Shogun 2's. There's something else that I can't put my finger on besides what I said that I don't like.
However, I will rescind my statement that Rome 2 is a sub-par game. It has now been developed and patched in such a way that it is a very enjoyable experience. It's still not as good as Medieval 2 or Fall of the Samurai.
I'll need to play more siege battles to test them though. They're the only thing I haven't experienced in Emperor edition.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention THE UI STILL SUCKS! (Compared to S2 or MED2)
Worth being specific - everything but Rome II is on sale for 75% off.
Attila's okay, but it mostly makes me wish they had chosen Genghis instead. The Mongol advance would be an excellent focus for a Total War campaign.
Really? I run it through the primary game.
I had no idea you could play it standalone. What about Rese of the Samurai?
I mean it looks good. The new seige, city, and re-added family interactions are all good. Great, even.
I just don't care about the setting.
I hope some of the stuff gets added to Rome 2, like they did with FoTS -> Shogun 2. The devs hinted at sending the family interactions back.
RotS was an expansion for which you needed Shogun II, FotS was an expandalone that you could buy and run seperately without owning Shogun II. If you owned both S2 and FotS, they integrate.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
Mongols were in Medieval II, and they had their own expansion in Shogun as well...
Was just about to post this, this is exactly what it is.
Apparently, due to the global climate change at the time, there is a snow line that will, over years, progress farther south. That's neat.
As for Rome 2 DLC get the blood one. Also I like the greek states pack, because Sparta (and Athens). Dont have any of the other packs. None of them interested me.
Eh. I think I'll sit Attila out. Not hot on the setting, kinda close to Rome 2 for my liking, and nothing about the gameplay looks like a real draw. A shame.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I think that's a new city model.
I think it would be interesting if you could play as the Ostrogoths and upon taking Rome you could choose an option to dethrone their current leader and take any other land that they had left. I wonder if one could play as the Franks... Although that would be I think a century early.
I think I'll wait for a sale.
Did the Romans use crossbows at this time?
I would also like to know this. I currently have the Blood pack and the Greek States pack.
I've had fun with 'Hannibal at the Gates', it's a smaller map and I like the faction/unit additions (I've played a near complete campaign as the Lusitani, I am a quarter Portuguese so I'm probably biased though lol). I'm also personally very interested in the second Punic war itself, so if you've ever read Livy or are into that time period it's well worth the couple bucks.
On the other hand, I've only heard negative comments about the "Caesar in Gaul" DLC, which is a shame because I'm a huge fan of Caesar's Gallic Wars Commentaries, but apparently there isn't much in the way of new content unless you're a fan of the Gallic factions which do get new units (though I always thought the Galatians were interesting), as well there have been a lot of complaints about the mid/end game civil war mechanics associated with the CiG campaign which have held me back from buying it so far
Nomadic Tribes are interesting if you're into cavalry although playing as a horde of horse archers = a ton of micromanagement during battles which gets annoying although the Massagetae get some nice heavy shock cav. You can already play as Parthia with their decent cavalry roster though in vanilla so your mileage may vary
I just bought the Beast pack so can't give much hand's on info although, you do get 10 units for $0.74 which seems pretty good. The main negativity from TWII forums was that apparently several of the units were already hidden in vanilla files and it seemed like they cut some units out from release to sell as DLC (specifically the armored camels). Most of the units are for Eastern factions (Egypt and Parthia) but there are also a good bit of mercenary units as well which are for all factions controlling certain areas. Epirus and Gallic factions also get war dogs, if you liked using the Roman war dogs (always nice for taking out ranged units)
I haven't jumped on Pirates and Raiders yet as most of the commentary I've seen has been that the factions are a bit thin in terms of unit rosters. It does bulk up available mercenaries in Thracia/Dacia/Illyria though, and if you ever saw Spartacus and wanted to play as Thracians then it's a must of course. I would say it's definitely not worth $8, but $2? Eh, maybe
As far as I know, all of the DLC units are part of the main download - your purchase of the DLC just unlocks them for you. This way you can fight matches against other players in MP who have DLCs that you don't. If they've been in there from the start, that might just mean that they've been planned as DLC all along, and were finished, but marketing decided on a different release schedule.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
No I mean the armored camel model files were found by modders as part of the original 1.0 release, you're right that DLC gets released in updates; like I said almost all of the backlash I've seen has come from TWII forums and it's more of a perception like the backlash over certain horse armor DLC. I really don't care, just saying that's the main criticism I've seen against the Beasts DLC, not saying it's justified or anything. I think you're 100% spot on btw in terms of what actually went on
EDIT: Btw, speaking of DLC, Creative Assembly has said on forums that they will continue to run a New Content Team for Rome II, so while the new features of Attila won't be coming to Rome II, there should be more new Rome II DLC and patches coming down the road at least until the 2015 release of Attila
source: http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/138184-Any-Chance-of-Retro-fitting-Rome-II?s=4414f9c5e5785c6a49bd18f0309c77b3&p=1221488&viewfull=1#post1221488
honestly though Octavian's campaign is the best and most polished, though, and that's free.
And agreed about Atilla. The gameplay improvements don't seem significant enough and timeline is too similar to what we just played. They should have gone more medieval and make the most of the large Rome 2 map.
Or just make Empire 2. Please? No? Ok.
I also want a late Renaissance one.
What do you call when "Total War: Dark Ages" doesn't work?
A Black Screen.
Late renaissance would be fantastic. It's a great period that has barely any exposure, and saw massive changes in society, technology, and military doctrine.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.