Rome II : Total War

[Nerraw]

I still remember one time in Rome where I defended a Gaul village with one single company of spearmen. I was attacked by 4-5 companies of cavalry so I just set up formation in one of the alleys they had to go through. They just kept sending everything down that alley and I just kept killing everything. That was the point at which I realized that the AI in the game might not be the best ever.

[Sy]

I still remember one time in Rome where I defended a Gaul village with one single company of spearmen. I was attacked by 4-5 companies of cavalry so I just set up formation in one of the alleys they had to go through. They just kept sending everything down that alley and I just kept killing everything. That was the point at which I realized that the AI in the game might not be the best ever.

city defense, especially in rome and medieval 2, is often extremely easy to score heroic victories with
a pretty much generally good tactic when outnumbered is to simply retreat back to the town center, ignoring the walls, and set up your infantry in a semi-circle-like formation, so whenever one of them charges into your center units, you can take them from both flanks. that's pretty much instant moral shatter, move back into position, repeat on each unit that comes down the street. three heavy infantry units can often take on full armies that way and still not lose more than half their men.

[Airlick]

that's the strategic ai though which actually has no connection to the tactical ai. and at least i personally don't mind the "cheating" on the campaign map too much, since it is way less obvious and kinda needed to balance out you winning the majority of battles already, even before any strategic superiority even comes into play.

sure it would be nice if the enemy would play so well strategically that no arbitrary advantage would be needed, but a bonus to income and stuff like that is much less of an immersion breaker than the tactical ai sending their general right into the front of your heavy spear infantry, before their own infantry is even in missile range, or than half their ships waiting patiently in line until i've dealt with each of the ones in front of them.

I'm aware of that. But the highest 2 difficulties in Shogun 2 were pretty much impossible to finish, since all factions around the player were instantly declaring war on them, all the while getting the bonus income and increased morale in battles. I mean, Shogun 2 really improved both tactical and strategical AI, to the point that the handicap is getting less and less needed, on high difficulties at least. Even the sieges got a lot better, but it was more because of the japanese fortifications style, there were no narrow passages to really abuse heavy infantry.

I hope they do expand on Shogun 2 AI and manage to improve sieges even further, but I'm still more concerned about that handicap than anything else. I was able to finish all TW games on highest difficulty with any given faction - up to Shogun 2, where even very hard difficulty was extremely hard for me.

[SirRobin]

I'm happy that its just two months away. With similar specs to Shogun II my rig should be able to run it well enough. Still the map does look odd to me. Those cities are so freaking big, compared to the rest of the terrain.

[Sy]

I'm aware of that. But the highest 2 difficulties in Shogun 2 were pretty much impossible to finish, since all factions around the player were instantly declaring war on them, all the while getting the bonus income and increased morale in battles.

i never tried the the highest, but i only had major problems on hard on one of several playthroughs.

I mean, Shogun 2 really improved both tactical and strategical AI

in comparison to empire, yes, but that was really mostly because empire was terrible. i think that was even quite a bit worse than medieval 2. the example with the general charging into the front of my spear units was from shogun 2, and i saw it happen several times, along with some other stupid things. and while the actual naval ai seemed fine to me, the hitboxes and pathing of the ships was incredibly unrealistic and glitchy, especially on release.

Even the sieges got a lot better, but it was more because of the japanese fortifications style, there were no narrow passages to really abuse heavy infantry.

agreed for the most part, but there were two major problems i had with sieges in shogun 2, both actually favoring the attacker:
first, with bow units that had higher range than those of the defenders (bow monks or daikyu samurai), it was pretty easy to kill the entire defending army without losing a single man. the defending ai simply never left their castle, even in situations where it would've brought them a victory instead of a crushing defeat.
second, when part of the battlements was destroyed, it could kill almost an entire unit standing there as if there was some kind of huge explosion. regardless of whether it just slowly burned down or took a single normal iron cannon ball, the moment it reached 100% damage, everyone behind that section of the wall died and was thrown into the air. as a result, if the attacker had a few long range siege weapons, the defenders archers would actually take significantly more losses when manning the battlements in comparison to just standing a few meters behind them, without any wooden walls to protect them.

the map does look odd to me. Those cities are so freaking big, compared to the rest of the terrain.

hmm, but i think those big ones are only the province capitals, right? kind of hubs responsible for several regions and smaller cities around them, if i got that right.

[Deleted]

I'm aware of that. But the highest 2 difficulties in Shogun 2 were pretty much impossible to finish, since all factions around the player were instantly declaring war on them, all the while getting the bonus income and increased morale in battles.

They were completely possible, but you had to have a plan in advance and being successful relied on cheesing the AI wherever possible and generally being very aggressive. They're a more "game-y" alternative to the normally reasonably slow-paced and laid back campaigns. Personally I dislike them but I think having that difficulty mode is a good thing.

[SirRobin]

hmm, but i think those big ones are only the province capitals, right? kind of hubs responsible for several regions and smaller cities around them, if i got that right.

It is the province capitals that take up the most terrain. The capturable settlements are smaller than the capitols. Though it looks like they can grow a lot too. But they still take up a lot more room on the strategic map than I've seen in any other Total War game. Probably a compromise to make their improvements and upgrades more visible than they were in Shogun 2 and Empire.

Still looks odd, and sounds a bit off when they say its their biggest map yet but so much terrain is chewed up by urban sprawl.

---------- Post added 2013-06-25 at 12:11 AM ----------

Another bit I'll miss from Rome is having families compete politically and militarily. Here it looks like they are mostly political opponents until the civil war is triggered.

[Ettan]

Already pre ordered it.
Planning to really sink my tentacles into rome 2.
Going to get back into high end competitive play.
Will be nice to get back in touch with that community again.

I probably have to buy a new pc tho

[Airlick]

They were completely possible, but you had to have a plan in advance and being successful relied on cheesing the AI wherever possible and generally being very aggressive. They're a more "game-y" alternative to the normally reasonably slow-paced and laid back campaigns. Personally I dislike them but I think having that difficulty mode is a good thing.

Exactly, you had to cheese and abuse all bugs and AI mistakes. That's not really strategy. What I meant is that they were absolutely impossible to finish with normal playstyle, and just not making any mistakes. I guess it's fine that they exist, but they shouldn't count as a different difficulty level, but a completely different mode. The way it is suggests the players that they are too bad at the game to complete that difficulty, while the reality is that the players may just be refusing to abuse bugs.

[Sy]

It is the province capitals that take up the most terrain. The capturable settlements are smaller than the capitols. Though it looks like they can grow a lot too. But they still take up a lot more room on the strategic map than I've seen in any other Total War game. Probably a compromise to make their improvements and upgrades more visible than they were in Shogun 2 and Empire.

Still looks odd, and sounds a bit off when they say its their biggest map yet but so much terrain is chewed up by urban sprawl.

i wouldn't mind a few of these over sized cities in between, i really like the visual upgrades and expansion.

and i always take statements like "biggest map in any total war game!" with a hefty grain of salt: those are marketing statements and not much else. it sounds impressive, but is pretty much completely meaningless in cases like the campaign map. making some models a little smaller and cutting movement points of armies/navies/agents in half would effectively double the "size" of the map.

of course there are other related factors, like numbers of regions/cities, but those do not directly translate into a "bigger" map. and i kinda doubt the map will be bigger than empire when it comes to movement ranges and the like, at least when including oceans, which were an important part of most empire campaigns.

Another bit I'll miss from Rome is having families compete politically and militarily. Here it looks like they are mostly political opponents until the civil war is triggered.

i like what little i've seen from the new system. i'm playing the original rome again at the moment, and the other two families actually have next to no impact on my own conquest and i'm not able to break the alliance until the game tells me i am now allowed to because stuff. so i'm hoping having to balance becoming more powerful while keeping the others contempt will make the conflict more interesting, especially early on.
also, the same system could very easily add depth to pretty much any faction (think different germanic warrior clans) whereas the old one only exists because there are effectively three and a half factions chained together.

I probably have to buy a new pc tho

it's supposed to have the same minimum system requirements as shogun 2 (although whether or not that holds true in practise will of course have to be seen).

The way it is suggests the players that they are too bad at the game to complete that difficulty, while the reality is that the players may just be refusing to abuse bugs.

i very much doubt that was an intentional development decision though, it's just how it happened to turn out because of some flaws the game has. which means they will at least try to change it in rome 2.

[Nirawen]

Haven't really got into a Total War since Medieval 2 but relatively excited after seeing the E3 footage etc. My life will be complete if they bring out a DLC pack that lets me conquer the known world as Wales like with the Kingdoms expansion .

[Deleted]

Another bit I'll miss from Rome is having families compete politically and militarily. Here it looks like they are mostly political opponents until the civil war is triggered.

But this is much more historically accurate. Total War has never been a series about historical accuracy really, but splitting a faction into four when no real division exists is a pretty big change for the sake of gameplay (and I would argue that it didn't change the gameplay for the better anyway).

[Verdugo]

it's supposed to have the same minimum system requirements as shogun 2 (although whether or not that holds true in practise will of course have to be seen).

As long as I will be able to run it, I recently reinstalled Shogun 2 and it keeps crashing on me on splash screen.

[SirRobin]

As long as I will be able to run it, I recently reinstalled Shogun 2 and it keeps crashing on me on splash screen.

What's your specs? Do you have an AMD 4100 cpu? I fired up Shogun II last night and played some Rise to reassure myself that it still worked. Though I prefer Fall the most of the three campaigns. I won't be able to afford an upgrade till tax time next year. So my rig being able to run it well enough is an important go/no-go checkpoint for me.

As far as the Julii/Scipii/Brutii in Rome I? It always seemed odd to me too but I did like having multiple Roman factions. Of course the mods I spent the most time playing Rome I with, like Europa Barborum, all changed Rome to one faction.

[Sy]

I fired up Shogun II last night and played some Rise to reassure myself that it still worked. Though I prefer Fall the most of the three campaigns.

i never tried rise, it seemed to similar to vanilla to me, and the limited unit variety even more so.

as for fall, i definitely preferred the campaign part of it. the map felt a little 'bigger' and the railway and naval bombardment were nice additions, imo.

i mostly prefer the more classic land battles without gunpowder units, though. the battles seem more static and the unit variety is smaller and has less impact (and the rifle units in total war always felt too weak to me, or to clunky to control).
also, while i liked seasons and their effects lasting several rounds, having the entire campaign last about two decades pretty much entirely defeated the purpose of having a family tree, at least outside of adoption. felt pretty weird when a newborn took like twenty rounds to become one year older.

As far as the Julii/Scipii/Brutii in Rome I? It always seemed odd to me too but I did like having multiple Roman factions.

i like having some really strong rivals even in end-game, but it doesn't feel like one big roman empire to me. hopefully the potential civil war of the new system will provide that challenge while still making it play and feel as one powerful faction.
such challenges can also come through something like the barbarian invasions in the rome xpac and medieval 2, though.

[SirRobin]

That is my issue with most strategy games. How to keep the endgame interesting when I've already clobbered everyone. The civil war aspect of Rome I was an interesting option though it never seemed to work very well. Hopefully making the families mostly just political rivals, until the civil war, will work better.

I would love to take charge of a family other than the Julii and crush their "Caesar."

[Faldric]

That is my issue with most strategy games. How to keep the endgame interesting when I've already clobbered everyone. The civil war aspect of Rome I was an interesting option though it never seemed to work very well. Hopefully making the families mostly just political rivals, until the civil war, will work better.

I would love to take charge of a family other than the Julii and crush their "Caesar."

Yeah but that problem is as it would be in the real world. When you dominate 90% of the map and resources its over. The only way around that are victory conditions different from total domination.

[Sy]

That is my issue with most strategy games. How to keep the endgame interesting when I've already clobbered everyone. The civil war aspect of Rome I was an interesting option though it never seemed to work very well. Hopefully making the families mostly just political rivals, until the civil war, will work better.

i'm hoping for a combination of civil conflicts and properly timed barbarian invasions (fighting war elephants with frickin' cannons mounted on them, anyone? that was ofc medieval 2, but still..)

I would love to take charge of a family other than the Julii and crush their "Caesar."

Yeah but that problem is as it would be in the real world. When you dominate 90% of the map and resources its over. The only way around that are victory conditions different from total domination.

actually, in reality there would be many increasingly severe problems with expanding an empire that big in pre-modern times. but most of these problems are hard to implement into a game in a way that isn't just incredibly annoying and/or boring.

imagine not having any map information in 'real time', but delayed by how long it takes an informant to travel from the location in question to your seat of power, and then having any orders you give delayed by that same time again before they reach the units/agents they were meant for - with the same delay again before you know if the orders even properly reached their targets, and then yet again for any corrections you might need to take.
and that's not even taking into account that these orders wouldn't be automatically followed in detail, but would only reach someone in charge who might very well pursue their own agenda for power or wealth (or just plain survival) regardless of what would be best for the empire as a whole.

the same goes for tactical battles, to a degree, which means tactics are almost entirely set before the battle starts, with countless different potential scenarios taken into account in advance, and then executed by several dozens of individually thinking and acting officers. any changes that were made, and information about things that happen on the front, would need to be sent with messengers who may or may not make it to their destination.

and that's just one issue

[SirRobin]

actually, in reality there would be many increasingly severe problems with expanding an empire that big in pre-modern times. but most of these problems are hard to implement into a game in a way that isn't just incredibly annoying and/or boring.

imagine not having any map information in 'real time', but delayed by how long it takes an informant to travel from the location in question to your seat of power, and then having any orders you give delayed by that same time again before they reach the units/agents they were meant for - with the same delay again before you know if the orders even properly reached their targets, and then yet again for any corrections you might need to take.
and that's not even taking into account that these orders wouldn't be automatically followed in detail, but would only reach someone in charge who might very well pursue their own agenda for power or wealth (or just plain survival) regardless of what would be best for the empire as a whole.

the same goes for tactical battles, to a degree, which means tactics are almost entirely set before the battle starts, with countless different potential scenarios taken into account in advance, and then executed by several dozens of individually thinking and acting officers. any changes that were made, and information about things that happen on the front, would need to be sent with messengers who may or may not make it to their destination.

and that's just one issue

I would love for a game to properly implement the C3, command, control, communications, "fog" faced during such time periods. Don't recall a game, off hand, that has done it very well if they even try.

[Sy]

I would love for a game to properly implement the C3, command, control, communications, "fog" faced during such time periods. Don't recall a game, off hand, that has done it very well if they even try.

i can't really see it working in a game like total war. the game would have to be built specifically around those mechanics.

for example, real time battles would be replaced with making plans for as many different situations as possible, that are then executed automatically.
strategically, the ai would have to be very good at managing stuff by itself but with specific orders ("make sure citizens are content, make sure borders are appropriately secured and scouted, try to improve diplomatic relations with faction xy but don't agree to long-term commitments") while stilling adding it's own individual, 'human' side to it.