Rome II - How psyched are you?

Recommended Videos

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
aguspal said:
As usual, I didnt even heard about it.


Thats my care level. LOL.

EDIT: Oh its a game from the Total Shit... I mean Total War series... ya... I tried that game once. Didnt exactly liked it. Moving on...
*didn't

*hear

*That's

*like


... Moving on:




Not played one since Medieval 2, predominantly because I've not actually got a computer or laptop capable of playing any since Medieval 2, however seeing as my current laptop is dying and due for an upgrade, I may splurge and get a new PC as well for the house.

Also, I recently bought a house, which needs a PC, left mine at my mothers because she uses it for work, and minesweeper.

So, yeah, looking forward to getting back into the series - I think in terms of battlefield gameplay the original Rome was my favourite, Medieval 2 got better with patches and a bit of modding, but stuff like getting the Cavalry to charge properly should have been included in the first release in my opinion.

Looking forward to taking my Iceni to the gates of Rome itself (of course, Brigantes would be better, but they're unlikely to be a playable faction, so the Iceni will do).
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
Hammeroj said:
DoomyMcDoom said:
I never saw it as an argument against me. What you said about owning the game has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of criticisms about scale, in much the same way just because someone's finished film school doesn't make their opinion of film all that valuable as a default. What matters is the argument, and you seem to have next to nothing to say as a rebuttal to the idea that Shogun 2 features a relatively small scale, instead resorting to non-sequitur statements about who owns what game.

Now, again, you may not see it as an issue, maybe indeed prefer it, and I have zero problems with that, what I do have problems with, though, is you pretending like the actual, tangible scale of the game is far bigger in something like Rome or Medieval. We are talking about a pretty objective property of the game, and one that doesn't go away simply because you own it. If somebody doesn't appreciate the game taking place in one country with 6 near-identical factions, it's seriously presumptuous and annoying to try to portray that opinion illegitimate simply because the person may - may - not have bought the game, even when again, buying it does nothing to alleviate the objective truth that is the relatively small scale.
I apologize for the messy approach I have been taking, what I mean to say is, that although the number of distinct factions, the technicalities of it only being one nation, are smaller in scale, I found that although the overall unit variety may be smaller there are many many differences between clans in shogun 2 that make up for the lacking in unit variety, take for instance the Ikko Ikki they "could" use just the same tactics as everyone else, but due to their religious differences, and the rather violent affect it tends to have on other clans, and due to their basic peasant units being greater in number per squad by 30 men, and due to unlike other clans, which when they use a monk to incite unrest and start revolutions in enemy towns, rather than ending up with a neutral rebel army spawning attacking and turning the province into a neutral rebel province, they spawn a group of rebels under the flag of the Ikko Ikki, when they take(if they manage to) the town in that province it is owned by your clan, along with all of the units in the army spawned, meaning that if you want to play effectively as that clan you end up using peasants and warrior monks almost exclusively, and almost no samurai, due to your clan essentially being an aggressive peasantry focused religious order, and that's just one of the clans with interesting mechanics, not to mention the differences in the dlc, which change the fundamental structure of the campaign, including in the last dlc the ability to directly control certain units(gattling guns), giving it a variety one wouldn't expect from just being Japan, not to mention the inclusion of religious reform to Christianity, and the advantages and disadvantages that can bring to your clan depending on the overall dynamic of the other clans and their relationships with you, so even though it is only japan, with the available number of options, the naval combat which is changed greatly by the final dlc as well, and the way the units interact, allowing for a different flavour of strategy than other total war games, the relatively small scope of it, as expanded as it is to allow for the landscape to have all of the detail that they can have in it(allowing for different uses of terrain for advantages in your campaign), feels a lot larger than one might expect it to, I would say that unless your ONLY draw to a total war title is to have as many different unique units in it as you can, it's definitely worth a try, and doesn't deserve to be overlooked entirely.

Slow down there. Nobody said anything even remotely to the extent of the possibility of 10 guys beating hundreds. Underneath the visuals there is still the number based part of the game, with all the rolls and damage, armor and morale stats that go with it, and nobody ever said otherwise.

how the battles look (and possibly how long they take) with a mo-cap approach to the animation as opposed to having simpler attack/defend/death animations. The reality is that most, if not all, combat animations in Shogun 2 (also seems to be the case in Rome 2) are done with two characters acting and reacting 1v1. What your backstab scenario is is basically the ability of units to occasionally switch targets. That's it.

The simple fact of the matter is that because of this system, 60-70% of the individual soldiers who could be visibly fighting are going to be standing around doing nothing because they have no target. Unless you start attempting to animate 1v2/3/4 fights, which is unfeasible to the highest degree.
I can see your point there now, I misunderstood you apparently, no real argument there, it all depends on a preference for visuals I guess.

I do however think that a lot of people give shogun 2 a pass just thinking that it's "a bunch of the same units, and thus all the clans play the same, with no real unit variety, on a tiny map." when really, it has a lot of underlying complexity, and japan is really not that tiny when you look at how it's scaled in shogun 2, also unlike how in empires, or medievil total war where you NEED to have a ton of different nations to have the kind of diplomacy/warfare/crazy shit happening with all different cultures clashing dynamic, shogun 2 does the same sort of thing by using feudal japan's clan dynamic quite well, I would suggest that those who pass it by should give it a shot sometime, they may like it more than they think they will.
 

bl4ckh4wk64

Walking Mass Effect Codex
Jun 11, 2010
1,277
0
0
Wow, it seems like I'm in the majority when I say I liked Empire and Napoleon over the entire rest of the Total War series. I mean, yeah siege towers, but on the other hand there's line battles and artillery! I'm sort of looking forward to Rome 2 just so I can give that time period another chance.
 

Coffeejack

New member
Oct 1, 2012
350
0
0
I think I may have some sort of Caesar complex, because although I am undeniably shit at games like this, I find myself drawn to and fascinated by them. Maybe it's time to learn?

That, and I love the Romans. Hard bastards.
 

Pink Gregory

New member
Jul 30, 2008
2,296
0
0
It's far off in the future for me; I've hardly touched Empire and Napoleon yet, despite owning them...don't think I've ever finished a campaign on Rome, to be honest. I think the first time my save got corrupted as I was sweeping across Egypt as the Brutii, and the second time I became annoyed with sieging cities with about 1-4 units inside, because the AI spread itself too thin.

Then again, Rome could seriously do with an upgrade, playing Medieval 2 and then Rome again made me long for some of the nuances on the strategic layer.