The Total War: Rome 2 Thread

Recommended Videos

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,569
0
0
Played through the tutorial and a few turns of a campaign. Some thoughts...

1. Some general UI angst. While much of the Total War experience remains intact, especially on the combat maps, there's enough little changes that are obtuse enough that I had a surprising amount of "new game" vexation trying to figure out what was what. It's possible this is just first day learning curve, but there's a niggling feeling there that the UI isn't as elegant or intuitive as one might've hoped.

2. Combat does resolve a bit too quickly. It's not as bad as Shogun 2, where units seemed to melt instantly against their foil inside that game's ludicrous rock/paper/scissors balancing, but it's considerably faster than Medieval 2, which I felt got the pace about right. I'd have been fine with slightly faster, but this is a LOT faster. It's not so bad that I can't live with it, but I'll miss those big, boiling melees that dragged on for what felt like hours. They gave real weight to the combat. I'll also say that javelins at least traverse their firing arc way too quickly. They feel more like ballista bolts. Blink and you'll miss the volley.

3. Unit placards are hideously stylized and way too large. They also don't show unit numbers, relying instead on a decreasing health bar that is tougher to track at a glance. Thankfully they can be turned off, but that robs you of some fairly vital information. I'd love to see these addressed in a mod or a patch so we can A) scale the size and placement of them and B) choose to replace the health bar with numerical info.

4. Campaign and battle maps are pretty enough, but most certainly not preview quality. I toyed with some settings to give myself what I thought would be my best bet...the game will auto-set you to settings you really shouldn't be on, and then scale you down without actually telling you, so I decided to manually tweak and settled on "very high" for most things, with medium shadows and ultra textures. It's reasonably handsome, but it's not anything special. Fortunately 90% of the combat takes place from an aerial view anyway as you move and re-align troops.

5. Holy shitballs there are a LOT of neutral factions. No grey armies this time, there's a motherfucking LOAD of neutral factions. Watching them speed by during the AI turns was boggling. There must be 100 of them. I've also heard there's something on the order of 700 unique units in the game, compared to 40 or so in Shogun 2, with huge variation between factions. Big thumbs up, although the turn length will probably trend towards "horrifying" in long campaigns.

6. Load times are nice and brisk, a huge improvement over Shogun 2's interminable waits.

7. Sound assets are nice. Music was a little underwhelming.

8. Family trees seem to have been streamlined out of the game, and like Shogun 2 generals are now a set of player determined level up rewards instead of a set of randomly/genetically determined traits ala Medieval 2. Some players might like this, I feel it robs the game of significant RPG and AAR potential, and leeches away a lot of character. Big thumbs down.

9. Seasons are now gone from the campaign map, as turns are now 1 year long instead of 3 months long. You miss the slight visual changes for winter, along with some of the interesting tactical/logistics concerns of winter, and you also end up with your characters aging 4x faster than previously...another blow to RP and storytelling.

10. City infrastructure has been made significantly more complex, at least from the Medieval 2 era, and more than mildly confusing. There also appears to be a political system in place which is equally confusing (and if reviews are to be trusted, more than a little janky).

11. The map seems a little more "gamey", with provinces larger, and routes between cities deliberately piped through mountainous chokepoints. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.

12. You can no longer recruit armies distinct from generals, so no more randomly roaming mini stacks. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen. I'm leaning "slightly bad" as it's a little weird.

13. Your armies now have fanciful names, which is kind of fun. Not sure if you can give units fanciful names as well. I rather suspect not. Pity if so, as it would generate attachment to have a named unit get killed, as opposed to Random Dudebros #5.

14. AI is still pretty typical Total War...not too bright. It's not showing signs of disastrous/broken stupidity yet, like standing gormlessly at the bottom of a hill while I rain missiles on their defenseless heads. But there's still time.

Will write more as I play more, assuming I have something of value to add. So far so good, I'd say. There's definitely some disappointing elements here, but there's a lot to like too, and the game feels considerably less arcade and streamlined into oblivion than Shogun 2 did...at least to me. I like it considerably more than the forums gave me call to believe I would, although perhaps slightly less than my hopes for the title pre-release based on marketing hype. There's a good foundation here for iteration through patches, expansions and mods.
 

ERaptor

New member
Oct 4, 2010
179
0
0
Im hoping for some fast Patch / Update Action on CA's part. But i have honestly no idea how their policy on this was perviously. I have hopes tough, since Rome 2 was really hyped. I think their not gonna risk too much bad mouthing because of Bugs and issues, and will patch accordingly. Well, at least i really really hope so. There are so many tiny things that could be fixed relatively quickly, and some cruicial other parts as well.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,156
0
0
My biggest gripe is the jacked up unit placement in the combat system. Previously, based on where your armies were on the campaign map you could tell which direction your reinforcements came from.

Imagine my surprise earlier when I had a reasonably small force attacked by a larger one. My initial placement was near the edge of the deployment line where I thought the reinforcements were likely to come from, away from an objective point.

Well, reinforcements came from waaay behind the enemy, took forever to get there, the objective point was taken by a group of archers, and the battle was a loss without a single shot being fired. Then my two armies scattered into the wind and got their asses handed to them individually.

Personally I don't think there should have been objective points outside of city defense, the mechanics they throw in just feel wonky.

Aside from that, the look and feel took me a while to get used to, not my favorite from a TW game, but after about 6 hours I guess they're functional.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
Haven't played it yet but I picked up a book to read because my proper rig died and I will have to play this on my backup for the time being. I honestly very much prefer the setting to Shogun.
One question for those of you who have played it: are there siege engines that can be effectively used against armies? Or do the ballistas suck like they did in three original Rome?
 

Eduku

New member
Sep 11, 2010
691
0
0
For those having performance issues, people in the Rome 2 forums have been testing out different things to try and figure out what's wrong, and the problems do seem to be at least partly driver related. Apparently Nvidia and AMD have been slow in releasing new drivers for the game, so I suspect in the next day or two they will release new drivers. And sometime in the next week or so, CA should have released a patch by then as well.
 

Subscriptism

New member
May 5, 2012
256
0
0
I have two complaints

1)More than once the AI had landed ships and just stood there on the shore while I shot them.
2)It takes 45-60 seconds at the end of every turn to cycle through all the factions, I don't need a medium sized coffee break every five minutes.

and one more bonus complaint that is of course universal to TW games, the AI can be pretty retarded.
 

SwagLordYoloson

New member
Jul 21, 2010
782
0
0
Sea Battles, wtf. The difficulty rating on the map is 100% win for me, Go into the battle and get absolutely rofl-stomped...
 

ERaptor

New member
Oct 4, 2010
179
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
New mechanic. Your general must be right next to those troops otherwise they run. No longer can you park your general in the corner and win the battle. If the general isn't in the thick of it, the Ais run when they get a little scuffled.
That would explain the Enemy routing so fast. As usual, the AI is often very eager to either keep the General uselessly behind the lines, or charge him into his death. Still, a Morale and HP Boost would benefit the Game greatly, the units die way too fast.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Not happy with it. All this hype on "cinematic" graphics and new textures, physics, blah......the game looks like arse, even on extreme settings, the FR drops like a horse turd and the gameplay just feels very...."sluggish" to me.

I can't say I'm happy with the overall experience so far.
 

ERaptor

New member
Oct 4, 2010
179
0
0
wooty said:
Not happy with it. All this hype on "cinematic" graphics and new textures, physics, blah......the game looks like arse, even on extreme settings, the FR drops like a horse turd and the gameplay just feels very...."sluggish" to me.

I can't say I'm happy with the overall experience so far.
Try applying Custom Settings. It seems the Game has issues with setting them automatically.
 

SwagLordYoloson

New member
Jul 21, 2010
782
0
0
Another thing, being able to use your armies as naval death stacks is soo overpowered. Enemy decides to turn entire army into navy, crushes my naval blockade. Sure, summoning sailors and triremes out of nowhere is historical.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
I can't play it. It looks awful, worse than Shogun 2, and the performance is really bad no matter what setting. Textures are bad and smudgey and setting shadows to "very high" turns them off! I've read the graphics problem is very common.

So now everyone has to wait on a patch
 

suitepee7

I can smell sausage rolls
Dec 6, 2010
1,273
0
0
weirdo8977 said:
I actually have a quick question. if I'm able to run Shogun 2 pretty well on high settings will i be able to run Rome 2 on decent settings?
the devs stated that they want rome 2 to run similar performance wise to shogun 2, so i'd say you'd be fine.

personally i haven't played a TW game since medieval, and its good to get back into it. i really like how environment makes an impact (mud slows down troops, hills block LoS) but its taking some getting used to. i really like how all units can now embark on sea to travel, so crossing short stretches of water no longer requires a fleet to do it, and i like having to have a general to command each army.

i hate ship battles though. not sure if it was me, or it was buggy, but my ships didn't do anything (yes they were battleships). they just stood next to enemy ships and died. so i'm gonna go ahead and autoresolve ship battles xD
 

Blaster395

New member
Dec 13, 2009
514
0
0
My favorite improvement is the inclusion of small settlements without walls to replace most siege battles. In every total war game previously you would play siege battles 80% of the time and siege battles, while ok for a bit of variety, were never quite as fun as open ground battles.

I prefer the way armies work now that they are tied to specific generals. It also means there are significantly less instances of AI campaign army placement stupidity. I actually lost the first settlement I captured as Rome on hard difficulty to an AI army after 2 turns, and had to recapture it. Combined with settlements having a relatively large amount of levies (especially once fully developed), this means you always have a reasonably fun battle when capturing anything. Contrast this to Shogun 2 where your typical siege meant killing a single samurai retainer unit with archers because the AI doesn't know how to defend its borders.
 

McKitten

New member
Apr 20, 2013
74
0
0
Provided you're not suffering from bugs, the game has pretty amazing performance. I tried it on an old AMD 2.8GHz quadcore with a 9800 GT and the benchmark got 41 FPS at medium settings.
The game does look like arse though, no matter what your settings are. It's not a question of performance it's design. For some reason they made everything look brown. Seriously, even the sky is brown. So it might run faster than Shogun 2, but it looks much worse.
Also, the interface is the crappiest i've seen since Skyrim.
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
932
0
0
Really happy with it so far.

The computer turn times on campaign mode are vastly shorter than what I was getting on Shogun 2 (but a couple of my friends with superior rigs are getting slow computer turn times so maybe that's just me).

Battles are so much more responsive. The sluggish response times to orders that haunted Shogun 2 seem to have been completely stamped out.

Graphics are fine, noticeably better than Shogun 2 but nothing groundbreaking, although I did find that the graphics looked nicer on "high" than on "extreme."

The addition of fog of war for real time battles is genius.

And it runs a hell of a lot smoother than Shogun 2 did.

Although I'm not a massive fan of the new interface, especially for the technology trees.
 

oplinger

New member
Sep 2, 2010
1,718
0
0
I'll toss in my two cents, but only because I have a semi-unique technical issue it seems.

First off the game is fantastic(relatively). I like most of the changes, and for a total war game the release here is definitely one of the better ones. I like the streamlines city management, and I like the massive variety of things in which I may use to murder people. It may not be the best thing ever right now, but I believe it -can- be.

Now, my technical issues have been minimal, but there are a few things worth noting for this game:

1. The system requirements are actually quite low, the game only uses two cores and only one gig of video memory (there is a checkbox for it to use more, but..still.)

2. It is a large and ambitious game, so I don't think it's worth asking for perfection.

However, the two main problems I have, are in coastal battles, all units(just the units, my framerate is fine) on the battle map stutter and become somewhat unresponsive, the path finding becomes horrible as sometimes boats that go to land spin in circles on the coast forever. I think this may be somewhat related to the dumb as shit AI. Though, you could argue the AI in all the total war games is kind of stupid. It seems as if when there is just so much going on, and there will be a lot going on, the AI takes the first hit. All of these things seem to be threaded through the CPU as well, the animations, the AI, etc. My GPU (HD6870) registers as a very manageable 18% utilization, and that is on extreme.

The other problem I seem to run in to is if I wait for better weather conditions the above problem appears in non-coastal battles, or is much worse. Which seems to be a problem other people are having.

As much as I love the game, I don't think I will be able to fully enjoy it until a patch. The game is still fun, and playable, there are just a few bumps in the road.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
613
0
0
I preordered it, downloaded it at snail pace and my computer... Refuses to run it properly. I think this laptop could be pretty borked.

A friend has an almost identical laptop (2gb more RAM and a core that is one generation up by benchmarks almost identically according to review website) and he is playing it on medium/high.

On the lowest settings I benchmarked at an average of 13.1 FPS. The game is simply unplayable. I really hope the new computer I am building (Almost purely for Rome. With Watch_Dogs being another game I am hyped for. Also, Video/photo editting.) will be able to run it properly.

It all looks pretty fucking good. From what I saw at least. Also, the friend I have who is playing it pretty much constantly, he is loving it.
 

oplinger

New member
Sep 2, 2010
1,718
0
0
Maiev Shadowsong said:
oplinger said:
I'll toss in my two cents, but only because I have a semi-unique technical issue it seems.

First off the game is fantastic(relatively). I like most of the changes, and for a total war game the release here is definitely one of the better ones. I like the streamlines city management, and I like the massive variety of things in which I may use to murder people. It may not be the best thing ever right now, but I believe it -can- be.

Now, my technical issues have been minimal, but there are a few things worth noting for this game:

1. The system requirements are actually quite low, the game only uses two cores and only one gig of video memory (there is a checkbox for it to use more, but..still.)

2. It is a large and ambitious game, so I don't think it's worth asking for perfection.

However, the two main problems I have, are in coastal battles, all units(just the units, my framerate is fine) on the battle map stutter and become somewhat unresponsive, the path finding becomes horrible as sometimes boats that go to land spin in circles on the coast forever. I think this may be somewhat related to the dumb as shit AI. Though, you could argue the AI in all the total war games is kind of stupid. It seems as if when there is just so much going on, and there will be a lot going on, the AI takes the first hit. All of these things seem to be threaded through the CPU as well, the animations, the AI, etc. My GPU (HD6870) registers as a very manageable 18% utilization, and that is on extreme.

The other problem I seem to run in to is if I wait for better weather conditions the above problem appears in non-coastal battles, or is much worse. Which seems to be a problem other people are having.

As much as I love the game, I don't think I will be able to fully enjoy it until a patch. The game is still fun, and playable, there are just a few bumps in the road.
You'll actually find that almost all modern games only use two cores. It seems absurd, but they've been genuine tests done. Not many games will touch anything over two cores.
I wouldn't say most, there are a fair amount that use quad core (there are even non-modern games that are capable of using 4 cores well) Most dual core games are console ports though.

This however is the same problem with GTA4 and LA Noir on PC, which isn't just because it's dual core. It's the fact that they thread everything through the CPU almost.

Being a PC exclusive, they could easily make it run on 4 cores. The methods and know how is out there, we've had quad cores since 2006. It's a poor excuse to just say "well no one else is doing it, so we won't either!" especially with all the asynchronous animations going on for literally -thousands- of things. Valve figured out this multicore thing for the HL2 episodes (special case I guess, they developed their very own method of multithreading for the source engine, see: Hybrid Threading) in 2007.

There is really no reason a game like this can't, or won't, use more than 2 cores.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
Sadly, I'll be sitting Rome 2 out until it has been heavily patched and the price has dropped. I've loved every TW game since Medieval 1, but my experience with Empire and Shogun 2 was that the game was nearly unplayable due to bad balance, bugs, and other issues near launch. Granted, these were definitely fixed over time, but I don't want to struggle with early pre-patch versions.

Also, don't ask me to buy a game early to give me access to two factions (Athens and Sparta) that frankly have no excuse not being in the base game at full price. Pre-purchasing a game should give me a DISCOUNT to the price, not access to stuff that should have been part of the main experience. Thanks Sega.