The Total War: Rome 2 Thread

[Saxnot]

Wrong. Enemy factions want nothing to do with you unless you give them the majority of your money. This may be due to the bugged power bar or because factions see themselves as stronger than what they are

right. This is related to the territories point. the diplomatic ai doesn't value gold very highly, so there's very little they consider to be of enough value to accept peace for. That said, opinion modifiers are much clearer, satrapies/vassals can be an interesting way to control conflict and expand your influence (when they're not taking up your core provinces) , and non-agression treaties finally provide a way of creating a peaceful relationschip with a neighbor without having to ally with them


Also wrong, ramming is not only bugged to shit, but if your ship is even a tiny bit smaller than another ship, getting rammed by the bigger ship is an insta kill. I might be ok with this if a ship had to build up speed, but right now they just love tap their way across the sea

Yes, bigger ships are very dangerous to small ships. that's how ramming should work. and a few small ships can easily take out a bigger ship by surrounding him and withering down the crew or ramming in sequence. I disagree that slightly smaller ships break too easily. only the raiding types of ships are really easy to break. the main problem is the freezing rams


Guessing you didn't play shogun 2 where they fixed the growth and actually had a decent tech tree. Now if I want to pick out what's most beneficial to me at the time I have to click the research button and then click through six different tabs. Shogun had one button. Who was the asshole who designed the backwards UI?

The pop growth system in shogun 2 was a joke. It wasn't a mechanic, just a question of keeping rice supply above 0. It had virtually no impact on the game.
I agree the tech tree is not as good as in S2, but it's better than in medieval II or Rome I. the point was in relation to those 2 games.


I agree this would be a good idea, except your allies will just blockade port cities and never take them, which means you can't attack the enemy without going through your ally first

Going through them? You can just move past them and get their help in the attack? anyhow, if the AI attempted to conquer any coastal cities you target, you might get very strange situations where your spanish allies go and conquer alexandria or something. that would not be better.


Agents are better, much better than ever before. where the agents (especialy the ninja) where perhaps a little too powerful in shogun 2, here they strike a very good balance between too much and too little effect on the campaign.

Champions can give 180xp a turn to armies fairly early in the game. This means full experience armies before you even have two provinces.

The training ability is broken. I assume this is an oversight, and will get patched. Again, i'm just talking about what i assume to be the core mechanics and intentional changes, not bugs and exploits. Otherwise, the agents work well.


Both of the above can be safely ignored throughout the game with little negative effect. This is probably a good thing as the game doesn't teach you how to get to these screens, even in the tutorial

Diplomacy has more effect in republic games, but i agree it could be given much more importance, so the game stays interesting during the lategame where you know you can crush everyone around you. As is, it's a nice but small mechanic. Confederacies are mainly there for flavour, i assume, but they can be interesting for the Averni and germans. it's less usefil for the Iceni


I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, it makes you think a bit more. On the other hand, its completely fucking artificial

It is artificial, inconvenient, vexing, and pointless. All it does is force you to recruit a bunch of ferrying generals whose only purpose is to have units to move around. All it made me think about is how CA managed to take something quite fundamental to how TW is played, and remove it for bad reasons.


This is because generals use end tier units and you can pick what unit you want them to be. More than one per army would make you even more overpowered

yes, but that's only true because it has become so easy to recruit generals. In previous games, you didn't have too many general units because you couldn't just recruit them. because you can in this game, you have to have this really artificial, weird change which makes it impossible to separate a singe stack once in enemy territory. a better solution would have been to relate the kind of units generals can be in to your tech level.


Not that it matters, considering the building upgrades are screwed. A level four farm needs a level four sacred grove to ensure no negative effects. You get a net gain of 0 food and 0 public order from this, etc

I agree. why does a military barracks create squalor, exactly? half you choices in buildings are now determined by need for public order and food, making the strategic element in choosing your buildings much more shallow. It doesn't even help the economy system, as i still manage to break it every time after about 30 turns

I'm gonna go through and tell you about the wrong parts in bold.

 

[JLML]

I am mostly pleased with it, just with there would be more 'unique' factions to choose from. Mostly culture-wise. As it stands right now, the only factions that aren't Hellenistic are Rome, the Barbarian ones (that are way too similar, Germanic tribes in the east and Celtic tribes in the British Isles had very little in common) and Parthia. Even Carthage counts as Hellenistic in the game, which means they have a lot more in common than I'd prefer, mostly on the campaign map.

Also, I find the voice acting to be. . . well, whilst not bad as such, the fake accents and weird mispronunciations are just annoying. Exceptions being the Roman and Greek (not Hellenistic, but actual Greek) factions speaking regular English.

These things come together to make it quite annoying for me, who wants to play as a non-Hellenistic faction (other than Rome).

Actually, it just feels as if the game is designed completely around playing as Rome. Sure, Rome is kind of the thing with the game, but compared to the first game the alternatives just feel way less fleshed out.


Still, overall it's a good game and I will be enjoying it for quite some time, I'm sure. Extra bonus that I haven't had any issues with the bugs/optimisation issues as of yet (except a minor thing with waiting and rain slowing down everything, but is fixed by any load (like changing settings) so yeah).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Actually, it just feels as if the game is designed completely around playing as Rome. Sure, Rome is kind of the thing with the game, but compared to the first game the alternatives just feel way less fleshed out.

Just wait until you realize that Rome can recruit pretty much every unit in the game via their auxiliary barracks, and can use these units in multiplayer too. This includes units that are pretty faction specific such as elephants and horse archers.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

its odd you say this because a faction usually can only make 1 agents depending on the size of the faction.

Family tree is a bit meh, I prefer what you have stated about them aquiring random traits though actions but at the same time the system of branching out into 3 different styles Authority/command/zeal is interesting.

The thing that I hate the most is the AI turns take way too damn long, and more importantly the seige flag has such tiny amount of capture Exploit time limit as a player you can rush the town, take the flag and any reinforcements will not be able to get there in time resulting in their defeat. You can just then send your cavalry in continue Game mode, to mop up their automaticly retreating forces and consider that faction defeated. It works both ways two and in conjuction with the rediculous waiting time for the Ai Between turns you have to wait even longer to take back the city.

Oh and it seems to me there is one set of rules for the player and another for the AI, the Ai noticbly never take into account food stores and are always starving, diseased and have issues which is really annoying when you find a faciton camping with 3 full stacks of units starving wondering how the hell they are even still exsisting after all that time.

Ah, interesting. I'm guessing that's Radious' campaign mod then, as I've had up to 5-6 at a given time and never tried to push the outer limit of what I can have. Stuck at 3 armies though.

I do like the ability to level up in three different directions, I just wish there was more distinction. Like, I wish taking Zeal early meant VERY different "late game" abilities than, say, taking authority. I seem to unlock the same choices as each general levels up. The only truly distinctive one is the one they start with (same with agents...I had a "poet" scout, which was pretty neat).

Victory flags are a problem. To some degree I've enjoyed that the AI no longer hides on a far flung corner of the map when I outnumber them, necessitating a long slog to even engage, but it does remove the ability for the player to do the same, thus stealing away the chance for some epic underdog wins. It feels like a multiplayer feature that somehow bungled its way into single player and has done little to improve the game.

Ha...yep, I've noticed exactly that. My primary ally has three stacks of units cheerfully starving outside their capital. They've done noting all game but stand there, starving. Alas, this is something of a side grade on even Stainless Steel M2, where the AI would stand an army outside town and just shuffle units in and out of it in perpetuity. Total War AI has always been a little bit...special ed.

Without a doubt the game feels rushed, and the fact they didnt provide a auto-detect graphic settings for a game. that is commonly accociated with high end Pc's is further proof. The forest fps testing is not auto-detect its a very very rushed alterntive.

Yup. Rushed is an understatement, even, this feels like it was barely tested at all. Without mods it was barely even playable for me. I still think there's a nice foundation here...much moreso than I did with Shogun 2. But it needs a LOT of work.

 

[themilo504]

My 2 biggest problems are minor factions wiping out major factions, and the insane load time between turns, beside those pretty big problems I?m having a blast.

 

[kingthrall]

@bloatedguppy

no the agents are determined by the amount of provinces you own and your reputation its not a mod. You start off being able to hire 1 of each type and then it increses to 2/2/2(spy,shieldmaiden,witch) or whatever it is. you can check by going to your hire tab and it will say 1/1 ect. No mods

 

[BloatedGuppy]

@bloatedguppy

no the agents are determined by the amount of provinces you own and your reputation its not a mod. You start off being able to hire 1 of each type and then it increses to 2/2/2(spy, shieldmaiden, witch) or whatever it is. you can check by going to your hire tab and it will say 1/1 ect. No mods

Ah, that makes sense. So is it 1/1/1 per province?

Can you go above the limit by using temptation/persuade?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Ah, that makes sense. So is it 1/1/1 per province?

Can you go above the limit by using temptation/persuade?

It is 1 of every type for every level of reputation you reach. Number of provinces doesn't really matter (apart from adding to your reputation). As far as I understand, trying to convert an agent that would but you over your agent limit will make that agent vanish. So it is basically an assassination but without the dying.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It is 1 of every type for every level of reputation you reach. Number of provinces doesn't really matter (apart from adding to your reputation). As far as I understand, trying to convert an agent that would but you over your agent limit will make that agent vanish. So it is basically an assassination but without the dying.

So what determines reputation? Is it like M2 where your reputation waxes and wanes based on how many wars you're in (for some stupid ungodly reason)? Or is it tied to your political reputation, which...I'm not sure how to manipulate and barely understand as yet. The whole gravitas/etc system.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

So what determines reputation? Is it like M2 where your reputation waxes and wanes based on how many wars you're in (for some stupid ungodly reason)? Or is it tied to your political reputation, which...I'm not sure how to manipulate and barely understand as yet. The whole gravitas/etc system.

I'll be damned if I know. According to Jack Lusted it is supposedly determine by how big your faction is, how many armies you have, how many battles you won, how many you lost etc. etc.

My personal experience (and mind you, I am not even up to turn 70 due to how long End of Turn takes for me) is that it is pretty much like the reputation meter in Shogun 2. It seems to increase mostly based on how many regions you have captured with a small contribution from your battle Win/Loss ratio. The political system is kind of broken and as far as I know it really only matters when you get the civil war event with either Rome or Carthage.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

So what determines reputation? Is it like M2 where your reputation waxes and wanes based on how many wars you're in (for some stupid ungodly reason)? Or is it tied to your political reputation, which...I'm not sure how to manipulate and barely understand as yet. The whole gravitas/etc system.

I'll be damned if I know. According to Jack Lusted it is supposedly determine by how big your faction is, how many armies you have, how many battles you won, how many you lost etc. etc.

My personal experience (and mind you, I am not even up to turn 70 due to how long End of Turn takes for me) is that it is pretty much like the reputation meter in Shogun 2. It seems to increase mostly based on how many regions you have captured with a small contribution from your battle Win/Loss ratio. The political system is kind of broken and as far as I know it really only matters when you get the civil war event with either Rome or Carthage.

You get the civil war event no matter who you play as, since I just got done fighting one as monarchial Macedon. I also think that the areas that revolt tend to be based on your public order of that province, since I was diligent about keeping my provinces happy and the only place that revolted was a backwater single settlement that I had forgotten about. About 50-odd rebel units spawned there though. It would have been problematic if the AI hadn't bugged out while moving the doomstacks, and they got lost in the forest. I was able to send a few agents over for some stabby-stabby for the generals, and then I took the settlement with a nearby army. Bam. Civil War over after 2 years and a minimal loss of life.

 

[Bombiz]

Without mods it was barely even playable for me.

I had no idea that their where already mods out for it. what mods did you use and where did you find them?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I had no idea that their where already mods out for it. what mods did you use and where did you find them?

I've been using the Campaign and Battle mods by Radious...http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?618817-Radious-Total-War-Mod-%28Updated-9-9-2013%29

The site is agonizingly slow, but if you look through the individual threads for both the Campaign and Battle mods you'll find a "tweaked" version by...I wanna say Santini...I found those to be right on the sweet spot.

I'm also using a mod that gives four turns per year instead of just one. I think three would be the sweet spot, but 2 or 4 were the choices for the mod, and I opted to err on the side of slower. This way generals and agents stick around and aren't dying of old age before they've had a chance to fight 2-3 battles. That mod is on those same forums, but I don't want to wait 5 minutes for the page to refresh to link it for you. You should find it easily enough.

Lots of mods in there, but getting the battles slowed down so actual tactics could be employed, and getting time slowed down so I could actually learn a general's name before he was an old man...those were the two priorities for me in terms of enjoying the game.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Actually, it just feels as if the game is designed completely around playing as Rome. Sure, Rome is kind of the thing with the game, but compared to the first game the alternatives just feel way less fleshed out.

Just wait until you realize that Rome can recruit pretty much every unit in the game via their auxiliary barracks, and can use these units in multiplayer too. This includes units that are pretty faction specific such as elephants and horse archers.

To be fair, Rome made a habit of adopting the military tactics and 'units' of the various people it conquered, reasoning that they probably knew how to fight in that environment better than the Romans. The more lightly-armoured Germanic cavalry were better at getting through the densely packed forests of Germania, so they hired Germans as auxiliaries. Similar arrangements were made with conquered Parthians, Carthaginians and so on.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

To be fair, Rome made a habit of adopting the military tactics and 'units' of the various people it conquered, reasoning that they probably knew how to fight in that environment better than the Romans. The more lightly-armoured Germanic cavalry were better at getting through the densely packed forests of Germania, so they hired Germans as auxiliaries. Similar arrangements were made with conquered Parthians, Carthaginians and so on.

Oh yeah, I don't contest the historic validity of giving Rome auxiliaries. It is just a bit iffy however that they have access to large portions of other nations unit rosters when it, balancewise, would have made more sense to just give them "auxiliary greek cavalary" instead of "auxiliary tarantine cavalary" and "auxiliary companion cavalry" as two different units. Especially in multiplayer where you are pretty much better off just going for Rome with its' mega roster instead of one of the other, more limited, factions.

 

[kingthrall]

It is 1 of every type for every level of reputation you reach. Number of provinces doesn't really matter (apart from adding to your reputation). As far as I understand, trying to convert an agent that would but you over your agent limit will make that agent vanish. So it is basically an assassination but without the dying.

So what determines reputation? Is it like M2 where your reputation waxes and wanes based on how many wars you're in (for some stupid ungodly reason)? Or is it tied to your political reputation, which...I'm not sure how to manipulate and barely understand as yet. The whole gravitas/etc system.

Your reputation is determined by Battles,Expansion and Construction. If you ever click on diplomancy in the campaign map you can see Two different personalities for each faction such as Expansionist colored in Red,yellow,green. Red for example obviously means that faction is pretty serious about it. So basicly depending on how effective one of these types of things are for you determines your reputation.

Also Civil was is not inevitable as previously mentioned. Grativas is supported in the Game menu. You click the Faction button in the bottom toolbar dead smack in the centre of the bar. It comes up with your generals and their ambitions. You can assasinate and promote who you want. Im going by my Suibi Campaign where you have tribal chiefs instead of senators more than likely.

Im holding off on mods, the problem with mods is that your not compatable with 90% of the multiplayer campaign audience.

Edit: I dont know why people are complaining about historical accuracy, its total war and they never ever have done it properly so your expectations here are kind of invalid. Bugs and errors different story.