Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 105

Thread: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

  1. #31
    Strategist and Storyteller Member Myth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by fallen851 View Post
    I don't like the way I need to control G to get my units to stay in formation. This should happen automatically... not game breaking, just really annoying. I don't spend all my time lining up my guys just so they can break formation.
    I don't quite understand your point. You need them to keep formation, then press Ctrl+G. You need flexible armies and have good micro management? Then leave them as is. You're complaing that the mode is not on by default? As a person who loves using cav and HAs and manually retreats ranged units instead of using skirmish mode I'd say this would be really annoying for me.
    The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
    factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
    when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

    These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
    (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
    Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    Like totalwar.org on Facebook!

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #32

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    I disagree with some of these.

    I actually think the provincial happiness system is a serious improvement over prior ones. It is quite simple to manage and I like the idea that you need to focus on the whole province and not just your capital cities which is what will happen if they change it.
    I also prefer the wall less minor cities. They are minor cities and should be extremely vulnerable to attack compared to the major cities. This recreates the sense of danger that small cities and towns actually faced plus it avoids the extremely dull constant siege battles from every TW game since Shogun 1.

    I also think the water transport system works just fine as a concept. The only problem I see is as others have pointed out is that the transports need to be more vulnerable.

    What I would like fixed is the never ending blockades where you cannot attack the city from the land even when it is being blockaded by your ally/client state. For a few turns this may make sense, but there needs to be a time limit or stronger penalties for long blockades to force navies to give up.

    I would also like to see a request to end war with faction X as a diplomacy option. The choices available for the most part continue to improve and this would really flesh it out. I don't want to be able to force it on a client state but to make it a negotiation option in the same way as ending trade agreements or starting wars is only logical
    Last edited by Seyavash; 09-13-2013 at 13:07. Reason: More stuff

  3. #33

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Seyavash View Post
    I also think the water transport system works just fine as a concept. The only problem I see is as others have pointed out is that the transports need to be more vulnerable.
    I agree with everything you wrote but this. The concept migh be fine, but it somehow confuse the IA. I saw many factions that just leave their armies in the water, not admirals, but generals. First I thought it was to prevent blockade but they have one or two fleet for that purpose. I don't get it, if it has the choice, the IA will always use its army as a fleet. It seems it prefers to control the sea than the land even when the land seems to have more strategical value. Might be a bug, anyway it's annoying.

  4. #34
    Member Member Jarmam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    172

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Seyavash View Post
    I disagree with some of these.

    I actually think the provincial happiness system is a serious improvement over prior ones. It is quite simple to manage and I like the idea that you need to focus on the whole province and not just your capital cities which is what will happen if they change it.
    I also prefer the wall less minor cities. They are minor cities and should be extremely vulnerable to attack compared to the major cities. This recreates the sense of danger that small cities and towns actually faced plus it avoids the extremely dull constant siege battles from every TW game since Shogun 1.

    I also think the water transport system works just fine as a concept. The only problem I see is as others have pointed out is that the transports need to be more vulnerable.

    What I would like fixed is the never ending blockades where you cannot attack the city from the land even when it is being blockaded by your ally/client state. For a few turns this may make sense, but there needs to be a time limit or stronger penalties for long blockades to force navies to give up.
    I agree with most of this. The provincial system is great. The more I play with it the more I love it.
    The port blockade -> city unsiegeable needs a fix yesterday.
    But I feel that water transports, apart from being straight up imbalanced compared to actual fleets, should carry a bit more of a movement penalty when switching from land to sea from ports.

    I would further like that if a city gets besieged its garrison should be able to respond instantly and not next turn. 15 Noble Cavalry with their 7 Scorpion guys can shut down the replenishment of units and construction of buildings along with mustering from a barracks in a city that has more than 2000 retainers ready to fight off a real siege. This is ridiculous and unfathomably frustrating, especially since agents are incapable of destroying said stack of 7 Scorpion guys and since armies are limited to x - so I can't just hire 2 units to fight it off, I need to dedicate a significant % of my empire's potential army for this.

  5. #35
    Strategist and Storyteller Member Myth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Added all new suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seyavash View Post
    I actually think the provincial happiness system is a serious improvement over prior ones. It is quite simple to manage and I like the idea that you need to focus on the whole province and not just your capital cities which is what will happen if they change it.
    I also prefer the wall less minor cities. They are minor cities and should be extremely vulnerable to attack compared to the major cities. This recreates the sense of danger that small cities and towns actually faced plus it avoids the extremely dull constant siege battles from every TW game since Shogun 1.
    People like the system but they dislike that as Rome, you're conquering Sicilly and trying to unite your southern province and suddenly the Roman populace in Brundisium is unhappy because you conquered Syracuse and occupied it. It makes no sense, hence the suggestions to separate settlement and province happiness.

    Every settlement but the smallest hamlets and villages had some sort of wall, ditch, motte&bailey or something of the sort. I disliked how Shogun II did away with wall defenses and everyone climbed like lizards over the walls.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jarmam View Post
    I would further like that if a city gets besieged its garrison should be able to respond instantly and not next turn. 15 Noble Cavalry with their 7 Scorpion guys can shut down the replenishment of units and construction of buildings along with mustering from a barracks in a city that has more than 2000 retainers ready to fight off a real siege. This is ridiculous and unfathomably frustrating, especially since agents are incapable of destroying said stack of 7 Scorpion guys and since armies are limited to x - so I can't just hire 2 units to fight it off, I need to dedicate a significant % of my empire's potential army for this.
    You can actually sally with your defenders by manually selecting them and right clicking the besieging army.
    The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
    factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
    when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

    These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
    (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
    Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    Like totalwar.org on Facebook!

    Member thankful for this post:



  6. #36
    Nec Pluribus Impar Member SwordsMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Bring back the stability! My game is crashing every few turns after the latest 'patch'! While before I played 170 turns with no crashes at all!
    Managing perceptions goes hand in hand with managing expectations - Masamune

    Pie is merely the power of the state intruding into the private lives of the working class. - Beirut

  7. #37

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by jbillybrack View Post
    It's just, couldn't they have implemented a deployable "baggage train"? I understand the need to put you at a disadvantage running all over the campaign map, but I wish you could set the victory point within your deployable zone. Overall, I'm loving this game bugs and bad AI and all. I love the province control, because it forces you to slow the steam roll down a little bit, and sometimes drags it to a screeching halt. I just wanna choose where the victory point is
    Fully agree, and that's what I meant about how the VP could've been implemented better. Would be an improvement if there was actually some sort of baggage train unit, deployable within the zone, and potentially a some movement rate to move off the edge of the map...turning the battle into a slow "rearguard action" by your army. Preserves the intended disadvantage, but adds context and allows at least an attempt to intelligently make the best of a bad situation.

    These comments I understand and agree with.

  8. #38
    Floating Man Member Wilbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    196

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    You guys are covering the gameplay well, so I will simply add one: they should bring back the choice of Short or Long Campaigns.

    I'm playing as Rome and estimate that it's going to take me around 60hrs+ to gain a recognised victory. The game has many nations to play as - with long campaigns, I'm simply not going to be able to complete it with all nations (unlike Rome or Shogun 2) and it certainly removes my appetite for further nations as DLC - I have the Greek states pack, but am I really going to plug in 180hrs to complete the game as Sparta, Epirus and Athens?

    I would suggest that a short campaign should take as long as on Shogun 2.
    Last edited by Wilbo; 09-13-2013 at 17:32.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  9. #39
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    As a person who loves using cav and HAs and manually retreats ranged units instead of using skirmish mode I'd say this would be really annoying for me
    Here-Here!
    High Plains Drifter

  10. #40

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilbo View Post
    You guys are covering the gameplay well, so I will simply add one: they should bring back the choice of Short or Long Campaigns.

    I'm playing as Rome and estimate that it's going to take me around 60hrs+ to gain a recognised victory. The game has many nations to play as - with long campaigns, I'm simply not going to be able to complete it with all nations (unlike Rome or Shogun 2) and it certainly removes my appetite for further nations as DLC - I have the Greek states pack, but am I really going to plug in 180hrs to complete the game as Sparta, Epirus and Athens?

    I would suggest that a short campaign should take as long as on Shogun 2.
    Agree.

  11. #41

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilbo View Post
    You guys are covering the gameplay well, so I will simply add one: they should bring back the choice of Short or Long Campaigns.
    I agree though I tend to stick with long campaigns myself.

    I would go a step further and say they should expand the options beyond short and long. This is probably a wish list for future games, but I would love to be able have a timescale option. For those who want longer campaigns including seasons could check 4 turns per year, or 2. As long as the transportation and build times scaled with them and given perhaps a few other creative options you could have a truly flexible campaign length beyond just short/long

  12. #42

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Myth View Post
    I don't quite understand your point. You need them to keep formation, then press Ctrl+G. You need flexible armies and have good micro management? Then leave them as is. You're complaing that the mode is not on by default? As a person who loves using cav and HAs and manually retreats ranged units instead of using skirmish mode I'd say this would be really annoying for me.
    Indeed, I like it so far. Hit G to make a group but it won't put them in a rigid formation and if you want a gigantic static infantry line with reserves that was neatly planned out, ctrl-g.

    Much better than in Shogun 2 where it had that tinly button w/ lock group. I finally agree with you on something Myth. ;)
    Lets play Divide et Impera, Ptolemy Campaign. Link to full playlist down below!

    https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...2oIDsmGrPrKpzM

  13. #43

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    how about an encyclopedia entry that lists all buildings that effect edicts? This is something that would make planning buildings in major provinces a lot easier than right click and read

  14. #44
    Member Member AFM984's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Middle of the Desert, AKA KSA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    - Politics needs an overhaul, republics should be completely different from kingdoms or tribal federations, they should have parties.
    - Character pool, like a certain other game.
    - Faction leaders should matter, their strengths and weaknesses should affect the realm.
    - A family tree for monarchies is necessary, and civil wars should be tied somewhat to it (a disgruntled younger brother, an uncle who sees himself worthier than his 10 y/o nephew, the sudden death of a young king with no direct heirs)
    - Regions should be varied concerning food production, based on fertility.
    - A manpower pool? it could work.
    - Roads that can be upgraded, depending on civilization.

    And I agree that seasons should be brought back, with more effects than shogun 2.
    Last edited by AFM984; 09-14-2013 at 10:33.

  15. #45
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    roads upgrade automatically as the region gets more advanced/richer. i kinda like that.

    We do not sow.

  16. #46
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    It definitely takes some of the micromanagement out of the game. Though I kinda liked having to manually upgrade my roads, though it is a good sign of how rich a province is, so I like that.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  17. #47

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by AFM984 View Post
    - Politics needs an overhaul, republics should be completely different from kingdoms or tribal federations, they should have parties.
    - Character pool, like a certain other game.
    - Faction leaders should matter, their strengths and weaknesses should affect the realm.
    - A family tree for monarchies is necessary, and civil wars should be tied somewhat to it (a disgruntled younger brother, an uncle who sees himself worthier than his 10 y/o nephew, the sudden death of a young king with no direct heirs)
    - Regions should be varied concerning food production, based on fertility.
    - A manpower pool? it could work.
    - Roads that can be upgraded, depending on civilization.

    And I agree that seasons should be brought back, with more effects than shogun 2.

    Now those are good ideas...
    Lets play Divide et Impera, Ptolemy Campaign. Link to full playlist down below!

    https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...2oIDsmGrPrKpzM

  18. #48
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Faction leaders should matter, their strengths and weaknesses should affect the realm.
    Very good point. I would even go as far as having his location matter, as in the original Shogun. Using him at the front can be a good thing if he has fighting skills, but like the saying goes... mice will play when the cat's away.

    A family tree for monarchies is necessary, and civil wars should be tied somewhat to it (a disgruntled younger brother, an uncle who sees himself worthier than his 10 y/o nephew, the sudden death of a young king with no direct heirs)
    And ain't that how it usually goes...family intrigue? Would make roleplaying your family that much more enjoyable. Like suggested in an AAR here, send your disgruntled family member on a highly risky mission in the hopes of getting him killed......but beware if he succeeds
    High Plains Drifter

  19. #49
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    I generally like the new regions/province thing but it does lead to an issue that bugs me somewhat. Since only capital cities have walls, there can never be great sieges in places like Syracuse. That was one of the most famous sieges of all time! I was planning to build ships with stone throwers to pound the place from the sea before I realized that the mighty walls of Syracuse weren’t there and never can be. Archimedes will need to find employment elsewhere I suppose…

    I wish Syracuse had walls.

    In addition, during a turn, when an ally asks for me to attack his enemy, I need to know my current diplomatic situation with the target. That is not reported, I can’t look and I may well not remember if I have a non-aggression pact or not.

    I wish we would be reminded of treaties when the strategic turn demands that we make an immediate decision.
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  20. #50
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    I do wonder why they made Brundisium the provincial capital and not Syracuse.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  21. #51
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I do wonder why they made Brundisium the provincial capital and not Syracuse.
    Puzzled me, too.
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  22. #52

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Great thread so far guys! Hopefully CA sees this and gets some ideas. Some of what I'll list here might be a bit repetitive from earlier posts on the thread but hopefully that will make them see how some issues have widespread consensus:

    Bring back loose formation (unless it's hidden somewhere I haven't found yet) or some other common anti-missile formation, as well as fixing Testudo.

    Fix unit formations in general so that they don't break and blob as easily except for maybe lowly militia or disorganized barbarian warriors. Ordering my Phalanxes or Roman columns to move shouldn't shatter their formation, especially when their success relies on it. I've been defending towns that by all rights I should have been able to hold even with smaller numbers, however enemy units have literally walked unharmed straight through my phalanxes that were blocking the street and taken the capture point while my own units refused to obey the movement orders I gave them because they were now stuck in melee with the other units that attempted to walk through after the first wave.

    Pikemen shouldn't default to their swords. We're recruiting Pikes for a reason, they shouldn't only use their primary weapon while in a Phalanx that will immediately break when given any movement orders.

    Battlefield AI glitches such as running back and fourth like turkeys over the same ten yards or remaining stationary while they are supposed to be attacking the player.

    Armies/feets from destroyed factions dying much more quickly from attrition/lack of funds or scattering after a certain number of turns being homeless. I have too many issues with two or three unit militaries hiding and returning to harass behind my current lines years later against garrisons that should destroy them. Also if autoresolved these armies seem to almost always survive with a few men and return indefinitely.

    ^^^Along the same lines as the previous suggestion, a notification of when there are rebels. I've received these occasionally but the vast majority of the time it is simply an army randomly spawning in a relatively content and peaceful province (that gives no signs of revolt) and hiding unnoticed while it gathers its forces to attack undefended cities while my few armies are busy conquering. Again, if these defenses are autoresolved a handful of men will infinitely survive and return to hiding while they gather troops for another attack.

    Again, open battle victory points must go or be significantly altered. Maybe taking/losing a victory point could be a moral buff/debuff instead of ending the battle even when the defending side is winning by a good margin.

    Adding another slot or two for the household would be nice. One doesn't seem like enough especially with the horde of random people the generals seem to find. (And stop making all of our generals babbling psycopaths)

    Changing/rebalancing the army traditions system. It seems like the bonuses from traditions are a bit random and underpowered compared to the stat bonuses from reaching even a couple of experience levels. Also adding a traditions tree and general skill tree that you can see all at once while choosing bonuses (Like in Shogun 2) so that the player can better plan them out.

    Definitely have to agree with you guys about the family trees, Republic vs Kingdoms running differently, and most especially more turns per year and short campaigns. It seems like as soon as I get a couple of levels for a general he dies of old age and is replaced by some nobody. Not that I really care though because I've got almost no attachment to the former commanders. Also I'd like to have the entire system explained in more detail (or at all) and have benefits and negative consequences spelled out more clearly.

    There are issues I and others have with our own army unit AI and orders not always going through. If I click for my units to attack or retreat they should do so. When I lose battles it's almost invariably because my units do not respond and therefor sit idly while their hard counter plows through them or the unit they were supposed to reenforce as I'm distracted at another part of the lines for 5 seconds. Mots of my battlefield time is now spent with the game paused so that I can be absolutely sure that every order was received and that the units are moving at the appropriate speed. Also I (personally) have had occasional problems with my own superior armies breaking and running for seemingly no reason even while winning and taking few losses. I have no idea how it happens. They aren't flanked, nor outnumbered, and facing lesser quality troops, they just for some reason mass route just before the AI's last unit breaks and give the enemy a victory.

    Rebalance stats like HP and skirmishing. There are frequent situations where enemy units numbers will hold or drop slowly, and then all of a sudden in a few seconds 3/4 of their troops will be dead. I can only assume it was because I leeched their HP with lightly hitting skirmishers first (like slingers that never seem to get their own kills for me even when they practically unload on a single stationary enemy) and then the bulk of them were finished off around the same time in melee. I understand where the idea is coming from but to kill so many men in a standard melee so quickly without flanking seems sudden and awkward.

    Agreed with whoever proposed adding directx version options earlier. My little brother is having huge compatibility, menu, and lag issues. He says he had the same thing with Shogun 2 until he changed Dx versions so that option would be a lifesaver.

    I know this one is a bit much to ask but at some point I'd like to see certain factions unit rosters balanced out. Sparta for example seems to be one of the strongest militaries in the game, and mostly based on hoplites, as they should be. However Spartan hoplites have been able to mow through spectacularly bad odds with little problem in my playthrough, even against units that have better stats (and what's with standard Athenian hoplites having better stats that Spartans?). I'd like to see them being a bit less like supermen and balanced out with a few more unit options. I'd like a unit of dedicated swordsmen or something of the sort to be able to assist in situations where the obligatory spear units might be at a disadvantage.

    Someone mentioned in another threat, and I agree, that the Roman units specifically need huge rebalancing. The stat/cost/upkeep ratios are such that there is almost no reason to use mostly Hastati supported by elite Principes or Lengionaries with a few veteran legions units in reserve when you could have a horde of the vastly superior troops for only a few coins more upkeep per turn.

    Diplomacy wise I'd like to see the AI automatically making peace with your allies and other client states when you subjugate them, and subsequent attempts of them attacking each other would count as the attacker betraying you. There is little point in making someone a vassal if two turns later they are absorbed by another vassal or ally who joined the war in your defense and is still hostile towards them.

    I like the province system but strongly agree that conquering (or uniting) provinces that you already have a foothold in should add to public order, not hurt it. The two-seperate-levels of public order idea that someone posted earlier sounds like a particularly good fix.

    Overall still a decent game but one that has much more potential. There are a lot of things that could be fixed, added, or improved to make it great. There are issues but I still enjoy it (most of the time). In fact I'll probably start it up in a few minutes and see if the new patch fixed any of these complaints.

    Member thankful for this post:



  23. #53
    Member Member Sp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,101

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I do wonder why they made Brundisium the provincial capital and not Syracuse.
    Cause Rome and all that.

  24. #54
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Sp4 View Post
    Cause Rome and all that.
    Can you explain that a bit more? Is it because the game is Rome-centered?
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  25. #55

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Am I missing the place to view what edicts are being issued? Because I've looked and just can't track it down.

    More information on the tactical map would be nice, such as:
    1. List the army, not the agents i have riding in my armies.
    2. (To refer to my point above) List which edict is in effect.
    3. Be able to see how much movement a force has left what type of units, and how many soldiers are in said units.

    and possibly, hooahguy, so you could coexist with syracuse and not lose the provincial capitol playing as Rome?
    Last edited by jbillybrack; 09-15-2013 at 06:30.

  26. #56
    Οπλίτη Member CaptainCrunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Realm of Poseidon
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelson View Post
    ... I wish Syracuse had walls...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I do wonder why they made Brundisium the provincial capital and not Syracuse.
    This was a terrible omission in my opinion and needs to get sorted. They should make a system within the province where you can change your central city, like the way you could change your capitol in RTW. I actually like the fact that every settlement doesn't have a wall, but the larger & more economically powerful settlements should all be capable of building fortified walls regardless.

    Also, CA needs to sort out the bug/feature where you kill and sink every enemy ship in a naval battle and the general just sails away afterwards like he's pleasure boating in the Med. I have to chase down dead men resurrecting their boats out of the abyss after most of my naval battles, this becomes insanely tedious. Naval battles in general need immediate attention, they're just absolutely busted right now and I think this can be a really key feature of the game if it gets sorted.

    One other thing, 'Rotate' in the new camera mode does no such thing. It has the exact same function as Camera Up/Down. This is because in the new mode the camera orbits around the object you're focused on, as compared to the Classic Mode which orbits around an axis. This is fine when you're dealing with horizontal adjustments, but doesn't work in the vertical at all the way it's been implemented. Please fix with an actual feature to let you pivot your viewpoint up and down like the classic TW cam. If we could get the cam to go a bit closer to the ground on some maps that'd be nice too

    Member thankful for this post:



  27. #57
    Member Member Jarmam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    172

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Myth View Post
    You can actually sally with your defenders by manually selecting them and right clicking the besieging army.
    Yes, the next turn. The problem is the following: Say Im Rome and next to Roma there is a squad of 7 Scorpion guys and a general. In the province I am constructing a trading port and I have an army of 20 units that all need replenishing for whatever reason stationed in the city.

    So now those 67 guys besiege Roma in the AI turn. There is nothing I can do to prevent this, even though I could defeat the "siege" with 1% of my retainers from Rome.

    Now its my turn. The trading port has not been built (or progressed), the replenishment has not happened. Yes, now I can attack the besiegers, but... the damage is done already. The town has skipped a turn and I have lost a massive amount of time due to this pathetic stack of 67 men. What if I need 20 units to deter an assault from a real army thats close by? That means I cant chase the 67 guys - so the next turn they can siege Roma again. And again. And again. And I can only scare them off the next turn, meaning that the town is paralyzed.

    Now lets say there are no units in Roma, only retainers (or garrison or what have you), because I have access to 6 legions and all 6 are needed on the frontlines because this is Legendary and the barbarians have wisely allied against Rome, plus this general can never threaten to actually take the city, no matter how many mercenaries he can muster up. However the 67 men can paralyze Roma 'till the end of time. I cannot build anything from the city, no recruitment and no constructions. I also cannot send units to kill off this silly little stack, because I only have access to 6 legions and they're all busy. This is all due to the fact that I can only assault the siege in my turn and not in the turn it initiates, after which he will simply re-engage the siege in the AI turn over and over. I can assassinate the general, sure, but as long as 1 unit remains a new general will take over the army, and I cannot completely wipe out units with Agents so thats not an option either.

    Now this stack has the option of going into raiding stance, thus hurting my province without engaging any garrisons. This means I can either chase them off or take the penalty from the raiding. So why, oh why, can the stack also time lock my city and its 2k garrison with 7 Scorpion guys forever? What are they doing while the 7 Scorpions somehow encircle the city and all traffic in and out? Why dont they just... sally out... right now? As in: When the enemy attempts the siege. Not a turn later.

    Thats the issue in gruesome detail.

  28. #58
    The Philosopher Duke Member Suraknar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Navigating the realm of Ideas
    Posts
    707

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Myth View Post
    A list for things to be fixed, removed, added or changed. Let's try and provide CA with something that can help them see at a glance if they're headed in the right direction according to their fans and customers, and if they have everything noted down. I'll edit the original post as you guys contribute more things.

    Things to add:
    - True hotseat mode
    Ok.

    - Bring back the Family Tree from RTW and flesh it out even more, ATM generals aren't very interesting and easily replaced.
    Agreed, always liked the Familly trees in the series. Not sure how it can fit the new system with the houses etc, but maybe it can actually be an improvement over it.

    - City view in peace time like in Rome 1
    Yes that is missing.

    - Naval transport ships that can carry a set number of troops at a maximum
    I like the new system for transports, I like that we do not have to build fleets to trasport armies and that armies can embark disembark with transports as they do now.

    The game's trategy I see it has changed. We long longer have to have armies guarding every single city/settlement. There is an automated good Garisson tied to technology so it improves with time. Which can put up a good fight too. And we have armies, as historically Raised and assembled by great people and generals, states of Houses and Famillies. That do Regional protection.

    Playng Rome II for me has been like Playing ROME the TV series... I think they did a great job with the changes on teh Strategic level.

    So Armies looking to travel by Boat normally brokered deals with numerous merchants and other seafaring factions historically. And I think the way the system is made represents this.

    What would be an improvement following the same vision, could be to have to pay a certain fee for embarcation of armies based on the number of units that are being transported. But going back to the old system, I do not agree it was really a pain gameplay wise.

    - An astrologer/seer type of agent who has to do with research: speeding it up, stealing technology from more advanced factions etc.
    Good idea, however, Philosopher would be better, Seers and Astrologers were religious people, those interested in technologies were the Philosophers, mathematicians, Histrorians of the time. As they travelled from city to city to exchange Idas they also contributed in the proliferation of knowledge from different cultures.

    - Seasons (preferably 4, but atleast 2...) and seasonal effects.
    It would be nice to have this as a Toggle in the game Settings that wway players can customize their experience as they wish. It is done through modding at this time.

    - Walls or some other way of stalling for minor cities.
    Not all cities had walls in the perriod. I relly much like the new Provincilal major/Minor City interelationship and setup. In fact I love it. It is simply refreshing to play :)

    - Generals & admirals should gain traits based on their battlefield tactics & tendencies as well as their record of success in battle (with appropriate bonuses). They should gain reputations according to these factors and successful tacticians should be renowned and feared for it. These factors should be taken into account by the AI when fielding its own force. The AI should account for powerful enemy generals on the Campaign Map as well when facing them with inferior forces. The mere presence of a renowned tactician leading a powerful army in an enemy region should affect public happiness for the duration.
    Could be interesting, neutral here.

    - Factions should be able to negotiate peace agreements between their clients/satrapies and other aggressive states, or use the threat of military action diplomatically against aggressors if they don't back down.
    Agreed 100%, I been looking for the options to Broker Peace in the diplomacy list. An Arrange Peace/Seasefire option would be a great addition to the intricacies of Diplomacy. And if two states at War become Client states they should sease hostilities as well.

    - Bring back 'Give Settlement'.
    Neutral here. I am not missing it. Again I think the game is geared in its new itteration of gameplay towards more exchanges of settlements through military means. The armies we raise have a purpose. In reality we should actually be disbanding armies when in peace time and only maintaining a Defense force. Like it was historically.

    - Bring back Fire at Will for all missile carrying units.
    This is there already... what did I miss?


    Adding to the thread:

    Client State Mechanics.

    I am Playing Rome. at one point the veneti request to become a client state with patavium. hen they get attacked by the Ligurians. The Ligurians take patavium while the Veneti take Genoa...I go in and take Patavium by the Ligurians. The Veneti take the Large city of the Province to the north (name escapes me atm), while they lose Genoa to the Ligurians, I take Genoa from the ligurians and now the Veneti hold the Large city in between Patavium and Genoa...

    BUT, in the process of all this...the Client State relationship got lost...and the Veneti are remembering that I broke the agreement... How? I never attacked them, the Ligurians did and I even declared war on them to protect the veneti since they were my client state.

    So maybe Client states should be associated with the Faction, not the settlements...it is an agreement between peoples...not between stones.

    Conclusion

    Overall, not have much else to add here, I really am liking the game in the way it is made, and the patches have been improving the Bugs/Performance and minor issues it had at launch, and will continue to do so. And in between everyone feed back the list above covers most of the things.
    Duke Surak'nar
    "Η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ"
    From: Residing:
    Traveled to: Over 70 Countries, most recent: and

    ~ Ask not what modding can do for you, rather ask what you can do for modding ~
    ~ Everyone dies, not everyone really fights ~

  29. #59
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarmam View Post

    Now this stack has the option of going into raiding stance, thus hurting my province without engaging any garrisons. This means I can either chase them off or take the penalty from the raiding. So why, oh why, can the stack also time lock my city and its 2k garrison with 7 Scorpion guys forever? What are they doing while the 7 Scorpions somehow encircle the city and all traffic in and out? Why dont they just... sally out... right now? As in: When the enemy attempts the siege. Not a turn later.

    Thats the issue in gruesome detail.
    All true. We need a sort of "man of the hour" who can appear just long enough to take command of the garrison and sally out to handle enemies that are below the strength of the home forces. Above the garrison strength and you would need to bring a force home to deal with the invasion/rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
    Also, CA needs to sort out the bug/feature where you kill and sink every enemy ship in a naval battle and the general just sails away afterwards like he's pleasure boating in the Med. I have to chase down dead men resurrecting their boats out of the abyss after most of my naval battles, this becomes insanely tedious.
    This, too. Sunken ships should stay sunk! This was also an issue in Shogun2 IIRC.

    And I wish there was a Roman ship with the corvus. A HUGE omission. It's akin to leaving out elephants. How can you have the Punic Wars without them!
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  30. #60
    Οπλίτη Member CaptainCrunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Realm of Poseidon
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Rome 2: A constructive wishlist

    - Bring back Fire at Will for all missile carrying units.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    This is there already... what did I miss?
    Units carrying pila can only throw them during an attack charge, they have no way of throwing them without charging like in RTW, where you could set them to Fire At Will and they would automatically throw them at enemies in range. This really hurts in naval battles in particular, where certain 'peltasts' can't throw their javelins unless they're boarding.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO