No Posts for two days in here

[easytarget]

Could there be any more damning indictment of Rome 2 than silence?

[Hooahguy]

If the rest of this forum was bustling that would be damning. But this whole forum is emptying so it's really no surprise.

[ReluctantSamurai]

While the shortcomings of RII probably has some impact on traffic, it is spring-time here in the States, and after a very cold and snowy winter, I'm sure outdoor activities are taking precedent...not to mention those of female persuasion shedding bulky winter clothing in favor of more "attractive" spring wear~;)

[Slaists]

Could there be any more damning indictment of Rome 2 than silence?

This forum is much smaller and "older" than the other ones (www.totalwar.com, www.twcenter.net). There is much more activity in those two.

[easytarget]

Well, least we got some posts now "explaining" it. :laugh4:

[phred]

I'm sorry to see The Org so quiet. It's been my go to place for all things Total War for a while now.

On another note, I'm thinking of downloading and playing a bit of Rome 2. I haven't played since September or so.
Has patching made things more interesting/enjoyable?

[Spoonska]

I'm sorry to see The Org so quiet. It's been my go to place for all things Total War for a while now.

On another note, I'm thinking of downloading and playing a bit of Rome 2. I haven't played since September or so.
Has patching made things more interesting/enjoyable?


I recently re-installed it and I can say that I honestly can't tell. The AI seems to be more competent in open field battles but for the most part sieges are still broken. AT LEAST 1 in 4 sieges the AI just stands around with their thumb up their bum. I haven't really played any naval battles because in all Total War games I'm just not that into it. On the campaign map it seems like they behave about the same, they just recruit more units.

Rome 2 has just seem to become.... It's like you have to make your own fun to enjoy Rome 2. If that makes any sense.


Also, Creating content > Crying about lack of content.

[ReluctantSamurai]

It's like you have to make your own fun to enjoy Rome 2.

This is where a strong and viable family tree has always played a part in keeping me interested in playing since Shogun I. How far can #1 son take me down the road to the Shogunate?... how well will he do against Shingen or Kenshin (when not playing either of those two)...how far can I ride the horse of my cavalry genius through the deserts of Egypt and Libya?.......and so on.

Not that I just couldn't wait to get home from work and play TW, but there certainly were times I played TW instead of something else just to further the exploits of my generals~:smoking:

[fallen851]

If the rest of this forum was bustling that would be damning. But this whole forum is emptying so it's really no surprise.

I don't think you're looking at this right. Sure the forum wasn't bustling before R2 and isn't now. But R2 should have revived this forum, the sequel to the greatest game in the TW franchise, with a huge budget and tons of marketing. I came back to the TW series and this forum specifically for it.

But it didn't revive the forum.

That is damning.

You guys have gone to great lengths to apologize for this game. The real question is, are you playing it and enjoying? As much as you did Rome I? If your not, then stop apologizing and call a spade a spade.

I don't blame you, the TWC does the same thing, lumping all the complaints into a single thread and attempting to focus on the positive. But nothing changes the fact the game isn't as good as past releases.

[Slaists]

I don't think you're looking at this right. Sure the forum wasn't bustling before R2 and isn't now. But R2 should have revived this forum, the sequel to the greatest game in the TW franchise, with a huge budget and tons of marketing. I came back to the TW series and this forum specifically for it.

But it didn't revive the forum.

That is damning.

You guys have gone to great lengths to apologize for this game. The real question is, are you playing it and enjoying? As much as you did Rome I? If your not, then stop apologizing and call a spade a spade.

I don't blame you, the TWC does the same thing, lumping all the complaints into a single thread and attempting to focus on the positive. But nothing changes the fact the game isn't as good as past releases.

Many things affect the popularity (or lack of it) of a forum. Loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators among them. Excessive presence of ads (and their effect on page loading times) is what kills twcenter.net for me, for example.

I would not attribute the present lack of traffic on this forum to the quality of RTW 2 in general. Simply, most folks who were originally here have migrated elsewhere (or stopped playing due to advanced age; I'd be in that category if I was not too addicted to TW games).

As far as I am concerned, ALL of the CA games are rather crappy upon release and get slowly improved with patches. Shogun 2 was bugged upon release as well. Rome 1 was no different on the machines of the time (and I'm not even talking about such bugs as subtracting shield value from the total defense of the unit rather than adding it). Don't remind me how bad and buggy was Empire Total War upon release. Come to think of it, that game never really got fixed.

[easytarget]

And that's your opinion. Mine would be that Rome 2 is fatally missing a cohesive design vision, everyone pretty much knows it, and there's no way to patch that up.

Whereas Shogun 2 did, and it showed. And as to your comment about patching, got that wrong too. I played and completed a S2 campaign the day it released with no problem whatsoever.

[Slaists]

And that's your opinion. Mine would be that Rome 2 is fatally missing a cohesive design vision, everyone pretty much knows it, and there's no way to patch that up.

Whereas Shogun 2 did, and it showed. And as to your comment about patching, got that wrong too. I played and completed a S2 campaign the day it released with no problem whatsoever.

Shogun 2 upon release (playing on VH, legendary):

- Bugged siege battles where the AI would mill around near the edge of the map doing nothing: CHECK [later fixed to a degree with patches]
- AI units staying at the bottom of the wall (while climbing) if the top units were attacked: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- Total peace (until the realm divide): as in the AI willing to bend backwards to please you: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- BSOD's (blue screens of death): CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- AI starving and going rebel due to being unable to resolve food balance across provinces: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- AI never attacking trade nodes, even if the player had only merchant ships there: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- Crappy graphics even on high end machines: CHECK [later fixed with patches; fixed quite brilliantly I may add]
- AI mass recruiting peasant style armies: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- AI rarely doing naval invasions: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- Diplomatic reliability lose-lose situations where an ally attacks an ally: CHECK [later fixed with patches, not fixed in Rome 2 yet]
- Anti-aliasing support missing: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- Multiplayer campaign desyncs: CHECK [later fixed with patches]
- A rather boring SP campaign grind (from one side of the main island to the other): CHECK [never really fixed; also, impossible to fix in the give geopolitical situation]
- Corrupt save games: CHECK [later fixed with patches]


Those were just the few I remembered off the top of my head in 1 minute. There were plenty more just check the old S2 patch notes.

[easytarget]

You mistake bullet points for being persuasive, which I can assure you're not. List a thousand of them and one simple fact will remain unchanged: I played and completed a campaign day one launch as the Date no problem.

[Slaists]

You mistake bullet points for being persuasive, which I can assure you're not. List a thousand of them and one simple fact will remain unchanged: I played and completed a campaign day one launch as the Date no problem.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that (you completing a campaign) does not change the fact that the game was buggy at the release [which is what my bullet point list was showing].

[Sp4]

I don't come here because I would come here to talk about TW games but I have not played on in a long time. I'd like to start a M2 game though.

[Nelson]

I believe that in any game forum, when bitching, griping and general negativity reach a certain threshold, people who enjoy the game stop visiting and posting. The whining is too overbearing at that point. I know I feel that way.

If I get a game and dislike it, I might visit a forum to say so, but I never return ad nauseum to flog the horse some more. Just as some folks embrace long personal grudges against others, some gamers enjoy regurgitating their disappointment angst. In the earliest months after Rome’s release we had someone complain here regularly who didn’t own the game. He vicariously came to dislike it!

[fallen851]

Many things affect the popularity (or lack of it) of a forum. Loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators among them. Excessive presence of ads (and their effect on page loading times) is what kills twcenter.net for me, for example.

I would not attribute the present lack of traffic on this forum to the quality of RTW 2 in general. Simply, most folks who were originally here have migrated elsewhere (or stopped playing due to advanced age; I'd be in that category if I was not too addicted to TW games).

As far as I am concerned, ALL of the CA games are rather crappy upon release and get slowly improved with patches. Shogun 2 was bugged upon release as well. Rome 1 was no different on the machines of the time (and I'm not even talking about such bugs as subtracting shield value from the total defense of the unit rather than adding it). Don't remind me how bad and buggy was Empire Total War upon release. Come to think of it, that game never really got fixed.

There is legitimate arguments, then there is grasping at straws.

You're going to attribute the lack of traffic on this forum to "loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators" and migration?

You're missing the elephant in the room.

Rome II's problems aren't just bugs. The new features the design team choose to include as well as the old features they stripped out represent problems. They scrapped successful systems from Shogun II and replaced them with inferior ones. At Shogun II's release, you could see the potential. Sure it needed patches, but you could see it. It is hard for me to see potential in Rome II. There is no family tree, there is no real political system, naval battles were very poorly done, you can't easily send reinforcements to the front from the homeland... those aren't bugs, they were intended. They won't be "fixed."

Thus, there is a huge difference between the release of Shogun II and Rome II. Massive. Your post does not surprise me. CA apologists take all forms, and there arguments are almost always illogical, grasp at straws and miss the obvious.

If Rome II was a smashing success and people loved it and hailed it, it would drive people to this forum. I don't care about loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators. You even said yourself that you don't visit the TWC because of the ads and loading times. But here you are... so obviously the ads and loading times here aren't that bad. Is it the moderators? Because I think they do a very nice job. Quality of posts?

No, it is none of those things. People can blame whatever. They can say the whiners pushed people away. But where it does it all stem from? It all stems from the quality of Rome II. To ignore that, is just ignorant.

So we all really know why this forum is dead.

[CaptainCrunch]

... I'm sure outdoor activities are taking precedent...not to mention those of female persuasion shedding bulky winter clothing in favor of more "attractive" spring wear~;)

The skirts are out in full force where I live, summer-like weather, bikinis and the beach be callin' me! Oddly enough, somewhere in there I manage to fit in work and a family :grin:


... Rome 2 is fatally missing a cohesive design vision, everyone pretty much knows it, and there's no way to patch that up...

*DING*DING*DING*

While I agree that a Rome 2 that was widely regarded by the community as a great game would've improved the traffic at the org, I'm not certain that it's widespread frustrating disappointment is the reason why it isn't very lively around here. There are plenty of Rome 2 related posts happening on a daily basis over at the official site and twcenter. Mostly rabid complaints and mod-related posts, but traffic nonetheless. The org is still the best though! :thumbsup:

[Slaists]

There is legitimate arguments, then there is grasping at straws.

You're going to attribute the lack of traffic on this forum to "loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators" and migration?

You're missing the elephant in the room.

Rome II's problems aren't just bugs. The new features the design team choose to include as well as the old features they stripped out represent problems. They scrapped successful systems from Shogun II and replaced them with inferior ones. At Shogun II's release, you could see the potential. Sure it needed patches, but you could see it. It is hard for me to see potential in Rome II. There is no family tree, there is no real political system, naval battles were very poorly done, you can't easily send reinforcements to the front from the homeland... those aren't bugs, they were intended. They won't be "fixed."

Thus, there is a huge difference between the release of Shogun II and Rome II. Massive. Your post does not surprise me. CA apologists take all forms, and there arguments are almost always illogical, grasp at straws and miss the obvious.

If Rome II was a smashing success and people loved it and hailed it, it would drive people to this forum. I don't care about loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators. You even said yourself that you don't visit the TWC because of the ads and loading times. But here you are... so obviously the ads and loading times here aren't that bad. Is it the moderators? Because I think they do a very nice job. Quality of posts?

No, it is none of those things. People can blame whatever. They can say the whiners pushed people away. But where it does it all stem from? It all stems from the quality of Rome II. To ignore that, is just ignorant.

So we all really know why this forum is dead.

I guess, you missed my main point: this forum was dying long before Rome 2.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Don't really know if you could call it dying.....you certainly can't just hit the refresh button to see replies on a topic like it used to be....but...

...I've been a member of a lot of forums, both gaming and military history. And forums have their ups and downs in the way of traffic, with spring and summer being the leaner times for obvious reasons.

That said, if R2 had been a better game, there would be more traffic here in the way of discussion of game mechanics, or guides to the different factions, etc., how much more is certainly problematical. And I would venture a guess that there have been very few new members coming here to discuss R2, and I would bet the R1 mod forum gets more traffic and newbies than here:shrug:

[Myth]

Eh, the factions are too similar unit wise. Which is actually historically accurate... Because they were all human men after all. R1 had a much steeper learning curve battle wise because of the more arcade style battles it sported.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Eh, the factions are too similar unit wise

That didn't seem to stop folks from posting guides in the Shogun series, which arguably, has even less diversity of units:shrug:

[Wilbo]

I haven't been here, as I've been too busy playing Hannibal at the Gates.

This talk, Internet-wide, of Rome II being fundamentally flawed, broken or otherwise terrible is, in my opinion, utter rubbish. I've played every game in the series, and Rome II is one of the best. While there are some things I don't like - huge garrisons and no short victory conditions - there is many features that I badly miss when playing Shogun 2!

I'm happy for this forum to be quiet, as the quality of posts is generally very high. I always prefer quality over quantity - especially in years to come, when I read back on specific topics.

[Wilbo]

I believe that in any game forum, when bitching, griping and general negativity reach a certain threshold, people who enjoy the game stop visiting and posting. The whining is too overbearing at that point. I know I feel that way.
This sums up the situation for me. I really like Rome II, so don't find any value in the vague, negative criticism.

[easytarget]

This sums up the situation for me. I really like Rome II, so don't find any value in the vague, negative criticism.

Way to take a stand! I hate mean people too.

It's just so brave, brought a tear to my eye reading this.

/golf clap

[Myth]

People are free to criticize if they can point out some concrete arguments. When people who like the game (myself included) are labelled "CA apologists" simply because we actually like its current state, is when I have a problem.

Fortunately though, the .org hasn't had immature posters and no moderator actions have been required, apart from the occasional PM. We may be few, but we're a good bunch.

[The Outsider]

Not blowing anyone's horn here but I believe that comparing the moderation of the org to the twc's is ruthless to put it blandly. I do believe that we have a lot more mature people here on org than any other tw forums. Moderators aren't attacking and banning and deleting the posts of the members like they do in twc. Negative opinions are welcome here as long as they are not insulting or overly hateful. I am glad that I see the good standard that was set by tosa is kept alive by our current moderation. Yes I go to twc to get the news but I always come back here to talk about the game because it has few but sensible and mature members. I am also saddened to see the drop of activity and I do believe that the quality of Rome 2 has a big effect on it but I believe that as long as the core hangs around the org will prevail. My best of is EB 2. If anything can help org than it is that mod.

[Alcibiade]

I think TWC moderation lost something when they launched this ''out of topic posts" hunt. Funny thing is that it happened around first of april and following some april fool joke all mods changed their avatar to look like some robots/cyborgs just like if they were unconsciouly feeeling that their new role was a totally deshumanized one. TWC's R2's forum has become a kindergarten*, no wonder the only entities able to control it should be inflexible, uncompromising cyber moderators !

* arg I already spent to much time in germany


EDIT : the thing about TWC is that its the place to find mods, ask about it and everytime you discuss about the game content there you have this very naive hope that one way or another it will get to CA's ears.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm surprised noone has mentioned a huge contributor to forum traffic.....Multi-player. In R2 it's a complete and total non-contributor. And, except for a brief spike with the release of Shogun II, the amount of posts generated has declined steadily since ME I:

Threads/Posts

Shogun I---138/3500
ME I---1868/31326
RTW I---610/13526
ME II---420/7108
ETW---160/1824
NTW---60/375
STW II---448/5723
RTW II---9/45

Nine topics and 45 posts in multi-player? Has multi-player support from CA sunk that low, or is the new breed of player just not interested?

:shrug:

[BroskiDerpman]

I'm surprised noone has mentioned a huge contributor to forum traffic.....Multi-player. In R2 it's a complete and total non-contributor. And, except for a brief spike with the release of Shogun II, the amount of posts generated has declined steadily since ME I:

Threads/Posts

Shogun I---138/3500
ME I---1868/31326
RTW I---610/13526
ME II---420/7108
ETW---160/1824
NTW---60/375
STW II---448/5723
RTW II---9/45

Nine topics and 45 posts in multi-player? Has multi-player support from CA sunk that low, or is the new breed of player just not interested?

:shrug:

Most players don't go to .Org forums, etc to post about multiplayer. Usually it's private clan forums, Steam, public mp forums (TWCC, Russian TW forum, etc) teamspeak, youtube etc.

For example there is a really old player, AggonyDuck (Shogun 1- Medieval 1 era) who use to browse these forums; not anymore. He's still active but not on here.

Almost no one would want to go these forums any more for mp discussion, the community has changed too. Mp support from CA has always been sh** but they patch once in a while. It's mostly the community which does the work. Irony is how the community now is larger than before though it is a little silent recently from R2 (especially around December 2013) but activity is improving.

I browse once in a while here but not much really keeps me here.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Most players don't go to .Org forums, etc to post about multiplayer. Usually it's private clan forums, Steam, public mp forums (TWCC, Russian TW forum, etc) teamspeak, youtube etc

Well, according to the numbers I posted, folks used to come HERE to discuss MP. I was only in on the tail-end of the Shogun I era, but MP discussion was huge here at the org. And it reached its peak for MTW I. So what's changed? The game, certainly, but how has the org changed to contribute to the decline of MP posting here? Or is it just a different kind of player now:creep:

[BroskiDerpman]

I have already answered those questions in the post you just quoted but I'll rephrase. I recommend reading my previous post to get a better summarization.

Both.

Most players of this sort have already moved on, only one I remember from such an era is Aggony Duck who is still a very good player with his aggressive cavalry work.

Steam, twitch, clan forums, other community forums, new breed of players, etc. It is also the separation between the mp and sp communities.

Some additional stuff: Plus .Org has fallen off from good activity thus contributing to less people coming here for anything. An interesting thing to note, there was a a TWC analysis on other TW forums and some people from TWC note of .Orgs elitism (I remember being told the Orgahs are superior in proper behavior and politeness, funny thing I still enjoyed my time on the modding subforums of TWC discussion at IB's tavern on any sort of matter with familiar, polite people.) They see the elitism as something to be avoided too.

I can go on but imo it's a little obvious why no one comes here for multiplayer anymore. I believe it's impossible to get even a small chunk of the players to return to here, there is absolutely no reason for them to do so either.

Cheers.

[easytarget]

Godspeed to them then I guess...

[Hooahguy]

Elitist? Yeah I guess acting calmly and rationally when everyone else is losing their heads is elitist...

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...

[Stuie]

Most players don't go to .Org forums, etc to post about multiplayer.

[snip]

I browse once in a while here but not much really keeps me here.

And I would say the same for modding. TWC has an active modding community, so that's where I go when I need modding advice. It has been that way since somewhere during the RTW time frame (at which point I felt like the Org turned into the "EB Forum").

For new people that wander in, you need something to keep them here.

[easytarget]

For new people that wander in, you need something to keep them here.

I demand to be entertained, dance damn you, dance...

[Myth]

I have already answered those questions in the post you just quoted but I'll rephrase. I recommend reading my previous post to get a better summarization.

Both.

Most players of this sort have already moved on, only one I remember from such an era is Aggony Duck who is still a very good player with his aggressive cavalry work.

Steam, twitch, clan forums, other community forums, new breed of players, etc. It is also the separation between the mp and sp communities.

Some additional stuff: Plus .Org has fallen off from good activity thus contributing to less people coming here for anything. An interesting thing to note, there was a a TWC analysis on other TW forums and some people from TWC note of .Orgs elitism (I remember being told the Orgahs are superior in proper behavior and politeness, funny thing I still enjoyed my time on the modding subforums of TWC discussion at IB's tavern on any sort of matter with familiar, polite people.) They see the elitism as something to be avoided too.

I can go on but imo it's a little obvious why no one comes here for multiplayer anymore. I believe it's impossible to get even a small chunk of the players to return to here, there is absolutely no reason for them to do so either.

Cheers.

LOL TWC analysis. What, do they have a research institute to analyze other TW forums? I remember when you came here, around R2 launch. You were banned from the TWC and were singing a very different tune :clown:

[Alcibiade]

My web browser (chrome) pretend TWC is infected by malwares lol For one hour it won't let me go there anymore ! The question is '' do Chrome really know what is good for me''. I'm in a playfull mood, so I'd say yes.

EDIT : Don't take me bad. I like TWC. Most of what I wrote is what we call "second degré" in my mother tongue. And we also say that you are more severe with the whom you like.

One thing I always wondered about TWC, since I don't know much about forums as a rule and especially since it's such a big website and with so many moderators, is how does it work. Does it belong to a private person or company. How is it financed, etc....

[al Roumi]

Sad to hear the forum is on the wane. It did seem a little quiet. Guess the thing to do about it is to come back and contribute, if only in hot air. I'm grateful to regular posters and mods for keeping things going, I hope they still find it rewarding.

I have always liked the Org for being more about accuraccy and less about, well, being part of the feral internet.

I had been about to say that the format of the site is maybe getting a bit fusty but then remembered that I have the decor set to that old brown MTW theme!

Looking at the steam play charts for RTW2 (http://steamcharts.com/app/214950), it's interesting to see that R2 is at #15 now and has had reasonably steady numbers (if declining) since November (launch +2 months), and currently stands at 1/3 the numbers at launch. It doesn't seem possible to compare that with STW2's figures as steam's data doesn't go back to S2's launch.

Sadly for those who are pissed off about RTW2, these figures are what keep CA in the business, despite the flaws in their products. I'd also say that those figures infer that RTW2 is popular, despite its flaws, and that Slaists was right (way up in this thread) when he said the forum was struggling irrespective of RTW2.

[BroskiDerpman]

LOL TWC analysis. What, do they have a research institute to analyze other TW forums? I remember when you came here, around R2 launch. You were banned from the TWC and were singing a very different tune :clown:

What? I was never banned from TWC, I remain in good standing with the folks there. I remember posting here in a really pissed mood too, it's fun bashing R2, it was what sparked my interest in the .Org again. I came here well before R2 launch if you bothered to read my join date and also browsed .Org a lot before I signed up. So again cut it with the jabs at fellow members.

Already you and Hooahguy are showing what I have mentioned. False claims of everyone else not on .Org loosing their minds and sarcastic jokes on a TWC's staff member's bothering to shed light on websites such as the .Org. I can go on and further make more claims but I will keep calm and recommend you to do so too and not go an inch further.

[Myth]

Oops, I think I confused you with another member. You were the one who ended every post with how he isn't going to buy Rome II now and wait for a Steam sale. I apologize. So, did you actually get the game?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Already you and Hooahguy are showing what I have mentioned. False claims of everyone else not on .Org loosing their minds and sarcastic jokes on a TWC's staff member's bothering to shed light on websites such as the .Org. I can go on and further make more claims but I will keep calm and recommend you to do so too and not go an inch further.

Watch your tongue, young man:stare:

[/joke]

But seriously, the "elitism", as you call it, and the occasional mis-step by mods pales in comparison to what goes on at TWC. Over there, you need to be wearing one of those flame retardant suits stunt people use in the movies......:creep:

[Alcibiade]

Watch your tongue, young man:stare:

[/joke]

But seriously, the "elitism", as you call it, and the occasional mis-step by mods pales in comparison to what goes on at TWC. Over there, you need to be wearing one of those flame retardant suits stunt people use in the movies......:creep:

Yes the moderation on the org seems quite fair and the freedom of speech here is obvious.

More and more, I go to TWC to check what's going on with mods but come here to gather and share opinions on the game. *

I really like the org, even if there are not many posters atm. My favourite bar is a bit like that. A discreet but witty barkeeper and very few customers, but whenever you meet somebody there, it's always cool.

Ok, now I stop throwing flowers.




* and to follow EB2's dev !

[Hooahguy]

Already you and Hooahguy are showing what I have mentioned. False claims of everyone else not on .Org loosing their minds and sarcastic jokes on a TWC's staff member's bothering to shed light on websites such as the .Org. I can go on and further make more claims but I will keep calm and recommend you to do so too and not go an inch further.
Ah, classic revisionism.

Might I remind you of this:

Exactly, this forums is like bliss to me. Sure people differ opinions than me on Rome 2 but at least nobody goes all out nerd rage... Yet....

[al Roumi]

Ah, classic revisionism.

Also looks like classic condescension on your behalf. Well done, everyone wins.

[The Outsider]

First of all let me say that I opened an account on TWC last year for mods and I had a better chance for checking things over there. I am not attacking anyone on a personal level but the moderation there is abysmal. People get fraction points and warnings for simply having negative views of the game. Moderators are picking on certain members and they are in absolute denily. Obviously CA visits the forums there and this has immensely effected the independence of the forums

The relative isolation of the org makes it independent I have been around for ten years and I never saw moderation taking a stand against members. I am happy here and Ican ffreely say what I think, that's why I sticked around for so long. As far as I can see fan boy - hater levels are at minimum at the org.

usually people have independent opinions that can be expressed without fear of being placed in one category or another and I see this as maturity not elitism. And don't even get me started on the official forums.

[Sp4]

I'm surprised noone has mentioned a huge contributor to forum traffic.....Multi-player. In R2 it's a complete and total non-contributor. And, except for a brief spike with the release of Shogun II, the amount of posts generated has declined steadily since ME I:

Threads/Posts

Shogun I---138/3500
ME I---1868/31326
RTW I---610/13526
ME II---420/7108
ETW---160/1824
NTW---60/375
STW II---448/5723
RTW II---9/45

Nine topics and 45 posts in multi-player? Has multi-player support from CA sunk that low, or is the new breed of player just not interested?

:shrug:

I am literally not interested and while a nice multiplayer would be nice to have, it remains that for me... nice to have. Rome 2 doesn't have it.
That said, I never really played any multiplayer in any TW game, except for coop campaign. I wanted to get into it with a friend for Rome 2 and wanted to play against other people together but then the game was delivered in a crap state, the multiplayer was more than shit and we didn't even finish a co op campaign.

(For comparison, both of us spent 300 or 400 hours playing Shogun 2 and FotS campaigns. We literally had weeks where we said right, we'll finish this campaign now and then a day went by without either of us noticing... Rome 2 is just not as good in that department)

-E- Forgot my verdict: I think the reason there is so little activity here is because a lot of people have given up on playing the game as much as they used to play better TW titles. Had the game been released today in the state it is today, it might have been/be a different story.

[Symphony]

Way to take a stand! I hate mean people too.

It's just so brave, brought a tear to my eye reading this.

/golf clap

You prefer everybody circle-jerk endlessly about how horrible the game is? That seems to be what the people who passionately hate the game want, both here and over on TWC: endless validation of their opinion. That'd certainly up the post count, but would it really be any more productive or engaging?

At this point, those people have decided to hate the game, and voice their hatred and disappointment every chance they get (whether the topic warrants it or not). Their minds are not going to be changed. Every complaint has been lathered, rinsed, and repeated ad nauseum. Any attempt to engage them results in an ad hominem dismissal of "fanboy" or "apologist", and doesn't result in any new conversation. There is literally no more conversation to be had there.

The people who enjoy the game, regardless of its faults, have no traction; why would they stay and "take a stand" over somebody's else's legitimate disagreement on a game forum, especially when they know there's no possible resolution...when they could be off playing the game instead?

[ReluctantSamurai]

The silence is deafening.........





:creep::creep::creep:

[Kamakazi]

Tell me about it... I check in here every day or so hoping for something to talk about

[easytarget]

You prefer everybody circle-jerk endlessly about how horrible the game is? That seems to be what the people who passionately hate the game want, both here and over on TWC: endless validation of their opinion. That'd certainly up the post count, but would it really be any more productive or engaging?

At this point, those people have decided to hate the game, and voice their hatred and disappointment every chance they get (whether the topic warrants it or not). Their minds are not going to be changed. Every complaint has been lathered, rinsed, and repeated ad nauseum. Any attempt to engage them results in an ad hominem dismissal of "fanboy" or "apologist", and doesn't result in any new conversation. There is literally no more conversation to be had there.

The people who enjoy the game, regardless of its faults, have no traction; why would they stay and "take a stand" over somebody's else's legitimate disagreement on a game forum, especially when they know there's no possible resolution...when they could be off playing the game instead?

Insidious isn't it, you were drawn in anyway.

[Symphony]

Insidious isn't it, you were drawn in anyway.

Well, yeah, but I'm a known sucker.

[AussieGiant]

We are just floating along on life support here at the moment. That's not a bad thing. I got the feeling that most of us played Rome II quite a bit and as a result we had something to say to each other.

Now for what ever reason we don't have much to say to each other. That's either a result of us all just casually playing Rome II or having put it down for good.

I will always come here for tips and advice until it's shut down.

....forgive me for asking ;-)

But does anyone have any tips for winning Caesar in Gaul? I'm getting agent spammed to death and I have no counter.

[BroskiDerpman]

I got R2.

The terrain reminded me of an old flight sim I played. :clown:
I'll go grab some graphics mods to ease the game on my eyes. Any suggestions?

Edit:

@ Hooahguy

My opinions change. (And so do many people?)

I admit I have made a rash statement against the .Org in this thread but oh well; I can't change what I said when people have already read what I have typed.

I do believe your quoting of an old post of mine from around release day to be really unnecessary though.

And this person describes it well in his/her response to you.


Also looks like classic condescension on your behalf. Well done, everyone wins.

I'll stop here, I don't want to further cause a flame war with the moderators.

Cheers and have a good day.:bow:

[Hooahguy]

No problem with changing your opinion, at the very least you could explain they changed.

[Sp4]

I got R2.

The terrain reminded me of an old flight sim I played. :clown:
I'll go grab some graphics mods to ease the game on my eyes. Any suggestions?



I used GEM for a while. It looks quite good. Remember to turn the unlimited GFX memory thing on in settings.

For prettier units, DeI, although that is a total conversion and a little 'heavy' if you've not played vanilla before.

[Myth]

Some of the RII stuff is on Steam sale at the moment. I'm waiting for the last day to get everything but the latest DLC at 75% off.

I started a new Sparta campaign last night. I got a weird bug where I couldn't levle up my army (the button had disappeared). I had to quit and restart the game to resolve it.

I was frustrated and left when I fought a 20 minute slugfest with my Spartan hoplites, backed up by 6 slingers and 3 javelins versus similarly arrayed Roman armies defending a minor settlement. Autocalc had given me horrible odds due to the ships parked nearby. But I know that ships eraly on are manned by weak skirmishers, so I bought 2 mercenary shock cav and wrecked them as they debarked.

I didn't count on literally sitting there for 20 real life minutes on 6x speed, lookng at 2 blobs (one of hoplites, one of Hastati) pushing into each other in a narrow street choke point.

Look, if I'm going to lose, make me lose. If my hoplites can shred Hastati in a city conquest (they could do so in Rome 1), let me do it in reasonable time. DON'T make me wait for my general to inevitably die so I can get chain routed (or something similar happen to the enemy). City assaults feel like a chore to me, that's why I AR 90% of them unless I have superior quality troops or tons of artilery so I can just fry the AI blob. It's too bad that most battles in Rome 2 are either city assaults or city defenses and that is of minor settlements 3 out of 4 times statisticaly.

[ReluctantSamurai]

City assaults feel like a chore to me, that's why I AR 90% of them unless I have superior quality troops or tons of artilery so I can just fry the AI blob. It's too bad that most battles in Rome 2 are either city assaults or city defenses and that is of minor settlements 3 out of 4 times statisticaly.

This is precisely why I refuse to purchase the game unless I can get it dirt cheap. City assaults are a boring affair to begin with, and in all honesty, even in R1 I AR most assaults on walled cities. After a dozen or so, the procedure is virtually the same....tedious and boring. This flies in the face of CA's supposed attempt to remediate the quantity of siege battles that so many complained about in R1. It's one of the reasons Shogun 1 will forever remain my favorite. You fought for control of the province in a field battle, and you could simply force the AI to fight a field battle in order to lift a siege if it chose to retreat to the castle.

Agent spam is also a big "deal-breaker". I never got bored with the Ninja cut-scenes of Shogun. When it became apparent your assassin was going to die, you just felt bad. When he succeeded, it was....YES....another one bites the dust:laugh4: Agents that can disable an entire army without assassinating the general is.....well....just silly:inquisitive:


I didn't count on literally sitting there for 20 real life minutes on 6x speed, lookng at 2 blobs (one of hoplites, one of Hastati) pushing into each other in a narrow street choke point.

IIRC, doesn't this happen because CA got so wound up in animating "killing moves" that individual soldiers will stand around doing nothing if they can't complete one on an enemy soldier?

[Slaists]

Look, if I'm going to lose, make me lose. If my hoplites can shred Hastati in a city conquest (they could do so in Rome 1), let me do it in reasonable time. DON'T make me wait for my general to inevitably die so I can get chain routed (or something similar happen to the enemy). City assaults feel like a chore to me, that's why I AR 90% of them unless I have superior quality troops or tons of artilery so I can just fry the AI blob. It's too bad that most battles in Rome 2 are either city assaults or city defenses and that is of minor settlements 3 out of 4 times statisticaly.

Um, if I'm not wrong, cities tend to have more than one street. Why not charge those hastati in the rear with that shock cavalry you bought?

Other than that, I agree, city battles are a chore. After a few: you've seen everything there is to be seen unless it's a human controlling the garrison.

[Myth]

Um, if I'm not wrong, cities tend to have more than one street. Why not charge those hastati in the rear with that shock cavalry you bought?

Other than that, I agree, city battles are a chore. After a few: you've seen everything there is to be seen unless it's a human controlling the garrison.

The AI had one Roman cav general, 3 merc cav of some sort and a Triarii general. I had no chance to use the cav, it knows how to position itself. I had to split my hopiltes in 2 groups and flank that way, but i didn't expect that I would need it versus hastati and town watch when fighting with Spartan hoplites.

[fallen851]

Some of the RII stuff is on Steam sale at the moment. I'm waiting for the last day to get everything but the latest DLC at 75% off.

I started a new Sparta campaign last night. I got a weird bug where I couldn't levle up my army (the button had disappeared). I had to quit and restart the game to resolve it.

I was frustrated and left when I fought a 20 minute slugfest with my Spartan hoplites, backed up by 6 slingers and 3 javelins versus similarly arrayed Roman armies defending a minor settlement. Autocalc had given me horrible odds due to the ships parked nearby. But I know that ships eraly on are manned by weak skirmishers, so I bought 2 mercenary shock cav and wrecked them as they debarked.

I didn't count on literally sitting there for 20 real life minutes on 6x speed, lookng at 2 blobs (one of hoplites, one of Hastati) pushing into each other in a narrow street choke point.

Look, if I'm going to lose, make me lose. If my hoplites can shred Hastati in a city conquest (they could do so in Rome 1), let me do it in reasonable time. DON'T make me wait for my general to inevitably die so I can get chain routed (or something similar happen to the enemy). City assaults feel like a chore to me, that's why I AR 90% of them unless I have superior quality troops or tons of artilery so I can just fry the AI blob. It's too bad that most battles in Rome 2 are either city assaults or city defenses and that is of minor settlements 3 out of 4 times statisticaly.

It genuinely saddens me when the people who like this game struggle with it.

I personally gave it up, but I check the forums every once in awhile to see if naval battles and siege battles work. I'd really like to play a proper naval battle.

[Sp4]

IIRC, doesn't this happen because CA got so wound up in animating "killing moves" that individual soldiers will stand around doing nothing if they can't complete one on an enemy soldier?

No. Not all deaths happen by killing moves. A lot of them are still your simple stab and fall over moves from R1.

[Slaists]

The AI had one Roman cav general, 3 merc cav of some sort and a Triarii general. I had no chance to use the cav, it knows how to position itself. I had to split my hopiltes in 2 groups and flank that way, but i didn't expect that I would need it versus hastati and town watch when fighting with Spartan hoplites.

So, if I read it right, you're saying the AI was pretty decent in this battle. :)

But yeah, hoplites have no killing power (they do have staying power), even the Spartan ones whereas hastati's swords have a bonus against spears. Add to that the fact that the formation stance is supposedly improving fighting stats now (I have not tested this, but CA claims it does as of a few patches ago) and you get your standoff there.


No. Not all deaths happen by killing moves. A lot of them are still your simple stab and fall over moves from R1.

Given the hitpoint mechanism I would not be surprised hit-animations and a soldier getting killed are uncorrelated.

Anyway, most melee killing at least in Roman armies happened by simple stab moves (from behind the shield). Romans did not like expose themselves to be able to do dramatic cleaves.

[ReluctantSamurai]

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/117003-The-one-on-one-combat-system?

Older discussion, but apparently there were/are issues related to the Warscape Engine and melee animations...:shrug:

Which led to this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=208344533

20 minutes on 6X speed is more than a bit excessive to resolve a unit combat situation, so something is still not right....

[Slaists]

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/117003-The-one-on-one-combat-system?

Older discussion, but apparently there were/are issues related to the Warscape Engine and melee animations...:shrug:

Which led to this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=208344533

20 minutes on 6X speed is more than a bit excessive to resolve a unit combat situation, so something is still not right....

There is also a thread where someone from CA responded that while the animations show only 1 on 1 duels, the engine actually accounts for the fact that units are locally outnumbered, outflanked, attacked from multiple sides, etc. This suggests, the animations and actual hitpoint loss/kills are not necessarily 100% correlated. Sorry, could not find the reference. I read that post a long time ago.

As to 20 minutes on 6x speed combat: to be honest, I personally have never seen that in my gzillion hours with Rome 2. Very rarely any of my battles against the AI go longer than 10 minutes on normal speed [mostly the longer ones are siege battles where I have to wait for reinforcements or defending siege battles where the AI is drawing multiple stacks in]. But in those cases it's not combat that takes time but rather there is a long wait for troops to arrive. Then again, I have not attempted to play a pure hoplite nation since patch 3 or so.

[Sp4]

The hoplites are the problem. High quality hoplites against high quality hoplites is pretty silly.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I didn't count on literally sitting there for 20 real life minutes on 6x speed, lookng at 2 blobs (one of hoplites, one of Hastati) pushing into each other in a narrow street choke point.

In this case, hoplites vs. hastatii. In R1, this combat would've been over in two minutes or less, and no guesswork as to who wins~;)....the other end of the spectrum.

As to elite hoplites vs. elite hoplites, the first Battle of Mantinea in 418BC during the Peloponnesian War was almost entirely a hoplite conflict with roughly 17,000 hoplites on both sides involved.....and it "only" took 6-8 hours to resolve the battle:wink3:

So considering a mere handful of troops, by comparison, 2 hours is excessive. Maybe Myth's experience is a 'one-off' anomaly, so the verdict is still out, I guess:shrug:

[Slaists]

In the few early Roman battles I have had against hastati wielding AI, my hastati chop up hoplites, no problem. Sure, hastati suffer heavy losses in the process but there is no question as to who comes out on the top and the resolution does not take long either.


The hoplites are the problem. High quality hoplites against high quality hoplites is pretty silly.

Sounds like a slug-fest. I'd resolve it by javelins, in the backs of the opposite side. That or an agrianin axe.

Funny, the other day I by mistake sent some Spartan (regular) hoplites against a group of AI agrianians who just disembarked on the beach. Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...

[ReluctantSamurai]

Funny, the other day I by mistake sent some Spartan (regular) hoplites against a group of AI agrianians who just disembarked on the beach. Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...

Sounds like very poor unit balancing to me. In a real-life combat situation, I would venture that in melee combat hoplites would decimate spear-chuckers 99.999% of the time:inquisitive:


In the few early Roman battles I have had against hastati wielding AI, my hastati chop up hoplites, no problem.

Player vs AI is a mis-match to begin with, but on a design level I would have a problem with this being the common result. Troop quality, leadership quality, terrain, etc are all factors affecting the outcome, but if per-Marian Hastatii beat mid-grade hoplites consistently 1v1, with no flanking or other outside influences, something is wrong, IMHO.

[Myth]

You might have missed the fact that it's Spartan Hoplites versus Hastati and Town watch. Also, that I had 6 slinger units and 3 helot javelinmen. So 9 skirimisher units, who were pelting the enemy blob until they ran out of ammo. They were shooting over the backs of my guys, but still.

If I had moved my general back to not let him die, the battle would still be going I think. It's absurd. I'm not against Hastati being more flexible and beating hoplites on the open field. But in a narrow street choke point where both armies turn into blobs, I'd favour the Spartans.

I've fought hoplites with pikes very successfully, pre-pikemen nerf. I remember conquering asia minor (which has a lot of factions that like to spam fullstacks of hoplites) with Seleukid pikes. But post nerf and post skirmisher buff, pikes do very poorly on the open field en masse. Perhaps I still should get 4-6 pikes for just these city assaults however. But Spartan pikes are just so fragile compared to the better versions that Egypt, Macedon and Seleukeia have...

[Sp4]

You might have missed the fact that it's Spartan Hoplites versus Hastati and Town watch. Also, that I had 6 slinger units and 3 helot javelinmen. So 9 skirimisher units, who were pelting the enemy blob until they ran out of ammo. They were shooting over the backs of my guys, but still.

If I had moved my general back to not let him die, the battle would still be going I think. It's absurd. I'm not against Hastati being more flexible and beating hoplites on the open field. But in a narrow street choke point where both armies turn into blobs, I'd favour the Spartans.

I've fought hoplites with pikes very successfully, pre-pikemen nerf. I remember conquering asia minor (which has a lot of factions that like to spam fullstacks of hoplites) with Seleukid pikes. But post nerf and post skirmisher buff, pikes do very poorly on the open field en masse. Perhaps I still should get 4-6 pikes for just these city assaults however. But Spartan pikes are just so fragile compared to the better versions that Egypt, Macedon and Seleukeia have...

Missile fire over the backs of your own guys is not very effective in that situation. You are shooting into the face of the enemies which means they'll have more protection against the javelins and slingers than your own guys. You probably lost more people to friendly fire there than the Romans did. Slingers attacking a unit from behind another unit is pretty useless, they will not have any effect. It works somewhat with javelins but moving either unit so they can throw stuff into the side of the enemy's units would have been a better thing to do.

I know narrow streets and choke points and all that but 1-2 healthy units of hoplites in phalanx can be relied upon to hold a large blob of even high quality units on a chokepoint for some time for your to move something else around them.

In game mechanical terms, you had a blob of spear infantry slug it out with a blob of melee infantry. Melee wins, no surprise.

[Slaists]

You might have missed the fact that it's Spartan Hoplites versus Hastati and Town watch. Also, that I had 6 slinger units and 3 helot javelinmen. So 9 skirimisher units, who were pelting the enemy blob until they ran out of ammo. They were shooting over the backs of my guys, but still.


Spartan hoplite (not talking about Royal Spartans) stats in my opinion are just marginally better than the stats of other run-of-the-mill hoplites. Sure, they beat other hoplites in one-on-one fights, but sword units? Not such a clear-cut answer. Hastati on the other hand are much better sword units (of the same tier) than any other playable faction gets (I haven't noticed any and I'm not talking about oathsworn here but barrack-level 1-2 units). I suspect, that and the sword versus spear bonus kicks in for that Spartan hoplite versus hastati fight.

[Sp4]

I think Egypt gets to recruit Galatian sword people pretty early on, they are not bad, but yeah. The Hastatis you can churn out as Rome the moment you load up your first campaign are probably all the melee infantry you will need for the first 100 turns.

[ReluctantSamurai]

In game mechanical terms, you had a blob of spear infantry slug it out with a blob of melee infantry. Melee wins, no surprise.


the sword versus spear bonus kicks in for that Spartan hoplite versus hastati fight.

Can someone please explain why soldiers with a short, stabbing sword, have a bonus fighting hoplites and/or pikes? I realize that CA used the rock>paper>scissor idea from the beginning in Shogun. There it made sense, as troops using a sword wielded a very large, two-handed naginata or nodachi.

Even the shortest doru used by hoplites was something like 8 feet in length (although not all of the length would be projected beyond the hoplon), so just how does a gladius-equipped hastatii penetrate the shield-wall easily? It certainly was done, but not easily, I would think. Seems even worse when facing pikemen using a sarissa. As long as the shield-wall stays intact, keeping all those pointy sticks facing the enemy, I would think the advantage lies with the hoplite due to the longer reach of his weapon:shrug:

And I'm not even going to touch the issue of moderately equipped, moderately trained Roman infantrymen taking on heavily armored/armed hoplites toe-to-toe:creep:

And this bears repeating to point up, IMHO, how poorly balanced unit stats are:


Agrianians killed almost the whole hoplite unit, in melee...

Must have had their Wheaties for breakfast, or something......:juggle:

[Slaists]

Can someone please explain why soldiers with a short, stabbing sword, have a bonus fighting hoplites and/or pikes? I realize that CA used the rock>paper>scissor idea from the beginning in Shogun. There it made sense, as troops using a sword wielded a very large, two-handed naginata or nodachi.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rome was built using short (efficient), stabbing swords hiding behind huge shields...

The latter part is not unimportant too. The main advantage of the spears - their reach, could not do much against the advancing Roman wall of shields (larger than hoplite shields). Once in close quarters: that short stabbing sword combined with an organized shield wall pushes could do more than spears.

For one, with a sword, you can go low and instead of a stab, cut opponent's legs at knee/ankle height. One such cut and the opponent would be out of the fight for good [on top of that would receive a shield in the face from the rear Roman ranks]. In close quarters, the short sword stab is also more efficient.

Probably a tad different against pikes. But Romans did not try to beat pikes face on but rather outmaneuvered them.

All in all that sword versus spear makes sense to me.

p.s. Sure, hoplites had a shield wall too. But it is not clear how well trained hoplite troops were at the time portrayed in Rome 2. After all, the last battle involving a large hoplite army (defeated btw) happened in 338 BC at Chersonea.

[easytarget]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rome was built using short (efficient), stabbing swords hiding behind huge shields...

Sure, I'll be happy to correct you on this piece. Rome was most definitely built on a lot more than the use of pointy swords. Efficient or otherwise.

[Myth]

Rome II stuff (bar the latest DLC) on 66% daily sale on Steam. CiG costs 5 euro.

[Sp4]

Can someone please explain why soldiers with a short, stabbing sword, have a bonus fighting hoplites and/or pikes? I realize that CA used the rock>paper>scissor idea from the beginning in Shogun and every other game they made since then

Fixed

[ReluctantSamurai]

Fixed? Fixed what~:confused:

In any case, after some time perusing though web material, I came up with these three links as pretty good answers to my question:

http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/general/gladius_vs_sarissa

http://deadliestblogpage.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/phalanx-vs-legion-closing-the-debate/

http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=2776

All are pretty short, and interesting reads. What I get from them is that Roman success against phalanx was based on several factors. The first is more flexibility, through the use of maniples, on the battlefield. A quote from the third link with this statement from Polybius:


the Romans do not make their line equal in force to the enemy and expose all the legions to a frontal attack by the phalanx, but part of their forces remain in reserve and the rest engage the enemy. Afterwards whether the phalanx drives back by its charge the force opposed to it or is repulsed by this force, its own peculiar formation is broken up. For either in following a retreating foe or in flying before an attacking foe, they leave behind the other parts of their own army, upon which the enemy’s reserve have room enough in the space formerly held by the phalanx to attack no longer in front but appearing by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the phalanx.

The second is the use of pilum to create initial gaps in the shield wall which allowed Roman infantry to get in close where they had the advantage.


Before closing to sword range, however, the heavy infantrymen of the maniples would hurl their pilum into the ranks of the enemy. It would imbed itself in man or shield; and if stuck in the enemy’s shield would encumber or disable it altogether. As the enemy was coping with the shower of pila, the maniples would smash into their ranks just seconds later, driving forward with large shield and deadly swords. All along the line, individual maniples would make impact with the enemy line; causing shock and disruption.

A third is a bit more vague but judging from the ease with which the Romans outflanked Philip V at Cynoscephalae and Perseus at Pydna, the author of the last link seems to have a good point when he states:


Another major factor that contributed to the defeat of the phalanx was the inadequate flank protection by the cavalry force. In contrast to earlier glorious periods, the Macedonians had neglected their cavalry and relied mostly on the sarissa phalanx, trying to maximize its shock action but not taking into account the disadvantages. It is surprising to see that Philip had only 2,000 troopers, half of them Macedonians, against an enemy which counted on maneuverability and outflanking in order to deal with the phalanx; on the contrary, it was the Roman and allied cavalry that proved to be superior. It is argued that, most possibly, the outcome of the wars would have been different if there had been a strong and efficient Macedonian cavalry force.

Then there are the intangibles like better leadership on the part of the Romans, better organization, etc., and these are certainly very subjective.

So........this begs two more questions:

Much of Roman superiority depends on not just "getting in close" but in the manipular formations in the field. Using Myth's experience of a 1v1 engagement on a level city street between a Spartan hoplite unit and a single Hastatii unit, who should win?

Does the Roman experience translate to other sword units who a) do not use a gladius b) do not use a shield wall of their own to get in close c) do not use a flexible formation such as the Roman maniple?

....and btw, since there isn't much of dog-spit for activity around here, I hope noone minds this whole long-winded discussion:creep:

[Sp4]

Basically you are complaining about something that has been in the game like that since CA made these games. That's what I was fixing in your post.

And by this I do not mean to say that it has been broken from the start but it is a game design choice that has existed from the start.

[ReluctantSamurai]

it is a game design choice that has existed from the start.

....and unfortunately for me, I have neither the time nor the skill to balance unit stats, nor remove the sword vs spear bonus for the units who might not warrant it.


That's what I was fixing in your post.

Orgahs here are such giving fellows.......:kiss:

[Sp4]

I know it sucks, especially after all this hype about Rome 2 being basically Rome 1 but better and all that jazz but basically, all melee units in Rome 2 are reskinned versions of each other. They behave the same, they do the same, they even have throwing spears, every single one of them. Everything that has a spear and a shield is a reskinned hoplite - the phalanx button as well.

It might look differently but Rome 2 has about as much unit diversity as Shogun 2.

[easytarget]

Yep, that is exactly my impression as well. Which is why I laugh really hard every time someone throws out that R2 has 5000 units in it or complain that S2 had too few.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I laugh really hard every time someone throws out that R2 has 5000 units in it or complain that S2 had too few.

I'm not a player that just cannot live without having a zillion units to choose from in a faction's roster. Which is why I still enjoy Shogun 1/Med 1...it's all about the gameplay and outmaneuvering the AI army once we're on the battlefield. Plus my favorite battlefield situations involve small unit engagements where each side might have a dozen units or less. A single mistake usually costs you the battle. That's far more exciting to me than grand battles with thousands of troops. That, and battles you absolutely have to win.

In Shogun 1, the Oda 1580 campaign, you fight a battle, usually within the first three turns, where a Takeda-Imagawa alliance force attacks you in the Mino Province. Takeda, of course, brings the heavy cavalry/Cavalry Archers, and Imagawa brings Yari Samurai/Samurai Archers and Battlefield Ninja. You, as Oda, have only Ashigaru and Teppo. You absolutely have to win or you might just as well hit the Start Campaign Over button. Thankfully, Mino is very rugged, mountainous terrain where your deployment (especially your musket) makes or breaks the battle. Can't beat that for excitement....your first battle, and one you must win against heavy odds.

Screenies from one of my Oda 1580 campaigns (my apologies for getting off the OP...just figured many folks here have never played or seen screenshots from the One-That-Started-It-All):

https://imgcash4.imageshack.us/Himg242/scaled.php?server=242&filename=016nf2.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

[Takeda cavalry in black, forefront-right, and streaming in up the valley; Imagawa forces in blue center-left on the small hill; Oda in gold]

https://imgcash2.imageshack.us/Himg300/scaled.php?server=300&filename=004pd1.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

Since Med2/R1, it's all about siege battles, and apparently that CA "tradition" is carried on with R2, which is why players who enjoy the art of maneuver just auto-calc them. Might just as well auto-calc the entire campaign and be done with it....:wall:

[Sp4]

Well, if you use mods (and I know this is kind of a failure in itself), you can force a defender to come out of a city. The problem is, the AI rarely does this and it makes a lot of 'conquests' take very very long.

[easytarget]

That, and battles you absolutely have to win.

Nothing in Shogun 2 gave me this feeling like drop in battles back when it initially launched and players were doing this frequently enough to make it work in your campaign.

No matter the odds, having a human managing the army on the other side of the battle made a HUGE difference.

[Slaists]

Nothing in Shogun 2 gave me this feeling like drop in battles back when it initially launched and players were doing this frequently enough to make it work in your campaign.

No matter the odds, having a human managing the army on the other side of the battle made a HUGE difference.

I second this. This was a great feature in S2 and NTW. Sure, drop-in needs enough of a participant base to become meaningful. Something was bugged in S2 with this feature though. Unless one accepted the drop-in for the very first battle, the drop-in option almost never got activate afterwards (even though it was turned on). Also, the campaign map seemed to stutter if constant drop-in search was turned on.

[al Roumi]

In Shogun 1, the Oda 1580 campaign, you fight a battle, usually within the first three turns, where a Takeda-Imagawa alliance force attacks you in the Mino Province.

I was quite partial to Uesugi in S1 and fought countless similar battles in Hida and Mino. Maybe that was my fault for being unimaginative or too cautious but fighting the same battle again and again, be it siege or field, is a bit boring. I think it's also been a feature of every single TW campaign I've played accross all the games! Is that just me? nontheless, managing the attrition as the smae province was invaded turn after turn was a challenge - I had to have reinforcements next door to swap out depleted units.

I agree that siege battles, particularly when they are badly designed and the AI is patheticly unable to cope with them, age faster and are worse to replay than field battles at which the AI is more competent. I can't help but feel that a lot has gone wayward since MTW2, when CA moved away from the abstracted provinces and introduced "3d maps" to the campaign. Since Empire they've kind of found a fix by pathing/restricting freedom of movement (lots of impassable mountains, emphasis on roads) but in so doing the campaign maps don't do much more than look pretty and provide more opportunities for the campaign AI to look even more foolish (as the player outmaneuvres them).

[Chrissher]

Many things affect the popularity (or lack of it) of a forum. Loading times, presence of ads, quality of posts and moderators among them. Excessive presence of ads (and their effect on page loading times) is what kills twcenter.net for me, for example.

I would not attribute the present lack of traffic on this forum to the quality of RTW 2 in general. Simply, most folks who were originally here have migrated elsewhere (or stopped playing due to advanced age; I'd be in that category if I was not too addicted to TW games).

As far as I am concerned, ALL of the CA games are rather crappy upon release and get slowly improved with patches. Shogun 2 was bugged upon release as well. Rome 1 was no different on the machines of the time (and I'm not even talking about such bugs as subtracting shield value from the total defense of the unit rather than adding it). Don't remind me how bad and buggy was Empire Total War upon release. Come to think of it, that game never really got fixed.
I know this and twcenter both take ages to load compared to the average webpage. Also it looks like the older games are getting a bit more attention on this than twcenter and the official forums but the newer ones are lacking a lot compared to the other two