Total War: Rome 2 Announced

[TinCow]

Here's an article with the announcement:
http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/total-war-rome-2-preview-every-detail-about-the-new-engine-naval-combat-multiplayer-and-mods/

And, here's some of the more interesting bits from it:

Total War: Rome 2 runs on a new engine that supports the largest and most detailed battles in the series’ history, to the extent of supporting full, in-engine cutscenes. In place of a traditional general’s speech, then, the siege of Carthage began with an actual conversation between Scipio and his men, before zooming out to take in the sight of the Roman fleet approaching the heavily-defended shoreline.

Ships and armies can now take part in the same battles when the situation demands it. As troop-carrying biremes crashed into the shore, Roman boats armed with catapults kept their distance and provided covering fire for the dismounting troops, who formed into ranks before charging up the beach towards the walls. I later asked if this ‘rolling start’ meant that the deployment phase was a thing of the past, but that’s not the case – instead, CA are looking to be more flexible about how battles can begin, based on various circumstances. Beach landings are a confirmed feature, according to lead battle designer Jamie Ferguson, and there’s room for other non-traditional openings as well.

The new closest zoom setting is an absurdly detailed close-up that allows you to hover over a individual combatant’s shoulder in third-person. In the demonstration, this was shown off by leaping into Scipio Aemilianus’ unit as they prepared to storm the Carthaginian walls using a siege tower. The same Romans that had just been swarming from biremes by the hundred were now fidgeting and shifting as nervous individuals, listening to the orders of a general a few feet away.

Scripted? Yes, and Creative Assembly wouldn’t comment on how these mid-battle moments would play out as part of regular play.

“We’re … trying to focus attention on a much smaller number of armies and a smaller number of more significant battles” James Russell explains. “We’re trying to reduce the management you’ve got to do [with] assembling armies, and that kind of thing.”One example of this kind of refinement will be the ability to govern whole provinces made up of a number of individual regions. Rather than delving into the micromanagement of each individual territory, it sounds like it’ll be possible to set policies for an entire region – but when it comes to warfare, each one of those areas will need to be conquered separately. “We still have that strategic depth where a province is made of up several regions which you can conquer”, Russell says. “And what that means is that you can have the benefit of scale but you don’t have the management detail.”

A lot of the article just described features that have been in previous games, so there's not a whole lot to go on. Still, at least we can stop speculating about the next setting.

[hoom]

Rockpapershotgun coverage:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...ome-2-preview/

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...e-2-interview/

Recognisably Carthage




Haven't read the articles yet, excited but kinda disappointed.
This time period is so very interesting but kinda sad that they haven't found another new time period to cover.

OOh er!

Zoom out again and the size of the approaching army once again startles. Zoom out again to a Supreme Commander-esque tactical overhead map (not an interactive one as such, mind) and streams of soldiers are swarming the city from all angles as artillery boats creep around the sides. It seems impossible that one player could control all this, but a developer assures me that a broad move up from squads to legions does not mean over-complication.

The campaign map will be bigger still than Rome 1′s, with all I can glean of the new territories to be explored/conquered being that the game will be “going further East” in addition to containing all the countries and sates of the first the game.

Hopefully means doing decent justice to the Successors.

We want the player to be thinking like a Roman military leader. A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units.

The map will also be scattered with invisible, branching storyline triggers which demand consequence-laden choices and dilemmas beyond the merely military regardless of which nation/state/tribe/faction you play as. It’s not quite procedural, but you won’t run into the same story ‘Easter eggs’ every time and they’re not locked to specifically Roman history and lore.

Total War: Rome II is slated for release late next year.

we’ve got multiple ships in a unit, because ancient world battles weren’t fought with eight ships, you had several in a unit. We’re having several in a unit because you’re going to have many more ships than before... we’re not intending for it to be more to control, it’s just a more impressive scene

we’re not going to necessarily go above 40 units that we’ve got for Fall of the Samurai

you can capture territory without always having to fight a siege battle, so you get a greater variety of battle types, and a greater variety of battle environments as well, because you’re not always trying to head-shot the city.

[TinCow]

I'm pleased with the time period. It's a popular one for a reason. Interesting factions, interesting tech, interesting politics. However, the key, as always, for the old fan base is in the specifics. No info on the campaign map yet, which is not surprising. IIRC, the campaign map usually gets revealed much later than the game announcement. Let's hope that the admirable Shogun 2 CAI improvements continue and that BAI learns how to assault a city/fortification.

[hoom]

Live action trailer (not gameplay)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Live action trailer (not gameplay)

That was significantly better than I thought it would be.

Is it to much to hope RTW:2 gets a lot of inspiration from EB? Probably.

CR

[Lemur]

Is it to much to hope RTW:2 gets a lot of inspiration from EB?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't some of the devs commented in interviews how much they enjoyed EB?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do not know; please post any links you might have. That would be positive news.

CR

[quadalpha]

I somehow missed the bit about it being live action and was thinking 'that's some really good CGI work', and then 'that can't possibly be CG.'

[hoom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't some of the devs commented in interviews how much they enjoyed EB?

Yes I've seen several comments over the years where they have talked about the quality of mods & several times mentioned EB specifically.

I sure as heck hope they have been paying close attention, with the difficulty of modding these newer games it'll be very hard to correct stuff like the miserable version of Seleucids they had in Rome1.
Really looking forward to Successor polyreme battles!

[LeftEyeNine]

Unless the TW series employ an ultra-modder-friendly environment with any member that may appear, the glory days look to be long gone.

It's because the gameplay enthusiasm has been gradually diminishing since the "audience" is familiar with every other setting that is (re)released and other than bringing a few elements here and there into the game with newer engines, there's not much room for evolution -why the series fails to pick up from where it left off.

Only one thing I remember about RTW: Mods. Helluvamods.

[TruePraetorian]

I am so excited. My post count is going to explode like something naughty.

[Monk]

I suppose it shouldn't be a HUGE suprise that TWR2 is the next destination. We got medieval 2, shogun 2 and now rome 2. Can we expect Empire 2 after that?

Ships and armies can now take part in the same battles when the situation demands it. As troop-carrying biremes crashed into the shore, Roman boats armed with catapults kept their distance and provided covering fire for the dismounting troops, who formed into ranks before charging up the beach towards the walls. I later asked if this ‘rolling start’ meant that the deployment phase was a thing of the past, but that’s not the case – instead, CA are looking to be more flexible about how battles can begin, based on various circumstances. Beach landings are a confirmed feature, according to lead battle designer Jamie Ferguson, and there’s room for other non-traditional openings as well.

We've already seen the start of this synergy in FotS with ships providing off-map artillery provided they are close on the campaign map, but fully integrated into the battle itself? Sounds pretty fun.

“We’re … trying to focus attention on a much smaller number of armies and a smaller number of more significant battles” James Russell explains. “We’re trying to reduce the management you’ve got to do [with] assembling armies, and that kind of thing.”One example of this kind of refinement will be the ability to govern whole provinces made up of a number of individual regions. Rather than delving into the micromanagement of each individual territory, it sounds like it’ll be possible to set policies for an entire region – but when it comes to warfare, each one of those areas will need to be conquered separately. “We still have that strategic depth where a province is made of up several regions which you can conquer”, Russell says. “And what that means is that you can have the benefit of scale but you don’t have the management detail.”

Nope. I don't like it. I want the ability to micromanage CA. I want more control over my people, more flexibility in how i rule them, more, not less. Empire completely ruined everything in that regard when it tried to bunch everything up into one massive province, or have you forgotten one province France? Empire gave me a HUGE disconnect feeling when it came to ruling my faction. I never felt like i controlled a powerful entity due to the total lack of civic depth.

Shogun 2 was a step in the right direction. Letting me control more provinces without globbing them together needlessly made me feel, not only that i was making real progress as i built and conquered, but let me feel like I was ruling over a growing political entity. It allowed for more flexibility in both how I managed economic and military building. Not once did I ever say to myself "You know i wish all this control was taken away from me."

[TinCow]

Nope. I don't like it. I want the ability to micromanage CA. I want more control over my people, more flexibility in how i rule them, more, not less. Empire completely ruined everything in that regard when it tried to bunch everything up into one massive province, or have you forgotten one province France? Empire gave me a HUGE disconnect feeling when it came to ruling my faction. I never felt like i controlled a powerful entity due to the total lack of civic depth.

Shogun 2 was a step in the right direction. Letting me control more provinces without globbing them together needlessly made me feel, not only that i was making real progress as i built and conquered, but let me feel like I was ruling over a growing political entity. It allowed for more flexibility in both how I managed economic and military building. Not once did I ever say to myself "You know i wish all this control was taken away from me."

I think you're judging it a bit too harshly based on their comments so far. As I understand it, the size of the map will factor into this in a major way. CA have rather boldly stated that the map is much larger than RTW, and has "hundreds" of regions. They don't typically give out campaign map info like that on release day, which indicates this is a big change in some way. It sounds to me like it's meshing with the province management system. Essentially, it sounds like they're combining the ETW/TWS2 system with 'dispersed' production within a region, with the system used by all the other games. Take the existing TWS2 system, but then make all of the individual 'buildings' in its own region, and allow that region to be conquered by an enemy, not just 'damaged.' Simply repairing the building would not restore your production, you'd have to send units out to get the thing back. So, probably more field battles, which is a good thing.

Similarly, loss of the capital may prevent you from producing anything in the province, but controlling nothing but the capital of the province would probably have a similar impact on your enemy. So, you would not see provinces instantly churning out troops for the other side... that ability would only start showing up after all the associated regions are conquered as well. In general, it sounds to me like a way of reducing the frequency of siege battles. Sure, there will probably be many to take whatever the 'capital' of the province is, but the fate of the province might actually hinge on field battles fought in defense of the regions long before the capital is threatened. That's a change that I'm at least optimistic about. Sure, they could implement it in a manner that is poor, but it could also be a welcome improvement.

At least, that's what I'm imagining based on the very limited info provided.

[LeftEyeNine]

I suppose it shouldn't be a HUGE suprise that TWR2 is the next destination. We got medieval 2, shogun 2 and now rome 2. Can we expect Empire 2 after that?



We've already seen the start of this synergy in FotS with ships providing off-map artillery provided they are close on the campaign map, but fully integrated into the battle itself? Sounds pretty fun.



Nope. I don't like it. I want the ability to micromanage CA. I want more control over my people, more flexibility in how i rule them, more, not less. Empire completely ruined everything in that regard when it tried to bunch everything up into one massive province, or have you forgotten one province France? Empire gave me a HUGE disconnect feeling when it came to ruling my faction. I never felt like i controlled a powerful entity due to the total lack of civic depth.

Shogun 2 was a step in the right direction. Letting me control more provinces without globbing them together needlessly made me feel, not only that i was making real progress as i built and conquered, but let me feel like I was ruling over a growing political entity. It allowed for more flexibility in both how I managed economic and military building. Not once did I ever say to myself "You know i wish all this control was taken away from me."

Same here.

I wonder how they got the idea that gamers were finding battles impossible to prepare neatly just because of the overwhelming micromanagement.

[Monk]

I think you're judging it a bit too harshly based on their comments so far.

Maybe, but i remember very similar early information about ETW's system. It sounded good in theory but what we got was awful.

CA have rather boldly stated that the map is much larger than RTW, and has "hundreds" of regions. They don't typically give out campaign map info like that on release day, which indicates this is a big change in some way. It sounds to me like it's meshing with the province management system. Essentially, it sounds like they're combining the ETW/TWS2 system with 'dispersed' production within a region, with the system used by all the other games. Take the existing TWS2 system, but then make all of the individual 'buildings' in its own region, and allow that region to be conquered by an enemy, not just 'damaged.' Simply repairing the building would not restore your production, you'd have to send units out to get the thing back. So, probably more field battles, which is a good thing.

Similarly, loss of the capital may prevent you from producing anything in the province, but controlling nothing but the capital of the province would probably have a similar impact on your enemy. So, you would not see provinces instantly churning out troops for the other side... that ability would only start showing up after all the associated regions are conquered as well. In general, it sounds to me like a way of reducing the frequency of siege battles. Sure, there will probably be many to take whatever the 'capital' of the province is, but the fate of the province might actually hinge on field battles fought in defense of the regions long before the capital is threatened. That's a change that I'm at least optimistic about. Sure, they could implement it in a manner that is poor, but it could also be a welcome improvement.

If they actually did something like that it wouldn't be that bad depending on how they do the implementation. As i said before, though, less micro isn't necessarily a good thing. There's a special kind of charm to building up both your provinces and your armies, building by building, unit by unit, ect.

[TinCow]

Maybe, but i remember very similar early information about ETW's system. It sounded good in theory but what we got was awful.

True, but ETW was clearly their low-point in a lot of respects (sales not being one of them). I think we all agree that CA pulled up their shorts for TWS2 and delivered a game which was one of the best showings, even if it wasn't perfect. For that reason, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on future refinements. In fact, they've already clearly made one change that I think is a huge improvement: traits for armies. It's unclear whether this will only apply to Roman Legions, or whether non-Roman factions will get it as well, but I really, really like the fact that they are making efforts to give individual armies their own flavor, not just generals.

[Monk]

True, but ETW was clearly their low-point in a lot of respects (sales not being one of them). I think we all agree that CA pulled up their shorts for TWS2 and delivered a game which was one of the best showings, even if it wasn't perfect.

Yes that is one thing we can both agree on. Shogun 2 stole my heart away and inspired me to write my first two TW related AARs in years. It captured my imagination in a way that I didn't think the TW series could anymore and i give CA all the credit in the world for that. I didn't mean to come off as Scrooge in my earlier posts. I'm skeptical, but very much intrigued.

For that reason, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on future refinements. In fact, they've already clearly made one change that I think is a huge improvement: traits for armies. It's unclear whether this will only apply to Roman Legions, or whether non-Roman factions will get it as well, but I really, really like the fact that they are making efforts to give individual armies their own flavor, not just generals.

It all depends on how far they go honestly, but there are some things about Rome 2 that sound absolutely fantastic and one of those is what you mentioned. In the Total War series the character leading the army has always endeared himself to me. The army was just the extension by which that character expressed himself on the battlefield. If they could somehow extend that characterization into the army itself, well.. Rome 2 could very well be the best game in the series. I am a huge fan of ANY game that takes on a life of its own in those ways. Shogun 2 did it with its eloquent yet simple RPG system for characters.

We'll have to see how things shape up. If they can somehow combine the macro organization of Empire with the micro elements of Shogun 2 I think we're all in for a real treat.

[Cecil XIX]

Essentially, it sounds like they're combining the ETW/TWS2 system with 'dispersed' production within a region, with the system used by all the other games. Take the existing TWS2 system, but then make all of the individual 'buildings' in its own region, and allow that region to be conquered by an enemy, not just 'damaged.' Simply repairing the building would not restore your production, you'd have to send units out to get the thing back.

This is what I've wanted since Empire. They mentioned having to fight over multiple control points in sieges now, which seems like more fun. Especially so if they give bonuses like in Shogun 2's multiple.

I've got a really bad feeling though.

[...]what we want to do is make sure that you’re not actually controlling more things.

[Ignoramus]

Sounds promising, although I hope they tone down the kill rates in the battles themselves. I'd prefer a halfway-point between the current rate and EB's. Current battles are over too quickly.

[Vuk]

This is what I've wanted since Empire. They mentioned having to fight over multiple control points in sieges now, which seems like more fun. Especially so if they give bonuses like in Shogun 2's multiple.

I've got a really bad feeling though.

The whole thing killed realism, and was unfair to people who just happened to be farther away anyway. I certainly hope that they do not do something that stupid and unrealistic again.

[edyzmedieval]

I have to admit, I'm really excited about this. I wasn't a huge fan of RTW but I played it a lot, especially with EB installed, but this really looks amazing.

Hats off to CA, let's see what they pull out of it.

[Stuie]

Rockpapershotgun coverage:

We want the player to be thinking like a Roman military leader. A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units.

If they can pull this off I'm going to be all sorts of happy.

[andrewt]

I think you're judging it a bit too harshly based on their comments so far. As I understand it, the size of the map will factor into this in a major way. CA have rather boldly stated that the map is much larger than RTW, and has "hundreds" of regions. They don't typically give out campaign map info like that on release day, which indicates this is a big change in some way. It sounds to me like it's meshing with the province management system. Essentially, it sounds like they're combining the ETW/TWS2 system with 'dispersed' production within a region, with the system used by all the other games. Take the existing TWS2 system, but then make all of the individual 'buildings' in its own region, and allow that region to be conquered by an enemy, not just 'damaged.' Simply repairing the building would not restore your production, you'd have to send units out to get the thing back. So, probably more field battles, which is a good thing.

Similarly, loss of the capital may prevent you from producing anything in the province, but controlling nothing but the capital of the province would probably have a similar impact on your enemy. So, you would not see provinces instantly churning out troops for the other side... that ability would only start showing up after all the associated regions are conquered as well. In general, it sounds to me like a way of reducing the frequency of siege battles. Sure, there will probably be many to take whatever the 'capital' of the province is, but the fate of the province might actually hinge on field battles fought in defense of the regions long before the capital is threatened. That's a change that I'm at least optimistic about. Sure, they could implement it in a manner that is poor, but it could also be a welcome improvement.

At least, that's what I'm imagining based on the very limited info provided.

This does sound good when you put it that way. Shogun 2 had 2-4 landmarks per province. Those were the capital, the farm, a port (if any) and a province special building (if any). They could make it so that each one can be controlled separately by different factions with a bonus for controlling the entire province. As somebody who only plays domination campaigns, I wouldn't mind having fewer provinces to manage at the endgame but having more regions to conquer in each province. At the very least, it'll cut down on the tedium of frequent castle battles.