Wishlist for Rome 2 (and beyond)

[Praetorian Commander]

In the campaign I would like regions to be divided into towns and villages with unique units of those factions and that Rome has to conquer tribe by tribe until it all finally becomes a Roman province.

Something that occurs to me for the multiplayer is that factions be divided into tribes for barbarians, villages for other factions and city-states for the Greeks, and in the multiplayer, these villages or tribes can choose all units that are contained in this faction so that battles against Rome would be more balanced, but in the campaign to be tribes and divided peoples so the difficulty would be, in addition to battles with each of the people, to keep the province and at the same time expand the territory, in addition to politics and trade.

When playing with the other factions, you would selecte a state, people or tribe and would seek to unite the entire faction to then go after the conquest of their neighbors or to challenge Rome, and will be able to make alliances or commercial agreements with tribes or peoples of other factions.

The battles should maintain the same dynamics that in Rome 1, which made the multiplayer so variable and replayable.


En la campaña me gustaria que las regiones esten divididas en pueblos y aldeas con unidades unicas de esas facciones y que con roma haya que ir conquistando tribu por tribu hasta que finalmente se convierta en provincia romana.
Algo que se me ocurre para el multiplayer es que las facciones esten divididas en tribus en el caso de las facciones barbaras, pueblos en otras facciones y estados en el caso de los griegos y que en el multiplayer en estos pueblos o tribus se puedan elegir todas las unidades que contiene su faccion y en la batalla con roma seria mas nivelada, pero en la campaña al estar las tribus y pueblos divididos la dificultad estaria ademas de las batallas con cada uno de los pueblos en mantener la provincia y al mismo tiempo expander el territorio, ademas de la politica y el comercio.
Cuando se juega con las otras facciones se elegiria un estado, pueblo o tribu y se trataria de unir a toda la faccion para despues lanzarse a la conquista de sus vecinos o de desafiar a roma, pudiendo hacer alianzas o acuerdos comerciales con tribus o pueblos de otras facciones.
Que las batallas mantengan la misma dinamica que en el roma 1, lo que hace tan variable y rejugable el multiplayer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The ability to play on weak/old computers with lower end graphics. I don't think my two year old computer can handle this game on any setting.

[jaspritsingh]

Lame but can we have personal standards for Top Generals that also show in the campaign map ???

[Vuk]

Please make it where you can 'raid' an enemy army or town by attacking it, inflicting losses on them, and then retreating without it counting as a loss on your score. A tactical retreat or a raid is not a loss. It is a victory that does not result in the route of an enemy army.

[Arjos]

I would also like to see a "surprise attack" option: I don't mean an ambush, where you have to passively wait for the enemy to march in your area of attack, but actively attacking the enemy camp (since we now have pre-battle cutscenes etc), if specific conditions are met (say general has X ability, there's rain, fog or night). Resulting in an attack on an army that has to yet deploy properly or even get out of the tents etc...

[Tuuvi]

Please make it where you can 'raid' an enemy army or town by attacking it, inflicting losses on them, and then retreating without it counting as a loss on your score. A tactical retreat or a raid is not a loss. It is a victory that does not result in the route of an enemy army.

I second this. It would be a really great feature for horse archer factions especially.

[Seon]

I second that option for a surprise attack.

[Myth]

I second this. It would be a really great feature for horse archer factions especially.

True! Especially for mobile HA/javelin armies it's better to deplete your missiles, clear 40% of the enemy and then retreat than facing them at full force.

[ReluctantSamurai]

it's better to deplete your missiles, clear 40% of the enemy and then retreat than facing them at full force.

That's something I already can do with any horse-archer faction even without a surprise attack feature. If raiding is a feature put into the game, some serious unit balancing, and accounting for the bad weather, nighttime, etc. by lowering the kill possibilities is in order...otherwise there will be no army the AI can build that could stand up to such a tactic in the hands of a skilled horse-archer player.

I would prefer raiding tactics to lower troop morale for an upcoming battle (or last a set # of turns depending on the severity of the raid) irrespective of any modifiers that an enemy general might confer on his troops.

My 2denarii

And to answer a previous post about such tactics NOT counting as a defeat, I would think a simple counting algorithm that calculates losses in terms of both numbers and value for the troops involved would solve that. If I throw in four or five hundred men on a night raid and lose only 10% of my force while inflicting a much higher % of losses on a larger force, then it won't count as a loss if the proper parameters are in place.