I know this is the EB forum but I'd rather post it here, people tend to be more serious and give better answers. Shogun 2 was quite realistic. There weren't very many OTT units, factions shared units like the Ashigaru spearmen/archers and their proffessional units were more or less the same. They had few unique units each. Which is realistic for the period. Unlike RTW which gave a very "Hollywood" type of theme to each faction. Romans wearing segmentata and being all-powerful, "barbarian" factions being cultureless savages and completely misrepresented and... the Egyptians...
But Shogun 2's comparative realism compared to previous games gave me hope that Rome 2 might follow suit, that CA might be able to resist giving the Romans segmented armour, making the Gauls nothing more than shirtless, cultureless savages, and adding stupid units like flaming pigs, battlefield assassins with futuristic invisibility cloaks, gladiator units recruitable if you build a certain kind of temple. But now they announce that Rome will be 3 factions, like Julii, Scipii and Brutii (but not those 3, different ones).
Could it possibly be justified at all? I know it could be justified if the game started in the 3rd or 4th century AD because at that time the Roman Empire more or less WAS several factions, but we know Rome 2 takes place at least as early as the siege and destruction of Carthage. Could you at all justify Rome in the game being split in to 3 different factions that early?
Bookmarks