What i think is wrong, not that it matters.

[MadKow]

Why would you think it doesn't matter?

Well, i thought it might be too subjective. After all people enjoy chess without giving names and faces to all the pieces... To a lot of people things like balance, historical authenticity and such seem to be more important. And also there are those like Bramborough that have the talent and dedication to bring a lot on their own, so that part of the game they take care themselves, at least up to some measure of enjoyment.

[knoddy]

the game lacks soul.

It doesnt make you want to keep playing. I have not experienced it since Rome 1 to be honest with you. Medieval 1 i finished the game with every single faction full map domination. Rome 1 I did the same. When I first got Rome 2 I did the prologue and started a Rome Camp. 20 turns later, nothing had happened, except me killing the Etruscans, I was bored and I stopped playing. I expected to be up till the early hours of the morning, playing i was in bed by like 11pm.

You just dont get that 1 more turn itis like in previous games. It doesnt suck you in. I have only experienced it 3 times. First time, playing parthia, for hte first 50 turns that campaign was hectic and fun. I wanted to keep playing it. Second time was my ongoing multiplayer camp with my mate. always good to get a few more turns done, just cos we are destroying everything in our paths! thrid time was playing my Macedon campaign. been enjoying it, but its still lacking something that draws you in!

Dont get me wrong I still love it, and still keep playing it. but I play for an hour then get off. When I used to play rome 1, I would play and realise I had been on for 5 hours and it was 3 am :D

[Jonoleth Irenicus]

the game lacks soul.

That is it.

No need for long explanations or arguments, it simply lacks soul.

[al Roumi]

Re the personal touch, or the absence of attachment to generals or characters, I bet this will seem surprising to CA as on the face of it they've done more to identify legions and leaders - not to mention how they interact with the rest of their society (through faction politics). I agree with the above posts that one doesn't reallt get atatched unless you make an effort do so.

For me, I get atatched and prioritise particular generals when i regonise famous names from the faction's history - i.e. i give these people my best legions and put them in the thick of the action to level up and have the glorious careers they should have (Publicola, Marius, Hannibal etc).

But even then, the game and faction UI/screen does NOTHING to stimulate any engagment and is really just a display of available actions and data. It makes me think again that CA really doesn't do "extra features" very well - the odd and gamey politics in Empire are for me an ancestor of R2's opaque faction politics. Un documented and odd, unintuitive mechanics abounding.

The most interesting thing that did happen to me in R2's faction politics was as Carthage, the Civil-War was sparked by a rival faction due to their high power, rather than mine (or so I think). My faction leader had one of those arbitrary gravitas reducing character "features" so my faction had a very low stake in the Carthaginian senate/court (?) and the Barca's instead staged a revolt - I assume due to their high approval.

What's killing the game for me though is the lack of challenge. I tend to be a cautious player so don't fight on too many fronts, back my armies up and isolate my foes. Sadly, this at the moment means i can pick off each faction 1 by 1 using all my forces in the given campaign. I'm yet to find a single blob large enough to challenge me either, so the campaign is most engaging at the start but gets less and less fun once I have a couple of complete provinces.

I also find that there's only one way to play this gaem and that is to be Rome and rule everywhere. That may be obvious given the game's title (!) but given the variety of factions and their rich history, it's a shame that cooperation and trade are not viable alternatives. I say this because I've found the game's economic mechanics push you to own complete provinces, that trade provides such a low income that you are better off ruling provinces than trading with them, that allied AI's are inept and more of a waste of regions or provinces given the paltry cash you get for trade or as client state contributions. Sure, when at war it's best to have friendly/neutral provinces and regions as neighbours but they are rarely more than that and quite frankly, the last thing I'd want is to target AI allies at regions I want to hold and expand into. My experience for this rant against AI allies is almost entirely from the Carthage play through, who start with 2 allies who rule similar if not larger dominions at the game start.

[antisocialmunky]

Pretty much, no soul. Hard to explain why. The family tree is the main thing people latch onto but the game really lacks any sort of charisma:

- The unit portraits aren't interesting
- Too much complexity with no depth. Make food, make public order, make units.
- Tech tree is completely lame. +5% to X Diablo 3 style bonii.
- "Oh here, you can build legions now, just had to click end turn 10 times"
- Well my general I was trying to get attached to got wounded by ... something (probably internal politics or something), guess I have to replace them with random person #2.
- Traits are uber bland
- I click buttons WoW Style to make units do stuff(?), positioning doesn't matter because...
- The units just kinda blob and behave in uninteresting ways.
- Armor is borked so your super units die to missiles the same way a weak unit does.
- Same faces. What the hell CA?
- Cities pretty but dull looking because there's like only 2 layouts per cities. They are always the same sizes.

Anyone get a Master of Orion 3 vibe from this?

[Sp4]

Yesterday, for the first time, I saw a big, important city get captured by someone of a different culture (other than myself, which means there's never any battles on that map again), which was Carthage. It got taken by some Spanish/Iberian people, Turdetani I think. I'm playing as Epirus, so I had just successfully invaded Italy (playing on very hard and I didn't meet a single Roman legion, not even an agent and yes, I am serious, the Romans are now busy starving on their boats just off Sicily).

Soooo.. I went and wardecced the Spanish people and naval assaulted Carthage aaaand.. Carthage is now some sh*tty barbarian hovel type of town with wooden walls after being converted =P Just like every other coastal town. Kind of interested to see what Rome looks like now after I greekified it

I find the whole idea of people invading towns and then replacing the walls with their preferred type of wall really annoying too to be honest.

[Sociopsychoactive]

I agree with you. It lacks soul.

Back in R1 the game had it's flaws, sure, but what it did was make me laugh and point out silly things to people (I build an aquaduct and instead of a blurb about it's function, I get "What did the romans ever do for us! This. Thats what") and it made the traits matter as well as being interesting. My g/f still makes comments on how my faction leader, who at the age of 80, having to be tied to his horse as he is dead-drunk all the time made a rousing battle speach about killer flowers the enemy had being averted by his wonderful hats.

Humour aside, it had soul. I cared about my characters, not just because of one feature but because it had pretty much all the things from antisocialmunky's list done right, rather than done wrong. My generals looked the part and changed in appearance, rather than seeming to have a generic template for a card. The traits they got mattered to them, the armies they commanded and the empire you built, because they were game-breakingly good or bad, not just +3% to x. Their battlefield prowess was miniscule compared to the effect they had on their troops and it worked well without half a dozen buttons for abilities.

I once had a roman general I adopted at the age of 16, instantly made him faction heir as he looked just right to fill the boots of the ageing leader, while the leaders son had drink and gambling problems that would have crippled the empire financialy. The new adoptee went rampaging across the globe, built a massive reputation for himself and his people, had just the right kind of traits and stuff to be faction leader and then got himself skewered by a stray balastae bolt in a battle for some insignifacnt hovel in the arse end of the world. I actually shed a tear at his demise, especially as the faction leader died the very next turn, and the shift in power back to the idiot drunkard gambler halted my empire in it's tracks for years.

Thats what the game is missing.

[Hooahguy]

I installed a 4tpy mod, and its definitely helping with the time I get to have with my generals, but I miss, as everyone has said, family trees. The new trait system is okay, but there need to be more traits and more of a variety. I like how I can put in new retinues, but Id like to have more than just one.

There really needs to be a family tree and some way to create a family. My faction leader is apparently not married. Which is something I do not understand.

There really seems to be two major problems: lack of time with your family members (though easily fixed with mods) and a lack of interaction. If you cant tell them to get married like you can in CKII, at least enable them to get married on their own like they did in previous TW games. I want to see my children, I want to care about my immediate family. Do I think that these things can be added to the game? I think so. CA has shown that they are willing to put in the work to fix the game and I am fairly confident that they will add some more depth to this aspect of the game.