Rome II Total War "Emperor Edition" ....anybody played since the update?

[Sulaco]

Like most everybody I was pretty disappointed with...well...pretty much everything about Rome II at release, and just gave up on it within a month or two (flashbacks to Empire at launch), but then noticed the other day in my STEAM library it had been updated to "Emperor Edition."

Doing a bit of research on it, it looks like a whole mess of things were updated, patched, and overhauled, and with a new PC, I decided to give it another try.

I'm not using any mods, precisely to be able to evaluate it more fairly as an "updated product".

I just started a campaign so I'm not very far in yet, but I am honestly enjoying it quite a bit thus far.

Anybody else played since the update? Thoughts? Just wondering if it's worth sinking 40+ hours into a campaign only to discover that "X" is still hopelessly broken and irreparable.

 

[Regs]

Yes, I stayed patient with it for over a year and its finally a product it should of been. The only thing I get mad about is playing a modded version and having it go out of date every update. The frequency of updates would be every 2 weeks which was a PITA to update the mods to work with it.

 

[norseamd]

Still buggy as crap especially siege battles and the campaign gameplay mechanics suck especially the agent types but the battles are still workable from the gameplay perspective if nothing more than regular uninspiring gameplay.

 

[Annisman*]

Still very disappointing in just about every aspect. Did you see the doctored up screenshots before AND after they released it ? Now, try getting anything near the look of those screenshots, espescially because they have no in game AA. What is this 2006 ? No AA ? That should tell you everything. Pass.

 

[Regs]

I realize we all have opinions, but the no AA remark does not make sense to me. Without me playing with it the close ups on objects and soldiers look like crap.

 

[The Green Bean]

The campaign map is not as deep or as immersive as the first Rome TW. I am about 35 hours into the first campaign but it gets boring here. Taking or defending large cities doesn't have the same epic feel either. The game is still fun though.

 

[nightspydk]

I seem to remember getting a few mods that spiced it up for me like one with more perks for my governors and definately the one that slows time down, so they don't grow old to soon. 🙂

 

[Annisman*]

I realize we all have opinions, but the no AA remark does not make sense to me. Without me playing with it the close ups on objects and soldiers look like crap.

The game has it's own AA implementation but it's total garbage (to me) and lots of others.

 

[StinkyPinky]

The game is not salvageable. It simply lacks the charm of the first rome game. Removing the traits and family tree was a big mistake IMO

 

[Sulaco]

Well despite the general negativity, I went ahead and carried on with my campaign and gave it a full chance.

I'm not ready to pass judgment just yet, but so far I can say, I'm really, really enjoying it.

I'll also say I've been a fan of and been with the series since the first Shogun, and purchased the original Rome on release night and dropped hundreds (thousands?) of hours on it over the years.

There are some things I do miss from the original that are missing here (inexplicably), and the overall presentation I don't enjoy quite as much. But lets not forget just how utterly broken in a lot of ways the original was, as well. It took many, many patches (and then mods) to sort them out. Diplomacy was wretched, a mere afterthought of afterthoughts. Almost ANY attack by the CPU could be defeated by simply moving your units to the back of the "deployable zone", having them hold their position, and let the CPU exhaust it's troops by running across the map towards your shield wall and bashing itself weakly against your men for a complete rout.
And of course, the absolutely indefensible "public order" mechanic, which basically necessitated leaving "full flag" armies in settlements to keep uprisings from happening, and each city needed a SIZABLE garrison to keep order, and even then revolts would happen.

It took quite a long while for those to be sorted out, but we forgave them because of the overall scope, beauty, and ambition of the game.

I'm really appreciating a deeper, intelligent diplomacy system with excellent feedback. As well as now having "provinces" be managed altogether, with public order provincial, rather than city-by-city basis. No more needing near full-flag armies in every other city.

There are still a number of things that I miss from Rome 1 that should be in here, but the updates/improvements are welcome and it does do a lot of things right.:thumbsup:

 

[Morbus]

I must have played hundreds of hours of the first Rome TW. When Rome II came out, it was the main reason I build a new gaming rig, but it was also the reason I got to know Europa Universalis IV.

I haven't looked back since, and this thread gives me absolute no reason to even consider looking back.

 

[Regs]

The campaign map is not as deep or as immersive as the first Rome TW. I am about 35 hours into the first campaign but it gets boring here. Taking or defending large cities doesn't have the same epic feel either. The game is still fun though.

I agree - they should default some of the major cities bigger garrisons. Mods help that though, but why didn't CA do it themselves? A siege of Rome should not be a couple of peasants and Viglies. I guess they expect the AI to be smart enough to retreat their armies back at Rome, but I havent played enough lately to see it change.

Now Atilia came out and people say it is brutally too difficult. Though it was suppose to be the "Fall of Rome" era.

 

[Sulaco]

I agree - they should default some of the major cities bigger garrisons. Mods help that though, but why didn't CA do it themselves? A siege of Rome should not be a couple of peasants and Viglies. I guess they expect the AI to be smart enough to retreat their armies back at Rome, but I havent played enough lately to see it change.

Now Atilia came out and people say it is brutally too difficult. Though it was suppose to be the "Fall of Rome" era.

Personally, I think this is a tremendous improvement...for the most part.

What I mean is, the reason there would always seemingly be huge armies garrisoning larger cities was because they had to be because of the utterly broken public order mechanic of the first Rome.

I love and respect the first Rome as much as anybody, but lost in the tremendous advancements and innovations it brought us was the utterly broken campaign map/public order mechanic. You essentially HAD to park a "full flag" army in a big city, especially a newly conquered one, to protect against the inevitable rebellion of another full flag army appearing right outside the city gates. This radically affected the way you had to plan invasion campaigns. Want to capture 3 settlements? Better bring six armies then...because after each fight, you'll basically have to park an army in the newly captured city for several turns (often times permanently) to avoid a massive rebellion, essentially taking that army out of the campaign and placing them on permanent police duty.

The downside to this is that the AI isn't smart enough to intelligently garrison large cities in Rome II with enough frequency, so you'll happen upon Carthage with a "full flag" army a turn away, and NO ONE defending the city itself.

Still though, I'll take its current state over the original Rome's campaign and battle map AI any day, even up to the first expansion. I think they finally fixed the issue, but there were countless AI holes, some of the egregious, in the original game, that I think folks gloss over because of otherwise how revolutionary and awesome it was at the time.

But all in all, the AI in RII EE is miles superior and some of the best in the series.

 

[norseamd]

I love and respect the first Rome as much as anybody, but lost in the tremendous advancements and innovations it brought us was the utterly broken campaign map/public order mechanic. You essentially HAD to park a "full flag" army in a big city, especially a newly conquered one, to protect against the inevitable rebellion of another full flag army appearing right outside the city gates. This radically affected the way you had to plan invasion campaigns. Want to capture 3 settlements? Better bring six armies then...because after each fight, you'll basically have to park an army in the newly captured city for several turns (often times permanently) to avoid a massive rebellion, essentially taking that army out of the campaign and placing them on permanent police duty.

Welcome to reality.

 

[Anteaus]

Welcome to reality.

Sadly, the Total War series has always had such oddball design. Empire Total War, my favorite of the bunch, was ridiculous sometimes because of how much of a pain in the butt it was to actually assimilate newly conquered nations into your empire. If the religion was different, it meant razing their schools and starting the very long journey of conversion before you could even benefit from the territory in a meaningful way. It also meant maintaining multiple large armies purely as a contingency against rebellion, which would drain your coffers and make it harder to stay on the offense because taking a nation meant keeping the army there for a while. Each TW game had crap like that of some sort.

In spite of stuff like that I love the Total War series, but the developer could take some cues from the Europa Universalis series.

 

[lilrayray69]

Attilla is basically a mod/reskin of Total War Rome 2. They did revamp the AI and it is much more difficult now. It's seems especially more difficult to maintain your money to avoid going bankrupt while trying to amass large armies - especially if you play as the nomadic faction who are unable to commence trade with other factions.

The thing that sort of disappoints me is that where Total War shines is the actual battlefield - but 99% of the gametime you spend is on the campaign map which in my opinion has no stand-out qualities above any other game of similar type.

I can tell you the main problem that Rome 2 had is not present in Attilla. In Rome 2 if you were engaged in a battle that was 95% AGAINST your favor, you could choose to fight it on the battlefield and the AI was so retarded that you could find a way to win. In Attilla, you will just get steamrolled. At least, that's been my experience.

*Keep in mind that I suck horribly at this game*

 

[Regs]

I'm reading the reviews on Metacritic and amazed. Everyone is saying it is a vast improvement over Rome II. The family tree's and trait systems are a warm welcome back from the past and the hordes add a new challenge and spontaneity, the game is more polished (even upon first release), Ai is a lot more challenging on and off the battlefield, and they worked out a lot of the bugs from Rome II.

I've been a long time fan of the Total War series, and even though most of these games need relentless patches, there is no substitute for their formula. The only one that actually I thought was unplayable was Empire TW, when turns felt like they were an hour long and the AI basically sat on the campaign map.

Already bought it late last night, so I hope to get in a few turns tonight.

 

[Sulaco]

Welcome to reality.

Well, no. Not even close.

A city with a population of 1500 should not rebel and the next turn have a rebel army of veteran units of 2,000. That's just silly. And broken. Hence why it was patched. But reality it is not.

 

[Morbus]

Reality and the Total War brand shouldn't go in the same sentence.

 

[Markbnj]

That's just silly. And broken. Hence why it was patched. But reality it is not.

Oh I don't know. One of the first things Procopius did in his revolt of 370-ish CE was talk a couple of passing legions into supporting his cause. The idea that the leader of a town could raise a rebel banner and attract some disaffected army units isn't ridiculous.

 

[Red Hawk]

I'm still pretty much boycotting the game for the fact that the DLC costs more than the price of the standalone game, even without including the recent Attila expansion. It's about $85, and a good chunk of that is "culture packs" to let you control factions that are already in the game. By comparison, the previous Total War game, Shogun, has about $35 of DLC, not including the final Fall of the Samurai expansion (but including Rise of the Samurai).

 

[Regs]

I'm still pretty much boycotting the game for the fact that the DLC costs more than the price of the standalone game, even without including the recent Attila expansion. It's about $85, and a good chunk of that is "culture packs" to let you control factions that are already in the game. By comparison, the previous Total War game, Shogun, has about $35 of DLC, not including the final Fall of the Samurai expansion (but including Rise of the Samurai).

I agree on this. Sega is crazy on DLC. Sega's Company of Heroes is absolutely ridiculous as well. I think CoH graphic options is 5 dollars to unlock (sarcasm) . They even disabled modding CoH for the fact that mod's would eat away at their DLC sales.

 

[Sulaco]

Oh I don't know. One of the first things Procopius did in his revolt of 370-ish CE was talk a couple of passing legions into supporting his cause. The idea that the leader of a town could raise a rebel banner and attract some disaffected army units isn't ridiculous.

Did he also move his army outside the city walls, "gift" the city to an enemy faction, then immediately turn around and attack the city right afterwards, thereby completely suppressing any previous unrest and also stuffing his coffers? Because that was another great "feature" of the instability factor of the first game.

Historical believability is fine and good, but is meaningless if not structured within the context of the gameplay, and the player's ability to actually meaningfully play and enjoy the game.