Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Hannibal at the Gates - Review (inc. GC and CiG campaigns as of Patch 10+)

MrJadeMrJade Senior MemberLansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
edited April 2014 in Total War: ROME II
Being that last week was my university's spring break, and HatG dropped, I figured it would be an optimal time to review the current state of Total War: Rome II. No mods were used, but I will talk about them at the end.

Hannibal at the Gates

I started my first and complete playthrough of HatG as Syracuse, on Very Hard. The first few turns were nothing interesting, as Rome was content to ally herself with me, and fight a series of proxy wars to her north. Carthage was busy, presumably in Iberia, leaving me to mass my forces and build up Syracuse itself. After building a single full stack army and a a half stack navy, I moved my forces across the sea and invaded Carthage itself. I naturally joined Rome's war, extorting about 6,000 talents from the Republic as my price for fighting Carthage.

The invasion of the city itself was easy, I auto-resolved and lost 2 units of Tarantine Cavalry. That's fine, I don't like missile cavalry anyway. Within 40 more turns, I had established control over Africa and Numidia. Tripolitana was still entirely Lybian, but it too fell within 15 more turns. Sitting on about turn 70, I had three full provinces, a military alliance with the Estruscans and the Samnites, defensive alliances with Rome, Veneti, and Massilia. Massyli and Carthage were both exterminated from the game, and the Iberian peninsula was entirely barbaric. Cessetani, Lusitani, and Arevaci.

The rest of the game was simply a slog. I had to bribe Rome for a military alliance, adding their territory to mine, and conquered much of Iberia before the game declared victory. I then started a game as Carthage, because, you know, Hannibal. I just smashed up a few Iberian towns with him and then quit the game. Unfortunately, the SAI and the CAI seem very flawed here, as the SAI has some unique problems above and beyond the normal ones.

In HatG, capturing a town's square will not end the battle, instead it gives the team that holds the square a bonus to morale. However, the SAI is apparently unaware of this fact, and will rush the square and sit there. This ends in a victory for the defenders, and makes even non-walled settlements nearly impossible to lose.

The CAI here too seems worse than the normal game. In my complete Syracusan game, neither Rome nor Carthage actively expanded. Rome was caught up defending the Veneti and her own territory to the north, and never fought against Carthage. Carthage was getting destroyed by both me and the Iberian factions. It was quite sad to never see either of the big Empires do anything.

In the short Hannibal game, Rome did try to invade Carthage with a half stack of navy, and two other fleets that had 6 units between them. All in all, it was an improvement in some areas, and a massive loss in others.

Caesar in Gaul

I had never actually played this expansion until Patch 10. That being said, there isn't much to it. I played as Rome on VH, and didn't have that much trouble with expanding. While I never managed to duplicate Caesar's division of the Gallic tribes, they were sufficiently warlike to smash each other up and let me carefully expand north and west. The map was alright here, far too many small provinces, but it worked. I think that the HatG map is much better.

Grand Campaign

I have beaten the game multiple times on Hard, Very Hard, and Legendary. I decided to do a VH game as Bactria, however, I did not finish this one completely. By carefully expanding, and endless battles with the Nomads, I managed to expand the Bactrian borders enough to get Imperium V. I decided that was quite enough, as I didn't want to just waste my time fighting a war I knew I could win against the Seleucids.

The AI here and in CiG is horrible at sieges. It can't take a walled settlement for its life, and can't be bothered to actually sit and siege a town either. In my Bactrian game, I lost 2 armies in the field, but didn't ever lose a single town, walled or unwalled.

The CAI is also aggressive, but with low-tier units. I've yet to see a real artillery army, and most of the time armies are comprised of the cheapest units available. Quantity over quality, I suppose?

The BAI is good. It will flank, hide units in trees, and try to sucker you in. If you are pike heavy with some artillery and corner camp, the BAI falls a part, but that is a little too gamey for me.

Breakdown of the Game


Rome II has some unique strengths to it. I like the factions, I like most of the units, and the diplomatic and battle AI is quite good. That said, Rome II has plenty of weaknesses too. The Siege AI is horrifically incompetent, the Campaign AI relies on nothing but weak units, and the political system is an utter and complete failure.

Even the economic, recruiting, and city management systems are a step down from Shogun II. In Shogun II, there weren't artifically important towns. (Why does Rome always have to be a capital? What happens if the Epiriots smash Rome within 10 turns?) The provincial system seems like it could have been a great step forward, but it is poorly implemented. The towns contain all of the important buildings, just like Rome I, because CA stripped the best feature from Empire, the non-city buildings. Why are farms back inside the city limits? Why aren't they dotting the countryside like Empire or Shogun II? How does Bread and Circuses increase my food output? Aren't I feeding the masses? Shouldn't that take away food? In the end, the provincial system favors all towns being the same, just like in every other TW game. (Excepting the one or two military provinces. They are built differently.)

Generals come and go much too fast in the GC, and the general and army traditions are also poorly implemented. There are just a few traditions that are mechanically best. I end up always walking down the exact same paths every time. Tactician -> Better Movement -> Night Battles.

Score:

Grand Campaign: 65/100, if you don't have it yet, wait for a 50% off or more sale.
AI and Battles: 13/25 (The incompetent SAI is just too much. The BAI, while improved, isn't that much better than Shogun II, and the CAI seems to alternate between good and horrible.)
Empire Management: 18/25 (The provincial system doesn't add much to the game, and politics is a total wreck. The economic system is a step down.)
Graphics and Optimization: 20/25 (The lack of multi-card support annoys a lot of fans, and the fact that high end machines still struggle at times, and the incessant stuttering.)
Tilt, DLC, and Factions: 14/25 (The buggy release, the lack of working politics, the horrible AI that has never been addressed, and the inundation of DLC and the fact that the Greeks are a DLC only faction pulls this down a lot. Even seasons being added only brings it up some.)

Caesar in Gaul: Not worth buying.
Nothing is really new here, excepting the new map and two Gallic factions. I don't think it is worth the money.

Hannibal at the Gates: Worth buying on sale.
Finally added in Syracuse and some Iberian factions. The map is detailed, and is somewhat more fun than the base game.

Rest of the DLC:
The Greek City-States: It is unbelievably annoying that it is a
purchase. How is this not relevant to the main game? It should have been a part of the base game.
Nomad DLC:
Not worth it unless you really love horse archers. Worth it on sale.
Blood and Gore Pack:
Not worth the money.
Beasts of War: Not worth the money, and also stripped content.

Final Analysis:
Rome II missed the mark. It is a major step down from Shogun II, and could have been so much better. The product seems rushed, and is just now starting to get to an acceptable point, over 6 months after launch. While not the worst title in the Total War franchise, it certainly isn't good.

Mods like Divide et Impera can really make this game a lot better, and bring it up to the 72/100 you see in my signature. Without mods, this game is a solid 65/100.
Warhammer: 80/100
Attila: 70/100
Rome II: 51/100
Shogun II: 93/100
Napoleon: 58/100
Empire: 53/100
Medieval II: 90/100
Rome I: 88/100
Medieval I: 92/100
Shogun I: 84/100
Post edited by MrJade on
«1

Comments

  • HildorHildor Senior Member The MidlandsPosts: 3,283Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Does the fact that you have produced the review mean you consider R2 to no longer be a work in progress?
    There'd be something witty here if I could think of it
  • MercuryMercury Senior Member Posts: 330Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    I'm a bit confused by your review, namely the negatives. Did the siege AI bother you that much? The politics is a new mechanic that disappointed a lot of people, but we really have nothing to compare it to; I don't think its that much of a negative. They way you sounded during the review suggests the game is a bit more like a 75 or 80 rather than a 65
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Hildor wrote: »
    Does the fact that you have produced the review mean you consider R2 to no longer be a work in progress?

    That, I guess, is a sticky question. When do modern games stop being a work in progress? When the patching stops or at release, or sometime in between? StarCraft I was patched until 2009, 10 years after release. I would say it was complete long before that point. However, Rome II still is getting content added, usually only by paid DLCs. The obvious exceptions are the Bactrians, Seleucids, Seasons and Wonders, and the Elephants update.

    That being said, I would consider Rome II to fully released, and has been since CiG. When the game starts releasing content that focuses on something other than the main point (GC here), then it is no longer a work in progress, despite new additions.

    TL;DR
    I think that Rome II is, and has been, at a point where reviews are able to be made and stick forever. The game has been out for over 6 months, and despite patching, the core of the game has remained the same.
    Mercury wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused by your review, namely the negatives. Did the siege AI bother you that much? The politics is a new mechanic that disappointed a lot of people, but we really have nothing to compare it to; I don't think its that much of a negative. They way you sounded during the review suggests the game is a bit more like a 75 or 80 rather than a 65

    The fact that the game is a classical historical battle/empire building sandbox that can't handle taking walled cities, a major part of Classical battle/empire building, does annoy me, yes.

    Politics is a new feature, but doesn't do anything for the player. You can ignore it and get the same result as if you actively participated. It is a major negative, as it was hyped for a long while prior to release.

    I don't really think that I was unfair at the end. I'm glad you thought I was being positive during the main body though, I was worried everyone would think I was too negative.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Teutonic KnightTeutonic Knight Senior Member Denver, ColoradoPosts: 165Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Funny how each person has a different experience, and I'm not criticizing your opinion. You are welcome to it.

    I would rate this Total War my second favorite, after Empire. And I would give it at least a 90% now after all of the patching that has occurred.

    YMMV.
  • JaM1977JaM1977 Senior Member Posts: 1,793Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Based purely on time spent playing, its second best for me as well (after Empire where i spent 1300 hours online over years, and who knows how many playing offline) with 480 hours played. Yet, based on how fun to play game is, Rome 2 is way behind others, most of the time i'm just swearing why certain things were removed from game and made more simpler... like for example army interaction, complete removal of any possible strategy on campaign map (AI will evade no matter what)
    from that perspective, Rome 2 is the most frustrating TW game of all...
  • VeniVidiVicixVeniVidiVicix Member Posts: 43Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    I love reading opinions, as my personal favorite is Empire, which everyone seems to dislike. I also have leaned towards liking Rome 2.

    Right now my Top 3:

    Empire
    M2TW
    Shogun 2
  • GrandChamp89GrandChamp89 Senior Member Posts: 1,329Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Being that last week was my university's spring break, and HatG dropped, I figured it would be an optimal time to review the current state of Total War: Rome II. No mods were used, but I will talk about them at the end.

    Hannibal at the Gates

    I started my first and complete playthrough of HatG as Syracuse, on Very Hard. The first few turns were nothing interesting, as Rome was content to ally herself with me, and fight a series of proxy wars to her north. Carthage was busy, presumably in Iberia, leaving me to mass my forces and build up Syracuse itself. After building a single full stack army and a a half stack navy, I moved my forces across the sea and invaded Carthage itself. I naturally joined Rome's war, extorting about 6,000 talents from the Republic as my price for fighting Carthage.

    The invasion of the city itself was easy, I auto-resolved and lost 2 units of Tarantine Cavalry. That's fine, I don't like missile cavalry anyway. Within 40 more turns, I had established control over Africa and Numidia. Tripolitana was still entirely Lybian, but it too fell within 15 more turns. Sitting on about turn 70, I had three full provinces, a military alliance with the Estruscans and the Samnites, defensive alliances with Rome, Veneti, and Massilia. Massyli and Carthage were both exterminated from the game, and the Iberian peninsula was entirely barbaric. Cessetani, Lusitani, and Arevaci.

    The rest of the game was simply a slog. I had to bribe Rome for a military alliance, adding their territory to mine, and conquered much of Iberia before the game declared victory. I then started a game as Carthage, because, you know, Hannibal. I just smashed up a few Iberian towns with him and then quit the game. Unfortunately, the SAI and the CAI seem very flawed here, as the SAI has some unique problems above and beyond the normal ones.

    In HatG, capturing a town's square will not end the battle, instead it gives the team that holds the square a bonus to morale. However, the SAI is apparently unaware of this fact, and will rush the square and sit there. This ends in a victory for the defenders, and makes even non-walled settlements nearly impossible to lose.

    The CAI here too seems worse than the normal game. In my complete Syracusan game, neither Rome nor Carthage actively expanded. Rome was caught up defending the Veneti and her own territory to the north, and never fought against Carthage. Carthage was getting destroyed by both me and the Iberian factions. It was quite sad to never see either of the big Empires do anything.

    In the short Hannibal game, Rome did try to invade Carthage with a half stack of navy, and two other fleets that had 6 units between them. All in all, it was an improvement in some areas, and a massive loss in others.

    Caesar in Gaul

    I had never actually played this expansion until Patch 10. That being said, there isn't much to it. I played as Rome on VH, and didn't have that much trouble with expanding. While I never managed to duplicate Caesar's division of the Gallic tribes, they were sufficiently warlike to smash each other up and let me carefully expand north and west. The map was alright here, far too many small provinces, but it worked. I think that the HatG map is much better.

    Grand Campaign

    I have beaten the game multiple times on Hard, Very Hard, and Legendary. I decided to do a VH game as Bactria, however, I did not finish this one completely. By carefully expanding, and endless battles with the Nomads, I managed to expand the Bactrian borders enough to get Imperium V. I decided that was quite enough, as I didn't want to just waste my time fighting a war I knew I could win against the Seleucids.

    The AI here and in CiG is horrible at sieges. It can't take a walled settlement for its life, and can't be bothered to actually sit and siege a town either. In my Bactrian game, I lost 2 armies in the field, but didn't ever lose a single town, walled or unwalled.

    The CAI is also aggressive, but with low-tier units. I've yet to see a real artillery army, and most of the time armies are comprised of the cheapest units available. Quantity over quality, I suppose?

    The BAI is good. It will flank, hide units in trees, and try to sucker you in. If you are pike heavy with some artillery and corner camp, the BAI falls a part, but that is a little too gamey for me.

    Breakdown of the Game


    Rome II has some unique strengths to it. I like the factions, I like most of the units, and the diplomatic and battle AI is quite good. That said, Rome II has plenty of weaknesses too. The Siege AI is horrifically incompetent, the Campaign AI relies on nothing but weak units, and the political system is an utter and complete failure.

    Even the economic, recruiting, and city management systems are a step down from Shogun II. In Shogun II, there weren't artifically important towns. (Why does Rome always have to be a capital? What happens if the Epiriots smash Rome within 10 turns?) The provincial system seems like it could have been a great step forward, but it is poorly implemented. The towns contain all of the important buildings, just like Rome I, because CA stripped the best feature from Empire, the non-city buildings. Why are farms back inside the city limits? Why aren't they dotting the countryside like Empire or Shogun II? How does Bread and Circuses increase my food output? Aren't I feeding the masses? Shouldn't that take away food? In the end, the provincial system favors all towns being the same, just like in every other TW game. (Excepting the one or two military provinces. They are built differently.)

    Generals come and go much too fast in the GC, and the general and army traditions are also poorly implemented. There are just a few traditions that are mechanically best. I end up always walking down the exact same paths every time. Tactician -> Better Movement -> Night Battles.

    Score:

    Grand Campaign: 65/100, if you don't have it yet, wait for a 50% off or more sale.
    AI and Battles: 13/25 (The incompetent SAI is just too much. The BAI, while improved, isn't that much better than Shogun II, and the CAI seems to alternate between good and horrible.)
    Empire Management: 18/25 (The provincial system doesn't add much to the game, and politics is a total wreck. The economic system is a step down.)
    Graphics and Optimization: 20/25 (The lack of multi-card support annoys a lot of fans, and the fact that high end machines still struggle at times, and the incessant stuttering.)
    Tilt, DLC, and Factions: 14/25 (The buggy release, the lack of working politics, the horrible AI that has never been addressed, and the inundation of DLC and the fact that the Greeks are a DLC only faction pulls this down a lot. Even seasons being added only brings it up some.)

    Caesar in Gaul: Not worth buying.
    Nothing is really new here, excepting the new map and two Gallic factions. I don't think it is worth the money.

    Hannibal at the Gates: Worth buying on sale.
    Finally added in Syracuse and some Iberian factions. The map is detailed, and is somewhat more fun than the base game.

    Rest of the DLC:
    The Greek City-States: It is unbelievably annoying that it is a
    purchase. How is this not relevant to the main game? It should have been a part of the base game.
    Nomad DLC:
    Not worth it unless you really love horse archers. Worth it on sale.
    Blood and Gore Pack:
    Not worth the money.
    Beasts of War: Not worth the money, and also stripped content.

    Final Analysis:
    Rome II missed the mark. It is a major step down from Shogun II, and could have been so much better. The product seems rushed, and is just now starting to get to an acceptable point, over 6 months after launch. While not the worst title in the Total War franchise, it certainly isn't good.

    Mods like Divide et Impera can really make this game a lot better, and bring it up to the 72/100 you see in my signature. Without mods, this game is a solid 65/100.

    Awesome review - I wholeheartedly agree.

    HATG is without a doubt a better expansion than CIG, even though it does lack dept and pretty much recycles much of the main game and sells it back to you.

    The HATG does get right is the feel of it - Like Carthage starting out in multiple wars, overstretched and with rebel client states everywhere and a "untrustworthy" diplomacy rating. From there you take over as chief commander to lead them to glory. THAT, they did wonderfully. I do however miss the intro video's for each faction....
    "It's the hottest fire that forge the strongest steel"
  • TheyMustBePunishedTheyMustBePunished Senior Member Posts: 486Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    My Top 3 is

    Rome total war
    Rome 2 total war
    Empire total war

    Medieval 2 is good but it doesn't have the fun interface, the interface is dull and boring to me

    (I dont have shogun 2 :p)
    Expect Everything and the Unexpected won't happen

    Team Suebi!!!!
  • GrandChamp89GrandChamp89 Senior Member Posts: 1,329Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Funny how each person has a different experience, and I'm not criticizing your opinion. You are welcome to it.

    I would rate this Total War my second favorite, after Empire. And I would give it at least a 90% now after all of the patching that has occurred.

    YMMV.

    lol, picking the two worst games in the franchise as your favourites and giving them both a "90". You sure you don't work for CA? XD
    "It's the hottest fire that forge the strongest steel"
  • sccrboi01sccrboi01 Senior Member Posts: 201Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    I agree with the OP. I have been a fan and player since the original shogun. I was lucky in the fact that unlike alot of other people who pre-ordered or bought it right at release, I did not have really any technical issues. It started out fun, because it was new and I was so excited to see the so called "New Features". The game was fun for about 40 turns! I have yet to finish a campaign, not because I cant but because it has just ended up being a grind, it has become BORING, just a complete chore. The features that were supposedly ground breaking were not even close to being flshed out and ready to go at release and still are not. There is very little faction diversity, some factions have the advantage in particular areas but it doesnt really make a difference. Sieges are abysmal, the AI is utterly stupid and not a real challenge regardless of the difficulty.

    I was so excited for this game but they botched it for the most part, and instead of making sure the core game was brought up to the level they originally said it would be, they are just shoving DLC down our throats now. Of course we are stupid and buying it , thinking it will absolutely revolutionize the game but it doesnt, the game is still just as hallow as before, just with a few more factions. CA rally lost my respect and my faith in them after this release. Most people hated empire but I thought it was not bad considering how big they made the world and all the new features they put into it. But ROME 2 isnt really anything special, just my 2 cents on the matter
    Most peoples' response to Rome II expansion...."Please Sir may I have some more"......

    My Massagetae, battered and bloody, but undefeated in the field! True masters of battle :)! Masters of campaigning on the other hand, unfortunately not.......:(
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    I also like hearing everyone's opinions on both my review and the game in general.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • skorostrelskorostrel Senior Member Posts: 448Registered Users
    edited March 2014
    Mercury wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused by your review, namely the negatives. Did the siege AI bother you that much? The politics is a new mechanic that disappointed a lot of people, but we really have nothing to compare it to; I don't think its that much of a negative. They way you sounded during the review suggests the game is a bit more like a 75 or 80 rather than a 65

    Does the siege AI not bother you that much?

    I mean really, have you ever lost a siege battle? I have lost a few, but that is only if there are ~3,000 AI enemies vs. 500 defenders, and the AI doesn't decide to just sit outside my walls.

    I agree 100% with this review. I never bought CiG or HaG as to me they seemed to share all of the weaknesses of the core game, and added very little new content.
  • TheBraveKnightTheBraveKnight Senior Member Posts: 1,621Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Great review on HatG

    It only justifies me not buying it. It's hard to believe the Campaign AI can actually get worse than what it already is.
    Total War Top 5 List
    1) Warhammer - Steel Faith Overhaul
    2) Shogun 2
    3) Attila - The Last Roman and Modded GC
    4) Medieval 2
    5) Rome 1

    Honorable mention to Medieval 1 - Nailed the dark atmosphere with memorable soundtrack and a unique art style. Also loved the trait system and general stats.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Erstus wrote: »
    Great review on HatG

    It only justifies me not buying it. It's hard to believe the Campaign AI can actually get worse than what it already is.

    In some areas, it seemed to have gotten better. It doesn't spam the Forced March, and will actually maneuver units around on the main map better. It's just that Carthage and Rome didn't do squat. The Iberians were actually good at maneuvers.

    But no, the CAI on par didn't really improve at all.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • TheBraveKnightTheBraveKnight Senior Member Posts: 1,621Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Which is silly. The expansion is mainly about Rome and Carthage. It's the same in the Grand Campaign. Rome and Carthage AI is horrible

    I was tempted to actually buy this in hopes that there would a strong Roman/Carth AI. Rome 2 AI presents no challenge and never truly builds empires. Especially major factions

    I'm getting more of a challenge from the Total Realism Mod for R1 than I ever have with R2
    Total War Top 5 List
    1) Warhammer - Steel Faith Overhaul
    2) Shogun 2
    3) Attila - The Last Roman and Modded GC
    4) Medieval 2
    5) Rome 1

    Honorable mention to Medieval 1 - Nailed the dark atmosphere with memorable soundtrack and a unique art style. Also loved the trait system and general stats.
  • YgraineYgraine Senior Member Posts: 165Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Thanks for the review, it was helpful for us who didn't have the mini-campaign-expansions and wanted to know more.
  • nonopononopo Junior Member Posts: 15Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Great review and well constructed.:)
  • schlieffenschlieffen Senior Member Posts: 214Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    My Top 3 is

    Rome total war
    Rome 2 total war
    Empire total war

    Medieval 2 is good but it doesn't have the fun interface, the interface is dull and boring to me

    (I dont have shogun 2 :p)

    play stainless steel, you will be too enthralled to worry about the interface :)
  • M4tM4t Member Posts: 46Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    I agree with the OP in most terms of the GC, but not in terms of CiG. I had a tough time as the Romans in CiG, cause after some time, everyone of the Celtic tribes declared war on me, sabotaging my armies and citiies with loads of agents and always attacking my undefended settlements, so I had to carefully manouevre my armies between them.
    Good, I didnt buy the newest DLC from the release, did want to wait for opinions and it seems like, as if CA doesnt deserve my money in this matter.
  • Master of WarMaster of War Senior Member Posts: 925Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    I feel ashamed. I vowed never to preorder or buy on release again. But after Caesar in Gaul I had hopes for the game. So I bought Hannibal at release, but has yet to play the game. And now I read these posts. It is mistakes like mine that give CA no reason to make proper games.
    Bring back the drag and drop as it was in rome 2 without having to hold down the alt button.
  • ranknfileranknfile Senior Member Posts: 6,942Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Funny how each person has a different experience...

    Indeed. Interesting too how some people's favorite TW game is disliked so much by others. My take is each TW game provides some great gaming; and unfortunately its own problems with bugs and such. We all have (different) things that we dislike about these games, and what some people consider "essential" others are completely against.

    My own take is that Rome II - in its current state - is fine except for the siege AI (which is a bit better but still rather poor; embarrassing so really). While I like the Grand Campaign (especially the different experience one gets playing different factions compared to Shogun 2) Caesar in Gaul is far better; more like what the GC should have been. I have not played HatG much yet (my PC died and I've just replaced it late Sunday) so I cannot comment on it other than to say I like the idea of diplomacy being central to the two main powers. How this actually works I cannot yet say.

    Despite all the invective towards Rome II I feel it is a thoroughly enjoyable (sieges excepted) game; by far the most enjoyable vanilla TW game since Medieval II; though I will admit to using 8 or 9 mods for the two DLC and around 20 mods for the GC.
    "Whoever desires is always poor" - Claudian
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    M4t wrote: »
    I agree with the OP in most terms of the GC, but not in terms of CiG. I had a tough time as the Romans in CiG, cause after some time, everyone of the Celtic tribes declared war on me, sabotaging my armies and citiies with loads of agents and always attacking my undefended settlements, so I had to carefully manouevre my armies between them.
    Good, I didnt buy the newest DLC from the release, did want to wait for opinions and it seems like, as if CA doesnt deserve my money in this matter.

    If you make all of your agents take points in authority, that buffs the critical success chance by 5% each time, and by 5th level, they have an 85% chance to succeed with about a 35% chance to make the other agent defect. By 6th it's at 95% and the critical chance just keeps rising.

    If you use that trick, the enemy really can't agent spam you. I also always activate all agents I take so that it becomes harder for an enemy agent to wreck the province. In CiG I ended up with nearly 20 spies and 15 champions.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • BengalTigerBengalTiger Senior Member Posts: 492Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Thanks for the review. In SP I personally still am missing:

    - A more sophisticated diplomatic system
    - Family / vassal tree and management system
    - Multiple turns per year
    - A more sophisticated political / clan management system
    - A more advanced economic management system
    - The availability of short campaign games
    - Cut scenes

    The game, thus far, bores me like no other TW title has ever done.

    And then the multiplayer element is just a giant missed opportunity.

    BTW, pushing off to MODs is just IMHO a cop out by CA. If your going to do something, do it correctly.
  • MarijanMarijan Senior Member Posts: 2,001Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    I agree with many things the OP has said, but my "personal score" for this game would be much lower, since I consider many of the already mentioned bugs as completely game-breaking. It completely ruins this game for me, if the AI can not handle sieges properly, because it removes any kind of challenge completely. If there is no way anyone, who plays properly, could unintentionally lose a walled settlement and that you can basically conquer any minor settlement with nothing but slingers, it makes the whole game kind of pointless in my opinion.
  • GRAY_HATGRAY_HAT Senior Member UKPosts: 5,395Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    While I must criticize the break down for percent's and summaries as being overly opinionated you have highlighted some good points in the main section.

    HaG first run as Carthage left me in the odd situation of going west both in Spain and Africa as the Gauls bought peace treaties and trade agreements (at high prices) and my allies got jumped. I assume Rome was up to something similar as I saw 1 diplomat from Rome in the ~40 turns I played until I gave up.

    It left me feeling the Rome was the target only after all of the other factions, a cherry on the top and not the most hated enemy.



    As for the GC and CiG - very good (although CiG is a bit expensive for the small scale it is) still some niggles but nothing compared to other TW games.
    Team Wood Elves

    boyfights loves wood elves.

    "Heaven forbid that under the Vail of military training we should subject our young men to the lust of our general" - Hanno to the Carthaginian senate on the future of Hannibal.

    "Guard mode is back in Warhammer :)" - Darren_CA

    "It's amazing how many mistakes your enemy will make in haste after seeing that he's outgunned" -The Organ King
  • Emperor DomitianusEmperor Domitianus Senior Member Posts: 1,243Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Personally I find HATG not very easy at VH since I noticed the Ai starts with double you troops and income.
    Playing the GC is another matter but I don't Always find the game so easy especially if I try to achieve the missions and try to get myself involved in the world asset (I mean dealing also with foreign affairs).
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Marijan wrote: »
    I agree with many things the OP has said, but my "personal score" for this game would be much lower...

    I think that a dialogue about opinions is a good thing. If we all had the same ideas, nothing would improve.
    grayhat wrote: »
    While I must criticize the break down for percent's and summaries as being overly opinionated you have highlighted some good points in the main section.

    I'm of the opinion that a "neutral" view is just someone's opinion masquerading as truth. I'd rather just lay out how I feel, and why. But thanks for the complement.
    Personally I find HATG not very easy at VH since I noticed the Ai starts with double you troops and income.
    Playing the GC is another matter but I don't Always find the game so easy especially if I try to achieve the missions and try to get myself involved in the world asset (I mean dealing also with foreign affairs).

    As Syracuse, with trade agreements with Carthage and Rome, no faction has any incentive to declare war on you. As such, I sat in Syracuse for 15 or so turns, building up forces and the town, not expanding. I may give HatG another go as Rome when the DeI update releases and see if it is any harder.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Ragnar LothbrokRagnar Lothbrok Senior Member Posts: 799Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    Good overall review :)
  • peanutpeanut Member Posts: 48Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    My Top 3 is

    Rome total war
    Rome 2 total war
    Empire total war

    Medieval 2 is good but it doesn't have the fun interface, the interface is dull and boring to me

    (I dont have shogun 2 :p)
    Rome total war and Medieval 2 total war interfaces are almost same to me :confused:
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 2,540Registered Users
    edited April 2014
    (I dont have shogun 2 :p)

    You really should fix that problem. I think that of the modern games (anything past Empire), Shogun II is the best.
    Warhammer: 80/100
    Attila: 70/100
    Rome II: 51/100
    Shogun II: 93/100
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
«1
This discussion has been closed.