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.

Categories

Assorted Revisions to Rome

ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco MemberRegistered Users Posts: 53
edited November 2013 in General Discussion
To start off, let it be known that I am a huge fan of Total War games, and I care a lot about them and their success (otherwise I wouldn't have posted this). Creative Assembly generally make some pretty good, solid games, nevertheless Rome II has some large gaping issues and a lot of things that could have been done far better.
Here is a proposed list of, in my opinion, what those things are. My experience for this is largely based off of Rome: Total War, Medieval II: Total War, Empire: Total War and a little bit of Shogun II: Total War.
Here are some proposed assorted revisions to Rome 2.
So, firstly, let's forget about the rampant bugs that CA is inevitably going to fix anyway, such as;
1. Unaggressive AI
2. AI that does anything to hold/gain capture points, i.e. charging a phalanx with cavalry to try and get to the capture point behind it.
3. AI that does not properly use walls to their full advantage in siege battles and instead sits at the capture points letting me take the walls easily.
4. AI that sucks at Diplomacy and won't do anything, even if it’s mutually beneficial (i.e. trade agreements).
5. Various graphical and technical issues, i.e. floating ships.
6. Lengthy wait times when ending your turn due to a large amount of other Factions.
7. Poor navy battles and implementation of navy tactics.
8. Pathfinding issues, especially noticeable in boarding and disembarking of navy units.
9. Unit ‘mobbing’ where fights between units just become giant mosh pits and no units stay properly in formation.
10. Units breaking, routing and shattering far too easily resulting in very short unsatisfying battles.
11. Very odd timescales in battles, for instance did you know that if you are capturing a capture point and you speed up the time-scale the speed at which it captures actually stays the same.

Instead let's focus on some aspects of the game that CA may think they have got right, but that I would contest they have got sorely wrong. So here are some things that, in my opinion, need to be changed or added to Rome II.
Some of these were present in previous Total War games, some of them were even present in Rome: Total War.
They are as follows;

1. Fix the amount and strength of archer units.
Archers need to have a greater range than slingers, factions need to have more archer unit types available, and missile units overall need to be more effective, the order of effectiveness (accuracy/damage) should be Archers > Slingers > Javelins, with each having their own particular benefits in various situations.

2. Fix the ‘buff/debuff’ system.
The General/Admiral/Unit 'buff/debuff' system (similar to StarCraft 2) should be optional, i.e. disabled on harder difficulties for both AI and human players. This means that the General only buffs the morale of units within a certain radii and neither he nor individual units have any added 'special abilities', except where they make sense such as Spartan hoplites forming a Phalanx (for reference on how to do this properly refer to Rome: Total War).

3. Bring back Family Trees.
Bring them back for all of the houses within your faction (i.e. Rome; Julia, Junia, Cornelii and other houses), complete with sons and daughters, or at least just for the house you choose at the start of the game (and have the other trees run hidden in the background).

4. Bring back Governors (Statesmen).
The system of sending Generals to govern settlements that existed in Rome: Total War, Medieval: Total War and other Total War games was a great and very realistic system.
This system has the potential to be really well integrated into the political system boasted in Rome II, i.e. an overly ambitious General or Governor can be sent to govern a small settlement on the other side of your Empire, thus reducing the chance that he mounts any sort of political rebellion on you (but perhaps increasing the chance of him mounting a military rebellion).

5. Slow down the time-scale of the game.
Setting the time-scale to '1 turn = 6 months' or '1 turn = 3 months' instead of '1 turn = 1 year' so that family members last a decent amount of time, and don't die off as soon as they become really useful, is a necessary change. In addition this could bring back campaign seasonal map changes, and this would, in turn (slight pun), fix the issues with battles that come from this. What I mean by that is one time I was fighting a battle and the default setting of the battle when the battle map loaded in was 'Snow', when I waited it changed to 'Dry', I waited again and it changed to 'Fog', and then back to 'Dry'. This is clearly a bug as there is no way that a snowy region could suddenly all melt and leave no soggy earth within a reasonable amount of time.
Changing the turn time-scale would also solve the issue of attrition applying to sieging/besieged armies on the very first turn.

6. Revise the economic system in the game.
Improve trade relations and trade diplomacy so that it's a bit more in-depth and interesting. At the moment it’s fairly simple; get trade agreements with as many people as possible to make more money (although the AI makes that so hard to do), and there is no evidence of any supply and demand mechanics that the player and AI can manipulate.

7. Revise the settlement construction system.
This point ties in with point 6, but the settlement construction system is really convoluted and rather annoying (a little unrealistic too, but it is a game after all). I much preferred the system of Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War where you could build everything with a few exceptions based on geography, choice or culture (i.e. no aqueducts if you weren’t Roman, and the various Temple choices for each Faction).
Why should Rome have to choose between a Harbour and a Shipwright? It's Rome! The powerhouse of your Empire! Really, though, what IS the difference between the two? Realistically cannot a Harbour serve the same purpose as a Shipwright and vice versa, or can't we have both?

The limited construction made sense in the context of the small-scale map in Shogun II (Samurai-era Japan, a small nation in any case), but it makes no sense at all when settlements/provinces are spanning huge regions of the map, such as in Rome II. For example the Italia province consists of 4 settlements, meaning there are 18 building slots (14 if you don't include the city slot), however this region is actually a huge chunk of modern day middle-Italy!

In addition to this the public order effects of higher-tiered buildings need to be heavily modified and edited. In the context of Shogun II it made sense to have a negative public order effect on some buildings, as there was a conflict among the citizenry as to whether or not they should modernise industry or stay more traditional, and thus this conflict was accurately represented in public order effects.
However in Rome II there is no such historical conflict that I am aware of, certain buildings make sense, but why should my Roman Tier III Armourer have -12 Public Order attached to it!?

8. Revise the taxation system.
The taxation system in Rome II is bad, really bad. It's silly that you have to set taxes across your WHOLE EMPIRE and cannot even set them individually for each province let alone each settlement.
Add the option for us to set taxes provincially and, better yet, per settlement. As it currently stands I have two options of manipulating taxes to improve public order in a settlement/province;
A. Reduce taxes across my whole empire.
B. Keep taxes high and simply not tax that whole province at all.

9. General/Admiral Cinematic Speeches.
Bring back the speeches made by Generals before each battle where all the units cheer and listen to him, they were really cool cinematics. While I realise the General still gives a speech, and some of them are really good/funny, they just don't feel as epic as they have in, for example, Shogun II: Total War.

10. Public Order.
There needs to be more methods of controlling public order, setting taxes per settlement is a start, as is revising the construction system, but options to ‘Exterminate’, ‘Oppress’, ‘Suppress’, ‘Repress’ and ‘Enslave’ certain citizens of a settlement would be a really nice addition and could add a lot of variety to the game that is easy for players to understand, as well as potentially influencing the stats and traits of your General/Governor.
This point does also tie into point 7 which relates to the construction system.

11. Revise Settlement Sacking/Looting and Razing mechanics.
Sacking and Razing cities needs to be revised, currently there seems to be no reason to EVER raze a city, and sacking/looting a city wrecks the whole provinces public order so much that you end up having to not tax that whole province and lose more money than you gained by sacking/looting the settlement.
There needs to be an option to 'Sack and Occupy' and the option to simply ‘Sack’, so you can loot the city and then not have to manage it at all (rather than let it rebel), this accurately reflects Barbarian tactics too.
Razing a city also needs a 'Raze and Occupy' option so the regular 'Raze' option does not require you to take it over, and therefore can be used to hurt an enemy city that you don't want to take as you don't think you can govern it properly or that it is in an bad strategic location.
Where the 'Raze and Occupy' option can be used to cleanse the city of buildings that you would need to replace anyway as they are from a different culture.
Razing should also have a large monetary reward.
I'm not too sure if, currently, sacking/razing a city reduce provincial instability or adds to provincial instability, but I think it should reduce instability in a region, as any would-be rebels are dead (or at least you should perhaps have an 'Exterminate', 'Oppress', 'Suppress', 'Repress' option to control the lower classes too?).

12. Garrisons.
Bring back the ability for me to set my own garrisons for each settlement rather than having them predefined based on the buildings which I build (not that this would matter as much if the construction system was revised properly).
The amount of units in a garrison should be restricted based on the level of the military building in the settlement and if it’s a provincial capital or not, but the makeup of that garrison should be completely up to the player.
Increasing the garrison could also then be used as another method of controlling public order, as in other Total War games.

13. Building bonuses/upgrades.
Some versions of buildings (usually higher-tier buildings) currently have strange negative effects on public order, through ‘squalor’, and these need to be mitigated by other buildings, upgrades, or new methods of controlling public order, i.e. refer to point 7 and 10.

14. Routing.
Currently units rout very oddly (and far too quickly), that is to say they run in straight lines and you can’t mow them down and capture lots of them like you could in Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War, nor is there an option to ransom prisoners.

15. 'Guard Mode'.
This and various other ‘modes’ (such as loose formation) present in previous iterations of the Total War series need to be brought back or implemented more explicitly. I don't want to hear any arguments that the people of 200BC were incapable of spreading out to minimise the amount of them that get smacked in the face by an incoming boulder hurled by a catapult.

16. Unit formations.
Units should not have to be locked into a group to have their formation locked and for them to stay in the formation that you set. Alt+rightclick when moving should automatically keep them in the set formation, as it did in previous Total War games.

17. The UI.
The UI is not good at all at displaying the information in an easy accessible manner, Rome: Total War, Medieval II: Total War and Shogun II: Total War are far better at this. It’s hard to describe but it feels a little sloppier, more so on the Campaign Map than on the Battle Map.
The Tech Tree in Shogun II: Total War was far better at displaying all the information needed than the Rome II one.

18. Senate/Noble/Chief Missions.
Bring back senate missions, or at least increase how many 'active missions' are handed out, at the moment they don't happen that often and this could be used to give players a direction especially in relation to settlement construction and management if those systems are expanded on in the way I propose.
Possibly implement Noble/Chief missions for Factions other than Rome, i.e. Carthage or the Suebi.
The SPQR should be consistently requesting various actions to be taken, such as requesting the that family members from various houses be assigned to govern settlements or manage armies. Offering reward if you comply, detriment if you do not. Family members should also take initiative and request assignment to increasingly higher positions which they aspire to, but only if their Gravitas level is appropriately high enough (as it is representative of ambition).
This would create a much needed relationship between balancing Senate/Noble/Chief politics while also balancing the ambitions of your Generals/Governors.

19. Agents.
Spies, Champions and Dignitaries are very interchangeable. That is you can accomplish the same task with any one of them.
Perhaps add some default bonuses to each agent when attempting each task, such as Dignitaries being better at ‘Persuade’ or ‘Tempt’ than Champions and Spies, and Spies being better at assassinating, etc.
It would be cool to bring back the physical appearance changes for Agents as they level up.

20. Slaves.
Slaves are great, but they don't seem to do much other than wreck my public order, i.e. one of my settlements was 25% slaves and it added no income benefit at all, why?
In addition to this when making decisions such as enslaving captured soldiers it should tell you where they are being sent and what public order/economic effect they will have there.

21. Political Offices.
Securing the promotions of your generals/statesmen is pretty cool, but currently there's no way to tell where in the hierarchy they fit in, unlike in Rome: Total War where you could easily tell where they slotted in as Aedile or Consul, etc.

22. The Currency.
Why is the currency in the game called ‘Talents’ and not ‘Denarii’?
It has come to my understanding that a 'Talent' is a measurement of weight utilised in the era, however it differed between various nations (i.e. a Roman 'talent' weighed more than a Greek one).

So that, in my eyes, is everything wrong with Rome II that I've noticed so far, putting aside the obvious AI bugs and graphical issues.

Now let's talk about the few things Rome II did right;

1. Agents.
Agents are still really fun to use and I have a blast using my Spies, Champions, and Dignitaries. Hopefully if the AI is fixed they use them against me and each other a bit more, Spies should also increase the chance of detecting foreign spies, especially if they are higher ranked (if they don't already).
The only issue is they die really quickly because of the turn time-scale and are all very similar to one another, but that has already been discussed

2. Combined battles.
These are awesome, and I wish my computer was better so that I could play them in their full glory. They are really cool and hopefully the implementation of them is cleaned up a bit, as it’s a bit buggy at the moment.

3. Army stances.
These are a really nice addition. Ambush and fortify are lots of fun (although the forts can be a bit small sometimes, and need to be scaled to army size and unit scale, i.e. small/normal/large/huge), as it’s nice not to have to hide in trees or pay for a fort like in Rome: Total War.
My only gripe here is that you cannot attack other armies while in the ‘Force March’ stance. Nor can you use it to move somewhere, and then turn it off and attack. The lack of this has led me to chasing after an army in no stance trying to attack them as they run away in forced march so I never catch up, or chase them in forced march, catch up, but be unable to do anything.

4. Unit replenishment.
The way that units replenish over time in friendly territory is great, it’s nice not to have to retrain units all the time as in previous Total War games, and the system is really easy and intuitive to manage.
It would be nice to be able to upgrade my experienced Leves to Velites, though, but a small point.

5. Edicts.
Provincial edicts are very nice and fun to use, they add useful bonuses and really give the player a sense of managing a classical Empire (it always reminds me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian).
However I don't think there should be any limit to provincial edicts. Instead implement some faction-wide edicts that are limited by Imperium, i.e. 1 new Faction-wide edict slot per level of Imperium.

6. Diplomacy.
The list of things that other factions like and dislike about you is nice and should make diplomacy less of a puzzle. However we’re all still waiting for this to reach its full potential as diplomacy is still in a shambles.

7. The map is huge and awesome.
No explanation needed, it’s great, even though my terrible computer slogs along.

8. The Objective system.
I really like this as it gives direction to the player and offers some decent rewards to help you on your way to building a big Empire. Although I think rewards for bonus objectives should be awarded immediately, simply because playing as the Suebi I would attack a Germanic faction and my ‘Declare War on Germanic Tribes’ count would go up by 1, but then I would defeat them, they would be destroyed, and my count would return to 0.

10. Unit recruitment.
Unit recruitment is so much better than in other Total War games, and would be even better if the construction system was revised.

11. Traditions.
The tradition system is amazing and really cool, as is the General/Agent rank system. It’s really nice to have my Legio III Victis or my Dread Beserkers be feared across the lands!
Both of these devices would work really well with Governors so you can give those characters all the traits that boost regional growth and stability.

12. The Technology Tree.
I like this addition, and it is different for each Faction so there is a lot of variety. However at the moment it’s really neither here nor there, especially considering winning an economic victory without any military expansion is not really possible due to the simplicity of trade (i.e. its often more profitable to simply capture a province than trade with it).

13. Households.
I like the household system, although honestly I preferred the ancillary system as with this system I just end up accruing masses of household traits that I never use. It would be better if you could use more than one (say; 3?), and trade them between generals and... dare I say; Governors?

14. Politics.
The political system is okay and definitely has a lot of potential. It’s not as good as Rome: Total War or even as good as ‘the Pope’ in Medieval II: Total War, but the potential is definitely there. Currently it is severely underused and political stuff happens so rarely that it's almost not worth mentioning.
When looking back over the videos of Creative Assembly describing the political system it sounds like they’re talking about a different game. I think it’s clear that a big chunk of this system got cut from the game due to time constraints. I’d like to see it added back in for free, not as DLC (although I’m such a fan I’d probably buy it anyway).
In addition stop making us pay money to assassinate political targets when we have plenty of agents who could accomplish that feat!

15. Empire or Republic?
The choice, for Rome anyway, between an Empire and a Republic was really cool. Putting aside how insane the balance of the Civil War was, the concept of the choice itself was cool. Having said that there’s not enough incentive, for me anyway, to stay as a Republic (other than for the sake of being a Republic) because the Senate is so unimportant in comparison to Rome: Total War.

Anyway that's all from me, if you actually sat through and read all of this then you're amazing. Feel free to add to/criticise everything up here.

TL;DR - Rome II is good but misses the mark on a lot of things.

Thanks,

~ChaChaLoco
Post edited by ChaChaLoco on
«1

Comments

  • Sierra419Sierra419 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 263
    edited September 2013
    I agree on almost all the points.
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    Hopefully some of this is changed or fixed.
  • MagnarMagnar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 530
    edited September 2013
  • Harbinger2186Harbinger2186 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited September 2013
    I couldn't agree more with this list. The lack of the family tree makes it very hard to keep track of the characters and so far at least in my gaming, the political element does not seem to have effected my game at all. The lack of governor's is again another thing which I find bizarre. I would also like to have seen more historical content to it, (I have only played as Rome as yet) as the names are all jumbled up and nothing like any of the real figures from history (not a single Cornelius Scipio or Julius Caesar yet). The units have seemed quite generic too so far (again just played as Rome) which after playing the original Rome Total War and certain Mods (specifically Europa Barbarorum) which had fantastic scope and breadth of historical accurate content, I found this lack a little disappointing.
  • WillensKraftWillensKraft Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 337
    edited September 2013
    +1
    ......
    R2D2 gets upgraded with the Rome II AI
    http://i.imgur.com/kEWNYcF.gif

    Disclaimer: the post above is way way pre-alpha, the final version will be way way better than this.
  • anubis4567anubis4567 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 500
    edited September 2013
    Completely agree on everything. +9001
    "The so called negative feedback is often love in disguise. Take full advantage''
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    I'm sure that modders will, as with Skyrim, pick up the slack. But a lot of these should have been in vanilla release, currently Rome feela like an Alpha. Hopefully CA picks it up and adds these in.
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    A few more things that were bugging me, firstly make units chase down routing units or attack a nearby unit so I don't have to babysit as much. Secondly, in regards to Politics, get rid of the paying to assassinate people and just let us use agents on them in whatever settlement they're at (because they're governors, right...?) oh and bring back daughters so I can choose which daughters I marry off and to whom I do so. I find it hilarious that Rome II has quotes from Antony and Cleopatra and yet we cannot marry off our daughters like Octavia was (not to mention the game acts as if they dont exist).
  • AndaAnda Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 210
    edited September 2013
    4. Bring back governors!
    The system of setting Generals to govern settlements that existed in Rome: Total War, Medieval: Total War and other Total War games was great and very realistic.
    This system could also be integrated really well with the political system, i.e. an overly ambitious General or Politician can be sent to govern a small settlement on the other side of your Empire, thus reducing the chance that he mounts any sort of political rebellion on you (but perhaps increasing the chance of him mounting a military rebellion).

    Yes!!! I actually like the new provincial system a lot, but why they decided leave out the governor feature is beyond me. Governorships should be gained the same way offices are, by using your accumulated political power.
  • BLuBMuZBLuBMuZ Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 155
    edited September 2013
    Yesterday i posted something with the same complaints, but your list is far more extensive and accurate.
    I hope CA will take it in the due consideration.
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    The sad thing is I don't think they will change this. They're all about streamlining and casualising it seems, and they've done it in all the wrong places betraying their fanbase.
  • golangolan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,392
    edited September 2013
    OP, good list! pretty much everybody's concerns are somewhat covered by it. But you got some wrong, like trade agreements, bringing back province governors and (maybe) the UI.

    For example, diplomacy is not better than shogun2, not improved as they said. But it works. I understand its annoying, but its actually interesting implemented for a change! What you're asking for is a dumbing down of current behaviour. Let's take trade agreements as proof of concept: the AI refuses to trade with you. It happens to me a lot as Rome, but not so much if I play as Athens or Egypt. Interesting, no? Have you considered that the AI is actually weighing in that a trade agreement with you might upset some faction that it wants good relations with? Have you considered that the AI is actually weighing in what resources it needs (and you don't have them) OR other historical factors that were implemented and not shown (I assume that's why they are more likely to trade with Athens, than Rome, for example). Yeah it makes things frustrating for players with no patience for it, but its the first time in TW history that we have an AI that behaves according to its faction/personality in diplomacy, and you ask of it to accept all treaties just like that unless your status is really bad. That would not be an improvement. And the funny thing is that if you insist, use gifts and so on, it will finally agree to trade! It's completely counter intuitive, but in a way, it helps recreate the spirit of the era, with the snobby pharaos, ill tempered gauls and so on.

    I completely disagree with governors. If a general is in a province, it automatically gets a boost from that, if its in the city, it improves public order, and its enough imho. Rome didn't govern all its provinces, most of the foreign occupied territories were governed by local people, some romans were in charge of various stuff like tax collecting and maintaining diplomatic relations with the local nobles. If it had a roman garrison, it behaved like an occupation force, public order enforcers, not as a major boost to economy (in fact I think provinces that shelter legions should have a small penalty in income). The limits on dignitaries and armies affect what you ask for, but it brings very little value to the game (the province is managed anyway, why would I also need to worry by its governor? unless he's also in the military of course). What I would like is an improvement in the UI. Currently all information that you require is available, but its not very intuitive how to get to that information. You get pretty detailed scrolls with all factors that affect income and public order, thus you can plan how to optimise income/public order/military recruitement across all regions and provinces. But its a downgrade from S2, as it doesn't show future possible developments and their effects.

    That brings me to the UI. I personally like the style and the information is available, but I would like little changes to it, so that it would be more effective to use, including little stuff like adding control keys for tabs where you can get only by clicking.

    Its not a rebuff of the problems you mentioned. They're objective, but I think a lot of players got confused about certain game mechanics that they claim they don't work when they actually do. Its confusing, as there is a lot that doesn't work, but particular things like this are not a priority atm, let them fix the core/bigger problems, crashes, graphics, performance and battle balance.

    Cheers. Tx if you stayed with me until the end of the post.
    Remember! Rome Wasn't Patched In a Day... Uhm, that's the way the saying goes, right?

    TW Track:
    • SP/MP ratio = 95/5.
    • Preferred campaign difficulty: Normal/Hard (Very Hard in Rome2).
    • Preferred vanilla battle difficulty: Very Hard (Normal in Shogun2).
    • Vanilla/Mods ratio = 40/60 (Rome2 track = 90% mods).
    • Mods: EB, RTR, R1DM, SSteel, M2DM, DME, S2DM, Radious R2, DeI, Constantine
  • Crestus MaximusCrestus Maximus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 207
    edited September 2013
    Great post and as previously mentioned, i very much agree with most of what you say.
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    Well that's kind of what I don't understand, how did Diplomacy get worse!?! I've spent a bit more time with it now, and it is definitely, as you say, counter-intuitive, but not impossible.
    I reiterate, though, that as always the diplomacy feels more like a puzzle than an actual living, breathing thing.

    Take trade agreements, to continue with the example, I do think that they need to be far more developed (and this relates to my point about the economy). I could justify an AI not agreeing to trade if it badly affects the supply/demand of a product in their empire that they have currently monopolized, or if I benefit more than them by a significant margin in the agreement. However currently there is no such evidence towards that being the case. Similarly I could understand an AI be willing to do almost anything to get one of my resources if it needed it for a specific purpose, I point to Horses/Iron/Coal/Oil/Uranium in Civilization V as an example of that, but there is no evidence of any mechanics of that sort either!

    I understand your point and what you're actually referring to is called 'cultural aversion' in Rome II which is displayed in the diplomacy screen when mousing over the 'Face' of the other faction. For example when playing as Rome (as any house other than the Junia, because they have bad diplomacy with other factions) Athens has a cultural aversion of -15 towards Rome. I managed to mitigate this by acquiring non-aggression pacts and befriending their friends and being hostile towards their enemies, and yet they still refuse to trade - doesn't seem very logical to me considering the economy is so basic and the agreements are always mutually beneficial.

    The annoyance of this would be significantly mitigated by giving the player a reason as to why they denied a trade agreement, such as 'You think you can muscle us out of our own Wine/Oil/Stone/Timber/etc. industry! Not a chance!' or 'The mighty Pharaoh sees no reason why Roman oil would be on par with Egyptian oil!' when they say no, and deepening the economy and supply/demand factors of the game.

    CONTINUED...
  • VenguinVenguin Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2
    edited September 2013
    golan wrote: »
    Rome didn't govern all its provinces, most of the foreign occupied territories were governed by local people, some romans were in charge of various stuff like tax collecting and maintaining diplomatic relations with the local nobles. If it had a roman garrison, it behaved like an occupation force, public order enforcers, not as a major boost to economy (in fact I think provinces that shelter legions should have a small penalty in income).

    First of all, everything you say on the matter of Roman legions and their effects on economy is grossly incorrect. Wherever Roman legions went the economy surged (provided they weren't there on orders to massacre the locals...): The legionnaires had money to spend and they spent it on food, drink, *****s, entertainment and local trinkets. Due to their senatorial backgrounds the commanding officers, tribunes and legates, were unsurprisingly quite fond of luxury goods such as delicacies, wine and proper clothing which all had to be either aquired locally or shipped at great cost from Rome. This all created trade and enterprise, from which the locals hugely benefited I might add. Entire towns were erected on the footsteps of Legion outposts and fortresses to service the men stationed there, and boomed to such an extent that they are in existence even today. Ever hear of Cologne or Vienna, for example? :P

    Secondly, Rome, or more accurately the Senate and later the Emperor, always appointed governors to provinces that were parts of the Roman domain. In the years of the Republic it is true that some provinces in Roman control were more like client states or vassals ruled by local lordlings who paid tribute to Rome (for example Egypt and Judea). During the Imperial period however these states were slowly romanised/subjugated for good and integrated into the provincial governor system. Provincial governors were a crucial, if not the most important, part of Roman bureaucracy and as such it is shameful they are not represented in the game in any way.

    Lastly, I'd like to say I whole-heartedly agree with every point ChaChaLoco adressed. After the bugs and glicthes and crashes and all have been fixed Rome 2 is a good, enjoyable game. It just isn't nowhere near what it could have been.

    Thank you if you bothered to ready my comma f*cking. Just don't mess with history. :D
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    ...CONTINUED

    In regards to governors I just want to be able to do something with the, at the moment, useless 'Statesmen' that I do not need to manage my armies, or I can't use them because my armies are already at the limit. I think it would add depth being able to remove pesky, ambitious politicians by sending them to the corners of my Empire. More besides, as far as I know, historically Romans did govern settlements or provinces, or they utilised 'puppet kings/governors' to enact their edicts and law (with relative accordance to local law and custom) in client states or subjugated factions.
    I think it could add a lot of depth to the game, particularly to the political aspect of it, and it’s fairly straight forward.
    I'm not suggesting removing the army limits, or manually moving these governors across the map - but you should be able to assign them to settlements/provinces to govern them or if it’s a client state assist in governance or act as an advisor or embassy to your puppet King or something.

    One thing I thought was really, really awesome was the confederation of Tribes when playing as the Seubi, it was pretty cool and the AI wasn't too bad when deciding when/when not to join me. Although I was disappointed it didn’t add any mechanics in regards to having to keep the families of the factions that joined your confederation happy to avoid them leaving.

    I like the style of the UI, and it has a lot of potential, but it’s not great. I much preferred Rome: Total War, Medieval II: Total War and Shogun II: Total War, it was far more accessible and very logically presented.

    In any case I'm sure a modder will be willing to fulfil my wishlist, and thanks for your reply it's always good to have discussions like this (even though these should have been happening between beta-testers before the release :P).

    They need to fix so much, this is just my wishlist once they get the core mechanics stable.
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    Venguin wrote: »
    First of all, everything you say on the matter of Roman legions... Just don't mess with history. :D

    That was a really good, concise post, couldn't have said it better myself, thanks. :)
  • pklaxpklax Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    edited September 2013
    To answer your question, Talents were a unit of currency in ancient Rome, Greece, and I think Israel. In reality it was a system of weight measurment, generally referring to a certain weight in gold.

    But ya agree with most/all things you said. Had a couple ideas written in my post if you want to take a look and add any on to this discussion, as yours seems to be taking off

    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/89747-Rome-2-Fixes-Ideas
  • LerajeLeraje Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 27
    edited September 2013
    Good list. I'm personally think that CA should've adhered to the old good "If ain't broken, don't fix it" rule and used the tried and proven structure of RTW/ME1/SH2 instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and coming up with something vaguely square, with some rounded corners of good new features.

    As a side note, "Talent" is a roman measure of weight, and could be used as a a currency when dealing with large sums if refers to weight of bullion.
  • pklaxpklax Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    edited September 2013
    Ya very good post. I had some similar ideas on a post I put in earlier. Feel free to take a look and add it to this discussion. Seems like this one is gaining great traction.
    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/89747-Rome-2-Fixes-Ideas

    But ya Talent is a system of weight measurement, typically for gold when used in currency. Was used by Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, and a few others. Meant something different depending on the culture though. Wikipedia page has some good info on the conversion rate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(measurement)
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    Leraje wrote: »
    As a side note, "Talent" is a roman measure of weight, and could be used as a a currency when dealing with large sums if refers to weight of bullion.

    Ah okay, thank you! I did a quick Google search and read up a bit more about it, and you are correct. What is strange though is that the weight of 'Talents' differed between nations, i.e. a 'Roman Talent' is heavier than an 'Egyptian Talent'.
    I guess I'm just nostalgic for my Denarius... :P

    Creative Assembly definitely have a lot of work to do to fix this game, and that's if they want to keep they're fan base. They could always decide to just cut their losses on Rome, fix the technical issues and move on to the next Total War - but I sincerely hope they don't do that...
  • enasteronenasteron Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 25
    edited September 2013
    You pretty much said everything about what I also want to be corrected and changed, and what to keep / improve!

    I hope CA will take a serious look on this list, and try to deliver the game we want. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the community desperately want these changes. Please CA, fix the game's numerous bugs and technical issues, and either implement these proposals or at least give the right modding tools to the community to make them.
    Impossible is not a fact It's an opinion. Impossible is nothing.
  • MaccaveliMaccaveli Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 29
    edited September 2013
    Good points, I agree with most of it. Although a lot of your suggestions make it sound like this is the first Total War you've played since Medieval II. A lot has changed since then, and a lot of the stuff you're talking about here and had already been done or improved upon in Shogun 2.
  • golangolan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,392
    edited September 2013
    ChaChaLoco wrote: »
    Well that's kind of what I don't understand, how did Diplomacy get worse!?! I've spent a bit more time with it now, and it is definitely, as you say, counter-intuitive, but not impossible.
    I reiterate, though, that as always the diplomacy feels more like a puzzle than an actual living, breathing thing.
    ...
    The annoyance of this would be significantly mitigated by giving the player a reason as to why they denied a trade agreement, such as 'You think you can muscle us out of our own Wine/Oil/Stone/Timber/etc. industry! Not a chance!' or 'The mighty Pharaoh sees no reason why Roman oil would be on par with Egyptian oil!' when they say no, and deepening the economy and supply/demand factors of the game.
    .



    Exactly my point. But if that's the case, it has no place in a "game breaking" list. Its the same with the join confederacy issue. Hell, even Make Client. If you insist turn after turn you will get that agreement signed, even when on yellow status. And that is a much better thing than knowing they will 100% sign the agreement and the EXACT thing you need to change to get them to accept. That's just boring.

    Venguin wrote: »
    First of all, everything you say on the matter of Roman legions and their effects on economy is grossly incorrect.
    ChaChaLoco wrote: »
    ...CONTINUED

    In regards to governors I just want to be able to do something with the, at the moment, useless 'Statesmen' that I do not need to manage my armies, or I can't use them because my armies are already at the limit. I think it would add depth being able to remove pesky, ambitious politicians by sending them to the corners of my Empire. More besides, as far as I know, historically Romans did govern settlements or provinces, or they utilised 'puppet kings/governors' to enact their edicts and law (with relative accordance to local law and custom) in client states or subjugated factions.
    I think it could add a lot of depth to the game, particularly to the political aspect of it, and it’s fairly straight forward.
    I'm not suggesting removing the army limits, or manually moving these governors across the map - but you should be able to assign them to settlements/provinces to govern them or if it’s a client state assist in governance or act as an advisor or embassy to your puppet King or something.

    One thing I thought was really, really awesome was the confederation of Tribes when playing as the Seubi, it was pretty cool and the AI wasn't too bad when deciding when/when not to join me. Although I was disappointed it didn’t add any mechanics in regards to having to keep the families of the factions that joined your confederation happy to avoid them leaving.

    ...
    They need to fix so much, this is just my wishlist once they get the core mechanics stable.

    Doing "something" with statesmen is one thing, and I also disagree with adding more stuff that we have to worry about. Provinces are managed. You just don't have to worry about who and what it does, you get the food and the gold, it allow you to focus on war affairs and if we had some politics, that too.

    Now back to authenticity, I was making the point that province were governed locally, the governors were sometimes formal great generals and other important politicians, but there were regions also, under direct roman control, still governed by local people. What we have in the game, some provinces aren't governed by a significant person and regions with an army, and its governed by a person of significance to you. Its already implemented. What you ask is again extra, and the problem is with the extremely limited politics panel. There's no need for micro-management where we already have enough of what we need.
    Remember! Rome Wasn't Patched In a Day... Uhm, that's the way the saying goes, right?

    TW Track:
    • SP/MP ratio = 95/5.
    • Preferred campaign difficulty: Normal/Hard (Very Hard in Rome2).
    • Preferred vanilla battle difficulty: Very Hard (Normal in Shogun2).
    • Vanilla/Mods ratio = 40/60 (Rome2 track = 90% mods).
    • Mods: EB, RTR, R1DM, SSteel, M2DM, DME, S2DM, Radious R2, DeI, Constantine
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    Maccaveli wrote: »
    Good points, I agree with most of it. Although a lot of your suggestions make it sound like this is the first Total War you've played since Medieval II. A lot has changed since then, and a lot of the stuff you're talking about here and had already been done or improved upon in Shogun 2.

    Makes you wonder why it wasn't in Rome II then, doesn't it? :P
    Admittedly I played far more of Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War than I did of Shogun II: Total War, and unfortunately I never managed to get Empire to work properly on my computer, I kept having resolution issues on my 16:10 aspect ratio monitor, but I digress.
    Hopefully if they don't change some of this then modders do, all the better if we get official modding tools. Perhaps then I'll mod this game too like I did Skyrim...
  • ChaChaLocoChaChaLoco Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2013
    golan wrote: »
    Exactly my point. But if that's the case, it has no place in a "game breaking" list. Its the same with the join confederacy issue. Hell, even Make Client. If you insist turn after turn you will get that agreement signed, even when on yellow status. And that is a much better thing than knowing they will 100% sign the agreement and the EXACT thing you need to change to get them to accept. That's just boring.

    It's not really a game-breaking list, just a list of things I think need to be changed/improved.
    The game isn't broken per se, it works and is functional on a basic level - it just didn't match up to a lot of peoples expectations.

    Secondly, it's not about being given a formula on how to interact with the AI and achieve your diplomatic goals first-time round 100% of the time. It's about making the behind-the-scenes mechanics of how the AI operates, makes decisions and interacts with the player a little more realistic and clear so that it feels like a human player that is making decisions on the balance of probabilities, rather than a programmed AI.
    I certainly don't think nagging Egypt or Sparta turn after turn like a child is representative of real diplomacy, nor do I think that would be a good or realistic way to achieve my diplomatic goals. Instead I, as a human player, would be trying to figure out what the cheapest/fastest option is to get what I want. The end-goal here is to build an AI that emulates that human behaviour, but that doesn't mean creating an AI that just says 'No!' to everything you want or that counter-offers unreasonably - diplomacy is much more about meeting each other halfway (or coercing/bribing/tempting with power/riches).
    I understand diplomatic AI isn't an easy thing to do, but from what I hear Crusader Kings II did a really good job.
    golan wrote: »
    Doing "something" with statesmen is one thing, and I also disagree with adding more stuff that we have to worry about. Provinces are managed. You just don't have to worry about who and what it does, you get the food and the gold, it allow you to focus on war affairs and if we had some politics, that too.

    Personally I like a little bit of micromanagement when I'm managing my Empire, I understand that's not for everyone and that's why traditionally Total War games have come equipped with Multiplayer, Custom Battles, Quick Battles and Historical Battles as well as the Grand Campaign. What is perplexing though is how they can 'streamline' (a developer term for casualise/mainstream) certain elements of the game, such as the taxation system, and yet deepen and convolute other areas of the game, such as building construction and management.
    However I reiterate it isn't for everyone, and perhaps a lot of these suggestions could me implemented modularly.
    Although I don't understand why someone would buy a game about building an Empire if they didn't want to have to... build an Empire... :P
    golan wrote: »
    Now back to authenticity, I was making the point that province were governed locally, the governors were sometimes formal great generals and other important politicians, but there were regions also, under direct roman control, still governed by local people. What we have in the game, some provinces aren't governed by a significant person and regions with an army, and its governed by a person of significance to you. Its already implemented. What you ask is again extra, and the problem is with the extremely limited politics panel. There's no need for micro-management where we already have enough of what we need.

    I wasn't suggesting that we assign Generals with armies to settlements just to govern them, just the Statesmen that you aren't using for anything else anyway, I agree, though, that what I suggest is a waste of time unless its integrated into an expanded politics system. But I don't think that nullifies the point, I go back to reiterating how awesome it would be to neutralise political rivals by assigning them to the far corners of your Empire.

    Thanks. :P
  • vicvegavicvega Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited September 2013
    Nice list and I support most of it except the household-thingy ;)
  • WoollymammothWoollymammoth Banned Banned Users Posts: 206
    edited September 2013
    Is it possible to consolidate efforts?

    E.g. this thread is already working on making an inventory (saw some others pass by in the forum as well):
    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/86520-List-of-problems-to-fix-starting-from-most-important

    This instead of loose threads, that sink to the bottom, or losing oversight. Save people the bother of typing and reading the same thing over and over again (CA as well). Let's at least point people to a single thread for example where they can add their points.

    Let's get a sticky or something, as in:

    - Merge the different lists on this forum so that there is one of these.
    - Seperate bugs from feature requests.
    - Have a list in the opening post with all the things listed.
    - Make it a sticky
    - Get CA involved with a thread such as this.
    - No bikeshedding & ranting in the thread.

    People who want to help get this thing organized feel free to jump in, and work together please.
  • LogicLogic Banned Banned Users Posts: 61
    edited September 2013
    Just one more thread which has succeeded in what CA utterly failed : realizing what this game should be about and what should be part of it.

    Ah,CA start taking notice if you haven't already.
  • Jethro777Jethro777 Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited September 2013
    I would like to request that they also work on making as little hard coded as possible, as late as this is - allowing modders to adjust as much as possible will result, as you say, significant slack to be picked up and be able to do things we can't even imagine at the moment.
    Rome II Favourite Links

    Angry Joe Reviews Rome II
    Change Politics for fun Civil Wars

    CA - Please fix diplomacy, politics and restore Rome to it's greatness.
Sign In or Register to comment.