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

Second statement from CA on Rome II's release (11 Sep 2013)

1414243444547»

Comments

  • gamirmirgagamirmirga Member Posts: 87Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    the other thing that bothers me a lot is that they made a generic units roster for the game so they can sell us all the cool units as DLC. this needs to stop!! it is becoming insane!!!
    SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.
  • HorsemanNLHorsemanNL Senior Member Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    gamirmirga wrote: »
    the other thing that bothers me a lot is that they made a generic units roster for the game so they can sell us all the cool units as DLC. this needs to stop!! it is becoming insane!!!

    I have to agree. I'm really missing units like Screaching Women, Twohanded Germanic Axemen, Germanic Phanlanxes and Night Raiders. Rome 2 seems to have a special love for spear units, very dull indeed.
    Quo Usque Pro Roma Ibis, CA?
  • ScutatusScutatus Senior Member Posts: 1,185Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    HorsemanNL wrote: »
    I have to agree. I'm really missing units like Screaching Women, Twohanded Germanic Axemen, Germanic Phanlanxes and Night Raiders. Rome 2 seems to have a special love for spear units, very dull indeed.

    And yet... far more realistic.
    Endeavour to Persevere
  • DaOneShotDaOneShot Senior Member Posts: 177Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    Uhhh the realism, who exactly needs realism again?

    They don`t have to try to make a perfectly realistic tw game if you ask me. A bit historical accuracy is enough.
  • blitzsnakeblitzsnake Senior Member Posts: 374Registered Users
    edited October 2013
  • MarkRyan1981MarkRyan1981 Junior Member Posts: 3Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    I've had to do full lobotomy twice to keep the game running on my older rig, its cost me hundreds of pounds in needing to invest in a new computer, I've put up with numerous crashes, but do you know what? Its worth it. I've read a lot of negativity on this forum (and more power to the constructive criticism, that's how the game will improve and the bugs will be removed), I just wanted to put down that I think the game is stunning. Its faults come from the games ambition and daring aspiration.

    Keep working the long hours CA, my new rig arrives on Thursday, so I'm looking forward to seeing the game with all the bells and whistles turned on.

    Ignore the destructive nay sayers, listen to the constructive comments (as I know you are), and finally, what a great fricking game.
  • HorsemanNLHorsemanNL Senior Member Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    DaOneShot wrote: »
    Uhhh the realism, who exactly needs realism again?

    They don`t have to try to make a perfectly realistic tw game if you ask me. A bit historical accuracy is enough.

    True... historical accuracy is nice as a background, but having dozens of different spear units is so boring. I'm not asking for ridiculous fantasy units, but a bit more variation would be nice. Probably reserved for DLC packs I guess...
    Quo Usque Pro Roma Ibis, CA?
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Posts: 1,470Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    Keep working the long hours CA, my new rig arrives on Thursday, so I'm looking forward to seeing the game with all the bells and whistles turned on.

    Have fun watching a pixelated (because there is no proper anti-aliasing) slideshow (because turning everything on will give you 10fps in a number of scenarios even on an overclocked supercomputer) :)
  • MarkRyan1981MarkRyan1981 Junior Member Posts: 3Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    HuntingDog wrote: »
    Have fun watching a pixelated (because there is no proper anti-aliasing) slideshow (because turning everything on will give you 10fps in a number of scenarios even on an overclocked supercomputer) :)

    Even on my 6 year old rig (core 2 duo, 32 bit system) I'm still blown away by the visuals, so I doubt I'll be that disappointed :). Going into first person on a transport and running up a beach, and then leaping off with all of your troops - pretty **** fun. Little details like your army's breaking down field picket fences as they march forward, priceless. I'll be interested to see the anti-aliasing though and what the particle and smoke effects are like on some more beefy kit (although the new rig will be no supercomputer I'm afraid!)

    I'd be the first to admit there is work to be done (note my bad experiences and frustrations above), but they will get there, and I maintain, the game is great fun and very ambitious (2 year old son was sitting on my lap playing it with me at the weekend, he seemed to like it too - galloping horses, dogs, what more can you ask for?)
  • The CorinthianThe Corinthian Senior Member Swansea, WalesPosts: 253Registered Users
    edited October 2013
    I'd be the first to admit there is work to be done (note my bad experiences and frustrations above), but they will get there, and I maintain, the game is great fun and very ambitious (2 year old son was sitting on my lap playing it with me at the weekend, he seemed to like it too - galloping horses, dogs, what more can you ask for?)

    Never, ever ask the TW community that question!
  • hoplítehoplíte Junior Member Posts: 28Registered Users
    edited November 2013
    Well, after playing almost 300 hours of Rome 2, I think it's possible to make a fair evaluation of the game.

    As I said a few times in this forum, I'm not worried about bugs and failures because all this is fixable . I’m more concerned with some features that they intentionally inserted or removed that spoiled the game.

    The following are the seven deadly sins that the CA committed with Rome II total war:

    1. SYRACUSE, SPARTA, RHODES AND JERUSALEM TRANSFORMED INTO MERE FISHING AND FARMING VILLAGES.

    The issue of Jerusalem is simple. Just change the capital from Petra to Jerusalem.

    Syracuse problem is also simple.

    Magna Grecia is a huge province that makes no sense. It seems obvious to me and to many people I’ve read in this forum that Sicily should be a province with three cities (like it was in Rome 1) and Syracuse it’s capital.
    Sparta and Rhodes is a bit more complicated because there is no space on the map to transform the two cities in capitals.

    There are two solutions.

    The first: Scaling up the campaign map.

    Everyone must have noticed that the map of the prologue is larger than the full campaign map. To me the campaign map should be the same size as the prologue map, or even larger. Thus there would be room for Sparta and Athens (perhaps even Corinth – which were forgotten) to become capitals of two different provinces.

    The second solution for Sparta and Rhodes (considering the idea of the larger map, of course) should be once and for all make usage of the Greek islands. Historically all those islands were populated. Neither in Rome 1 or Rome 2 they put towns in the Greek islands, with the exception of Crete and Rhodes .

    Suggestion (larger map of course):
    Province Laconia - SPARTA, Pylos and Olympia (where lies the statue of Zeus)
    Province Attica - ATHENS, Marathon and Carystos (Island)
    Province Doris (all islands) - RHODES, Thera and Hieraptyna (Crete)

    It was very disappointing, at a certain point in the game, due to food shortages, I had to transform Sparta into a mere farming village.

    2 . SWORDLESS HOPLITES
    Playing with Rome, I’ve recruited mercenaries hoplites and saw they were swordless, they only had the spear. I thought probably they remove the swords of the simpler and lame hoplites and gave swords exclusively for the elite unit of hoplites. To my disappointment, the Heroes of Sparta are also swordless. In the patch number 4 they made another spartan unit with spear and sword, but it is not the same thing. It is imperative, the heroes of Sparta and the Mercenary veterans hoplites must have sword.



    3 . GENERALS WEARING RIDICULOUS HELMETS LOOKING LIKE CHAMBER POTS.
    Most generals wear ugly and ridiculous helmets. Some look like they are using a bedpan on his head . At the beginning of the campaign I thought the style of the helmets would change over the years. I've played 200 years (turns) and they are still wearing the same ridiculous helmets.

    What annoys me in that story is that the fantastic general, with a stylish helmet, and a beautiful armor, which is portrayed on the cover of the DVD...

    THIS GENERAL DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS GAME !
    AARRRRRGGGH ! ! :mad:


    4 . CHILDISH AND STREAMLINED POLITICAL WINDOW, AND INCOHERENT CIVIL WAR.
    At the beginning of last year, when they had not yet announced Rome 2, I wrote in this forum , along with several other people who would like to see the event of civil war coupled to a scheme fostered by political conspiracies, ambitions and greed.

    I believe I speak for all, what we’ve suggested was a complex system involving characters traits (loyalty, corruption, etc.), the influence of their families, the size of the armies they command, and so on. What i've witnessed in Rome 2 is a childish, tedious and streamlined political window, and an insane civil war totally disconnected with the political schemes and with the faction .

    I explain myself, at one point my campaign my level of imperium was low, I had not even conquered Carthage yet, and I could only have 4 legions and still had no naval fleet. Out of nowhere, a civil war erupted in Massalia with 12 land legions and 12 naval fleets. How is it possible that a faction which has been divided in half and one of the parties has an army six times larger than the other.

    Suggestion:

    4.1. The political window should work properly. At one point in the game, I had in my family (Julia) the lowest gravitas generals and still, the influence of my family kept increasing. The house of Cornelia, on the other hand, had generals with level 3 of ambition and 150 gravitas and the influence of Cornelia kept falling. Clearly there is a malfunction here. (it may have already been fixed, hopefully) .

    4.2. The civil war must be fully linked to the general’s traits (disloyalty, corruption, ambition and gravitas) and also linked with the strength or weakness of the families. That is, generals from very influential families, should rebel up to seize power and become emperors (New Faction - Rome Imperialis). Generals from families with little influence should rebel up to separate (Senate Loyalists) . It seems to me that the trend of the civil war is linked solely to the level of the imperium. I saw several civil wars emerging (Loyalists) when the balance of forces between the families was perfectly even. So why the Rebellion? What are they being loyal to?

    SENSELESS!

    4.3. The rebellion should split the empire in half . That is, if there is only 6 legions available on your faction, the rebel army must have a maximum of three legions. Very importantly, these legions have to be formed by armies and generals that already exist in the game.

    Example :

    General Nerva , commanding a large legion in the province of Africa, become rebel. Then appears the new faction (Loyalists or Imperialis) and automatically the hole province (the 4 cities - not only a single settlement) where the army is stationed is attached to the rebel faction. All the provinces that have rebel armies will be attached to the rebels. Afterwards, the faction begins to function as a regular one (as it is already in the game).

    Hypothetical suggestion of the trigger

    Trigger Rebel_Army :

    If the general has the traits disloyal , corrupt , ambition ≥ 2
    If the general has gravitas ≥ 50
    If the general commanding an army of size ≥ 60 %
    (Maybe) If the general is Family Leader
    If the family has influence level ≤ 10 or ≥ 60

    Chance of rebel army appears = 70 %


    4.4. The player should have the option to bring the civil war up to seize power and become emperor, or destroy the power of another very influential family.

    4.5. It would be amazing if at the beginning of the campaign the player does not have full control of the faction. The faction (Senate) would be controlled by the AI (recruitment, construction, declare war, etc.). The player at this stage would only receive missions from the Senate (AI) to attack an army, conquer a city, etc. The player will only completely control the faction when his family become the most influential. Thus, the struggle for influence becomes really meaningful and exciting. This option can be combined with the difficulty levels of the game.

    4.6. When the player's family is in charge, the other families (AI) must fight to regain the influence in an intelligent, efficient and challenging way. This is so not what is happening in the game at the moment.

    4.7. Another thing that could spice up the struggle for power, would be the return of the traditional offices of Rome 1: Aedil , Quaestor , Censor , Praetor , Consul, Proconsul, Military tribune, etc. Of course all of these positions cannot be inserted in the game so simplistic. Each one of these offices must have abilities and powers that influence in a specific way the struggle of power.


    5 . THE CITY VIEW BUTTON REMOVAL.
    In Rome 1, the city view button (see the city on the battlemap) was sensational!
    Even when the cities were identical to each other, still, it was wonderful to see the city on the battlemap and see how the recently constructed buildings look like.

    In Rome 2 , when the CA guys created cities much more beautiful to look and the cities are finally different from each other (I know there are several similar cities), with nice hills, or rivers crossing within.

    When could be the perfect time to see the cities on the battlemap ....

    THEY REMOVE THE CITY VIEW BUTTON!!!
    AARRRRRGGGH !!!
    WHAT THE HELL !!! :mad:

    6 . ABSENCE OF FAMILY TREE.
    I've read many posts here from people asking for family tree. I confess that I'm on the fence, because the family tree, as it was on Rome1, needed a lot of improvements. There were problems with childbirths, sometimes happen to have more provinces than governors, and I’ve seen total extinction of all the original Julius of my family because when the family gets too big, couples stop to making children.

    I like the idea of recruiting generals.

    But I confess that it would be wonderful to see a family tree in Rome 2 with all the problems fixed.

    During the campaign, while the faction is in the form of a republic I didn't miss the family tree. However, when the game offered me the option to turn to empire, it was utterly ridiculous and nonsense an emperor without heirs and without family.

    Suggestion:

    My idea is to have a mixed system. A shortened family tree working coupled with the current families window.
    For example, there could be an exclusive window for the family tree of the player’s house (Julia, Cornelia or Junia), showing only the closest relatives of the family leader (up to the 3rd degree of closeness, for example). Like the image below.

    family-tree_final.jpg

    Red - closest relatives that will be shown in the family tree .
    Green - former family leaders (dead).
    White - distant relatives not shown in the tree (4th, 5th, 6th or higher degrees)

    When the current leader dies, the next leader must be one of the members in red with the higher gravitas. The leader will not necessarily be the son (because this is not an empire…yet). It could be the uncle, for example.

    In this scenario, if the player wants one of his sons to become the leader, he is gonna need to have his uncle murdered. Or send the uncle beyond the enemy lines.

    If the uncle becomes the family leader, the members shown in the tree will change. In this case, it will be the closest relatives of the uncle (up to the 3rd degree) . Like the image below .


    family-tree 2.jpg

    Of course , these relatives could be appointed to an office as praetor, aedil, consul, etc., and appointed to command troops (provided that the player is already in total command of the faction - explained above), increasing even more the family’s influence. In this case , the other families start to get angry and jealous, spicing up the politics and making more complex and exciting the struggle for power.

    7. CLIENT STATES SHOULD ACT LIKE VASSALS.
    The client states in the game do not act as vassals. This is wrong. The vassal states have to submit all diplomatic demands (payments, join war, break alliance, etc ... ) as if they were orders.

    Because, after all, you let them live.


    Well, that’s it.

    I hope there's still time for some of these ideas be implemented in the following patches.

    Tks for reading.
  • jkjktotalwarjkjktotalwar Senior Member Posts: 509Registered Users
    edited November 2013
    hoplíte wrote: »
    Well, after playing almost 300 hours of Rome 2, I think it's possible to make a fair evaluation of the game.

    As I said a few times in this forum, I'm not worried about bugs and failures because all this is fixable . I’m more concerned with some features that they intentionally inserted or removed that spoiled the game.

    The following are the seven deadly sins that the CA committed with Rome II total war:

    1. SYRACUSE, SPARTA, RHODES AND JERUSALEM TRANSFORMED INTO MERE FISHING AND FARMING VILLAGES.

    The issue of Jerusalem is simple. Just change the capital from Petra to Jerusalem.

    Syracuse problem is also simple.

    Magna Grecia is a huge province that makes no sense. It seems obvious to me and to many people I’ve read in this forum that Sicily should be a province with three cities (like it was in Rome 1) and Syracuse it’s capital.
    Sparta and Rhodes is a bit more complicated because there is no space on the map to transform the two cities in capitals.

    There are two solutions.

    The first: Scaling up the campaign map.

    Everyone must have noticed that the map of the prologue is larger than the full campaign map. To me the campaign map should be the same size as the prologue map, or even larger. Thus there would be room for Sparta and Athens (perhaps even Corinth – which were forgotten) to become capitals of two different provinces.

    The second solution for Sparta and Rhodes (considering the idea of the larger map, of course) should be once and for all make usage of the Greek islands. Historically all those islands were populated. Neither in Rome 1 or Rome 2 they put towns in the Greek islands, with the exception of Crete and Rhodes .

    Suggestion (larger map of course):
    Province Laconia - SPARTA, Pylos and Olympia (where lies the statue of Zeus)
    Province Attica - ATHENS, Marathon and Carystos (Island)
    Province Doris (all islands) - RHODES, Thera and Hieraptyna (Crete)

    It was very disappointing, at a certain point in the game, due to food shortages, I had to transform Sparta into a mere farming village.

    2 . SWORDLESS HOPLITES
    Playing with Rome, I’ve recruited mercenaries hoplites and saw they were swordless, they only had the spear. I thought probably they remove the swords of the simpler and lame hoplites and gave swords exclusively for the elite unit of hoplites. To my disappointment, the Heroes of Sparta are also swordless. In the patch number 4 they made another spartan unit with spear and sword, but it is not the same thing. It is imperative, the heroes of Sparta and the Mercenary veterans hoplites must have sword.



    3 . GENERALS WEARING RIDICULOUS HELMETS LOOKING LIKE CHAMBER POTS.
    Most generals wear ugly and ridiculous helmets. Some look like they are using a bedpan on his head . At the beginning of the campaign I thought the style of the helmets would change over the years. I've played 200 years (turns) and they are still wearing the same ridiculous helmets.

    What annoys me in that story is that the fantastic general, with a stylish helmet, and a beautiful armor, which is portrayed on the cover of the DVD...

    THIS GENERAL DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS GAME !
    AARRRRRGGGH ! ! :mad:


    4 . CHILDISH AND STREAMLINED POLITICAL WINDOW, AND INCOHERENT CIVIL WAR.
    At the beginning of last year, when they had not yet announced Rome 2, I wrote in this forum , along with several other people who would like to see the event of civil war coupled to a scheme fostered by political conspiracies, ambitions and greed.

    I believe I speak for all, what we’ve suggested was a complex system involving characters traits (loyalty, corruption, etc.), the influence of their families, the size of the armies they command, and so on. What i've witnessed in Rome 2 is a childish, tedious and streamlined political window, and an insane civil war totally disconnected with the political schemes and with the faction .

    I explain myself, at one point my campaign my level of imperium was low, I had not even conquered Carthage yet, and I could only have 4 legions and still had no naval fleet. Out of nowhere, a civil war erupted in Massalia with 12 land legions and 12 naval fleets. How is it possible that a faction which has been divided in half and one of the parties has an army six times larger than the other.

    Suggestion:

    4.1. The political window should work properly. At one point in the game, I had in my family (Julia) the lowest gravitas generals and still, the influence of my family kept increasing. The house of Cornelia, on the other hand, had generals with level 3 of ambition and 150 gravitas and the influence of Cornelia kept falling. Clearly there is a malfunction here. (it may have already been fixed, hopefully) .

    4.2. The civil war must be fully linked to the general’s traits (disloyalty, corruption, ambition and gravitas) and also linked with the strength or weakness of the families. That is, generals from very influential families, should rebel up to seize power and become emperors (New Faction - Rome Imperialis). Generals from families with little influence should rebel up to separate (Senate Loyalists) . It seems to me that the trend of the civil war is linked solely to the level of the imperium. I saw several civil wars emerging (Loyalists) when the balance of forces between the families was perfectly even. So why the Rebellion? What are they being loyal to?

    SENSELESS!

    4.3. The rebellion should split the empire in half . That is, if there is only 6 legions available on your faction, the rebel army must have a maximum of three legions. Very importantly, these legions have to be formed by armies and generals that already exist in the game.

    Example :

    General Nerva , commanding a large legion in the province of Africa, become rebel. Then appears the new faction (Loyalists or Imperialis) and automatically the hole province (the 4 cities - not only a single settlement) where the army is stationed is attached to the rebel faction. All the provinces that have rebel armies will be attached to the rebels. Afterwards, the faction begins to function as a regular one (as it is already in the game).

    Hypothetical suggestion of the trigger

    Trigger Rebel_Army :

    If the general has the traits disloyal , corrupt , ambition ≥ 2
    If the general has gravitas ≥ 50
    If the general commanding an army of size ≥ 60 %
    (Maybe) If the general is Family Leader
    If the family has influence level ≤ 10 or ≥ 60

    Chance of rebel army appears = 70 %


    4.4. The player should have the option to bring the civil war up to seize power and become emperor, or destroy the power of another very influential family.

    4.5. It would be amazing if at the beginning of the campaign the player does not have full control of the faction. The faction (Senate) would be controlled by the AI (recruitment, construction, declare war, etc.). The player at this stage would only receive missions from the Senate (AI) to attack an army, conquer a city, etc. The player will only completely control the faction when his family become the most influential. Thus, the struggle for influence becomes really meaningful and exciting. This option can be combined with the levels of difficulty of the game.

    4.6. When the player's family is in charge, the other families (AI) must fight to regain the influence in an intelligent, efficient and challenging way. This is so not what is happening in the game at the moment.

    4.7. Another thing that could spice up the struggle for power, would be the return of the traditional offices of Rome 1: Aedil , Quaestor , Censor , Praetor , Consul, Proconsul, Military tribune, etc. Of course all of these positions cannot be inserted in the game so simplistic. Each one of these offices must have abilities and powers that influence in a specific way the struggle of power.


    5 . THE CITY VIEW BUTTON REMOVAL.
    In Rome 1, the city view button (see the city on the battlemap) was sensational!
    Even when the cities were identical to each other, still, it was wonderful to see the city on the battlemap and see how the recently constructed buildings look like.

    In Rome 2 , when the CA guys created cities much more beautiful to look and the cities are finally different from each other (I know there are several similar cities), with nice hills, or rivers crossing within.

    When could be the perfect time to see the cities on the battlemap ....

    THEY REMOVE THE CITY VIEW BUTTON!!!
    AARRRRRGGGH !!!
    WHAT THE HELL !!! :mad:

    6 . ABSENCE OF FAMILY TREE.
    I've read many posts here from people asking for family tree. I confess that I'm on the fence, because the family tree, as it was on Rome1, needed a lot of improvements. There were problems with childbirths, sometimes happen to have more provinces than governors, and I’ve seen total extinction of all the original Julius of my family because when the family gets too big, couples stop to making children.

    I like the idea of recruiting generals.

    But I confess that it would be wonderful to see a family tree in Rome 2 with all the problems fixed.

    During the campaign, while the faction is in the form of a republic I didn't miss the family tree. However, when the game offered me the option to turn to empire, it was utterly ridiculous and nonsense an emperor without heirs and without family.

    Suggestion:

    My idea is to have a mixed system. A shortened family tree working coupled with the current families window.
    For example, there could be an exclusively window for the family tree of the player’s house (Julia, Cornelia or Junia), showing only the closest relatives of the family leader (up to the 3rd degree of closeness, for example). Like the image below.

    Attachment not found.

    Red - closest relatives that will be shown in the family tree .
    Green - former family leaders (dead).
    White - distant relatives not shown in the tree (4th, 5th, 6th or higher degrees)

    When the current leader dies, the next leader must be one of the members in red with the higher gravitas. The leader will not necessarily be the son (because this is not an empire…yet). It could be the uncle, for example.

    In this scenario, if the player wants one of his sons to become the leader, he is gonna need to have his uncle murdered. Or send the uncle beyond the enemy lines.

    If the uncle becomes the family leader, the members shown in the tree will change. In this case, it will be the closest relatives of the uncle (up to the 3rd degree) . Like the image below .


    Attachment not found.

    Of course , these relatives could be appointed to an office as praetor, aedil, consul, etc., and appointed to command troops (provided that the player is already in total command of the faction - explained above), increasing even more the family’s influence. In this case , the other families start to get angry and jealous, spicing up the politics and making more complex and exciting the struggle for power.

    7. CLIENT STATES SHOULD ACT LIKE VASSALS.
    The client states in the game do not act as vassals. This is wrong. The vassal states have to submit all diplomatic demands (payments, join war, break alliance, etc ... ) as if they were orders.

    Because, after all, you let them live.


    Well, that’s it.

    I hope there's still time for some of these ideas be implemented in the following patches.

    Tks for reading.

    I find so much wrong with this post idk where to begin.
    Scaling up the map, as it is we have TOO many cities, it's not the amount of cities that is the problem it's that the AI doesn't expand therefore you have major cities that become "Fishing villages". Also who the hell knows, maybe these Modern day "Great" cities were fishing villages in comparison to the cities that were wiped out. Babylon was wiped out, it was said to be a giant beauty with hanging gardens. I find the size suitable while it would be nice to add cities and such it's really not going to fit well as far as gameplay. So far the game turns are long as it is. Add more cities and factions and it becomes ridiculous.

    Client states pay you money to protect them. They are not the same as vassals who pay you money to be your ***** and go to war with you. CA says they are not your tools. Vassals have to submit to diplomatic demands, Client states just hate you but are too scared to go to war (for now).
    So that is the difference between the two.
    But I do agree that the Client states suck. The lack of intelligence in the CAI makes them really bad, though they have a lot of potential. As such the old Shogun 2 vassals is a slightly better option IMO. However my problem is that they always stay mad at you and don't want to deal with you diplomatically at all, despite letting them live. Letting a Faction LIVE is another issue entirely as the CAI has no self preservation. They are beaten their armies are beaten, you have you armies camped outside their last settlement and they still don't care about peace, I can understand if a few factions did this once in a while, but EVERY TIME it's boring.

    Family tree: everyone wants it, it helps add to the attachment of generals ect ect. But what does it matter since generals are 1 shotted by ballista, 1 shotted by archers, skirmishers, even horse archers can one shot them so easy. Charge your general cav with flying wedge see how many times the general falls. It's almost hilarious. The generals die from this and old age, your family tree will end before it even begins.

    The other points you've made either I agree Or don't care (like helmets and visuals- swords on units) because there are mods for this kinda ****. Civil war-bs political system completely pointless with so much potential.
  • hoplítehoplíte Junior Member Posts: 28Registered Users
    edited November 2013
    hoplíte wrote: »

    6 . ABSENCE OF FAMILY TREE.
    I've read many posts here from people asking for family tree. I confess that I'm on the fence, because the family tree, as it was on Rome1, needed a lot of improvements. There were problems with childbirths, sometimes happen to have more provinces than governors, and I’ve seen total extinction of all the original Julius of my family because when the family gets too big, couples stop to making children.

    I like the idea of recruiting generals.

    But I confess that it would be wonderful to see a family tree in Rome 2 with all the problems fixed.

    During the campaign, while the faction is in the form of a republic I didn't miss the family tree. However, when the game offered me the option to turn to empire, it was utterly ridiculous and nonsense an emperor without heirs and without family.

    Suggestion:

    My idea is to have a mixed system. A shortened family tree working coupled with the current families window.
    For example, there could be an exclusive window for the family tree of the player’s house (Julia, Cornelia or Junia), showing only the closest relatives of the family leader (up to the 3rd degree of closeness, for example). Like the image below.

    family-tree_final.jpg

    Red - closest relatives that will be shown in the family tree .
    Green - former family leaders (dead).
    White - distant relatives not shown in the tree (4th, 5th, 6th or higher degrees)

    When the current leader dies, the next leader must be one of the members in red with the higher gravitas. The leader will not necessarily be the son (because this is not an empire…yet). It could be the uncle, for example.

    In this scenario, if the player wants one of his sons to become the leader, he is gonna need to have his uncle murdered. Or send the uncle beyond the enemy lines.

    If the uncle becomes the family leader, the members shown in the tree will change. In this case, it will be the closest relatives of the uncle (up to the 3rd degree) . Like the image below .


    family-tree 2.jpg

    Of course , these relatives could be appointed to an office as praetor, aedil, consul, etc., and appointed to command troops (provided that the player is already in total command of the faction - explained above), increasing even more the family’s influence. In this case , the other families start to get angry and jealous, spicing up the politics and making more complex and exciting the struggle for power.


    I believe the attachments are working now ...
    I think it's worth a look.

    The entire post is above.
Sign In or Register to comment.