Rome 2 Total War

[The Vortex Empire]

Are those timed battles mandatory? Or can you turn them off? If yes to the second, is it something you can do in-battle in case the AI bugs out on you or are you basically fucked if you turned off the timer?

I've never really liked the battle timer in RTW1. Even though I doubt I've ever taken anywhere near long enough for it to be an issue, I still don't enjoy being under the clock.

It can be turned off, but not mid battle. So if there's no time limit and that same situation happened, you're going to have to send your army in to get wiped out.

[RogueIce]

Are those timed battles mandatory? Or can you turn them off? If yes to the second, is it something you can do in-battle in case the AI bugs out on you or are you basically fucked if you turned off the timer?

I've never really liked the battle timer in RTW1. Even though I doubt I've ever taken anywhere near long enough for it to be an issue, I still don't enjoy being under the clock.

It can be turned off, but not mid battle. So if there's no time limit and that same situation happened, you're going to have to send your army in to get wiped out.

Well that's pretty terrible. In many ways. Also WTF is with CA? They touted that aspect as being a Major Awesome Look At This Feature, and...it's bugged in a shitty way. *sigh*

I really hope they fix that, and of course it only reinforces every statement of "don't be an early adopter, wait for the patches" ever.

[PeZook]

I basically never, ever buy CA games at launch. I buy them on sale about five years after release and enjoy a mostly polished product for 1/3 the launch price along with DLC and expansions, with a good selection of awesome, complete mods.

Sucks for them, but that's too bad.

[Thanas]

For me, it is a time thing. Could I enjoy spending double the time due to crashes, glitches and reloads? Sure, but it is a far better use of my limited time to just play it a few years later. The days are gone where I could just say "meh, I got the two hours to spare".

[Vympel]

For me, it is a time thing. Could I enjoy spending double the time due to crashes, glitches and reloads? Sure, but it is a far better use of my limited time to just play it a few years later. The days are gone where I could just say "meh, I got the two hours to spare".

In 26 hours of play so far, the game has crashed on me not even once. I don't think it can be characterised as an unstable game. The chief complaint is passive AI (which is the case on Normal difficulty, anyway) and various glitches (none of which I've encountered, for the record), rather than instability.

[The Vortex Empire]

I haven't had crashes per se, but I have had multiple instances where upon hitting the accept button on a diplomatic treaty the game freezes for 20-40 seconds.

[Steel]

I was also surprised to get 150 turns into the game and still no crashing. More stable than any TW game I've played even after patches.

AI certainly not there yet though. I have seen them do some pretty retarded stuff.

Also they really should fix auto resolve to have any resemblance to actually fighting. This might make the ai able to predict how a battle might go and act accordingly, avoiding suicidal attacks and knowing when they're outmatched. For example attacking some tribes I was outnumbered 2 to 1 and auto resolve predicted 50% casualties. My army was 2500 rank 9 praetorians with cavalry support and a century of Legion traditions in killing things efficiently led by a good general. I stood them in a line and walked forward and took 19 casualties inflicting 90% losses. Their auto resolve doesn't even vaguely match the zeroth order approximation of a battle without any tactics or manoeuvre. This should be trivial to improve upon.

On the other hand, I do really like the new auto resolve features. Your general makes his prediction about the outcome of the fight in terms of likelihood of win and casualties you will sustain depending on your choice of tactics, and you are able to choose from aggressive, balanced and defensive tactics. This allows you to see if it is worth fighting the battle or saving time, and also critically allows you to see times where a trivial battle will turn into a horrible massacre of your great troops that could not possibly lose if you fought it due to their awful way of resolving auto battles. Removing that source of incredible frustration is possibly the best new feature in the entire series.

[The Vortex Empire]

Hm. Maybe the AI isn't as dumb as I thought. I'm playing Macedon, and after I took control of Thrace I decided to turn my attention to Italy to knock Rome out early. As soon as my troops were busy with sieges in Italy, nearly every faction in the Balkans and around the Black Sea declared war on me. Fuck.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Excellent review. I agree with almost everything he states, though I haven't really experienced the AI issues much on account of the game being too unplayable. The only thing I disagree on is the agent system, which I actually like for its variety and the different little things you can do with different agents.

[Vympel]

Yeah, I just finished watching it. Its clear that the graphical glitches is a result of poor optimization with certain rigs, since I've had perfect graphics with absolutely none of the anomalies he posted (that he notes weren't actually his anomalies, to be fair).

Up to Turn 80 now, passive AI is definitely an issue - no one has ever declared war on me, and the mosh pit thing is pretty damn annoying given the emphasis they placed on formation fighting in the marketing material.

On the other hand, I've yet to see AI sit there and do nothing in a battle either- looks very weird to see that - but it is stupid in city attacks where it just bum rushes the flag and gets wrecked. I also disagree on the agents point, I think they're a big improvement, though Champions are unbalanced given the massive veterancy bonus they seem to give.

The tendency for "A little dangerous" and "unhinged" traits for generals is abnormally high.

EDIT: there's a thead for AJ's video on the official forums - the devs are on the thread in shifts, confirming the entire team will watch the review, they're reading all the feedback they can, etc etc. I dunno, maybe its just marketing shit, or maybe they honestly want to fix what's wrong, but its a good sign either way.

[Thanas]

After watching the review, it is clear to me that CA has not improved anything since Empire. The AI does the same it did, including sending dozens of small armies at you. Which sucks, because it makes for a lot of tedious micromanagement instead of giving you a few epic battles to decide the fate of empires.

[Steel]

I've had war declared on me several times. None of them rational though. I've also had my isolated minor settlement on knossos blockaded for decades by 30+ ships that could trivially take it only for them to finally withdraw most forces to sit just outside support range and attack with a tiny fleet that lost.

One thing I had meant to mention was the instantaneous battles. They are 5 minutes long, just because that is the typical time to walk to mêlée and the combat ends near instantly. Longest battle ever was 12 minutes because of the added delay of burning down the gates to get into the town, which was literally just that: a delay, because the enemy had neglected to man the walls so I only lost a couple of men while they were throwing torches rather than the hundreds it should have been if they had used their missile heavy troops on the walls.

Interestingly I haven't had the ai charge for flags or neglect flags, they have always intercepted a sneaky back cap unit and seem to prioritise my troops over the flag at least in minor settlement battles, I've never fought a major siege as defender.

[Vympel]

After watching the review, it is clear to me that CA has not improved anything since Empire. The AI does the same it did, including sending dozens of small armies at you. Which sucks, because it makes for a lot of tedious micromanagement instead of giving you a few epic battles to decide the fate of empires.

Empire was four games ago -and four years ago. Napoleon, Shogun 2, and Fall of the Samurai (which is such a different game from Shogun 2 calling it an expansion just doesn't do it justice) are all highly polished releases with none of the difficulties that plagued Empire. I haven't seen any such micromanagement myself - all of my field battles have been with big stacks. The problem is they're not common enough because the AI is super aggressive against itself, but not you.

EDIT: RPS made a good point about this - Rome 2 is their biggest release since Empire, with much of the same feeling of hugeness (the map is so goddamn big) and its probably their ambition exceeding their ability to deliver just like it was with Empire's initial release. Napoleon and Shogun were games on a much smaller scale, and were much more highly polished for it.

DOUBLE EDIT: both Empire and Rome 2 were also similarly harmed, polish wise, by a reported early release.

And what happened to being able to play every faction in the game, like in Rome I or Medieval II? What's the point of having hundreds of factions if you can only play a few of them?

So you can play in a more historically accurate world with lots more factions to make deals and trade with I assume. Further, see below:

CA have decided that forcing you to play a great power first will apparently make for a better game. Which is ok if you are new to RTS, but sucks for everybody else (read: the vast majority).

No - in both Rome and Medieval you could only play certain factions first, and after you finished the game, the rest were unlocked. Rome 2 offers a much wider initial playable faction selection than either of them. Talk about rose-coloured glasses lol. Heck - you could only play the three Roman factions in the original Rome to start.

And even after the unlock, you couldn't play every faction, in either game. There were lots that weren't playable at all.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Empire was four games ago -and four years ago. Napoleon, Shogun 2, and Fall of the Samurai (which is such a different game from Shogun 2 calling it an expansion just doesn't do it justice) are all highly polished releases with none of the difficulties that plagued Empire.

That's a bit skeezy, I think. One of the things which turned me from a diehard TW fan to a much more cautious critic was the handling of Empire vis-a-vis Napoleon. Calling the latter a separate game in the series is, frankly, a little insulting (coming from CA, I mean). Yeah, Napoleon was polished and rock-solid top to bottom... which is all well and good, but the problem is that's what Empire should have been. Empire was a mess on release (though not quite to the extent of Rome 2, here). They eventually patched out the worst technical issues, but many still remain to this day. Then they shit out Napoleon and say "here, pay money for Empire 2.0... again. It's better this time, we promise."

CA seriously needs to take a page out of Stardock's playbook. They botched the release of Elemental (though not nearly as badly as CA did with both Empire and Rome 2). Not only did Stardock fix the issues promptly, they said "Yeah we fucked that one up," went back to the drawing board to re-work the game, and then gave it and several DLCs for free to those who bought Elemental on release.

So it's an example of rather jaw-dropping chutzpah to demand money for a title like Napoleon, and to call it a separate game in the series as if it represents some serious evolution of the franchise when it's nothing more than a re-branded re-issue of a defective product.

[Thanas]

Also, let us not forget them lying about "everything is going to be patched", only for the patches to never appear. You were essentially told to buy Napoleon just to get the fixes they promised for free for Empire.

[RogueIce]

And even after the unlock, you couldn't play every faction, in either game. There were lots that weren't playable at all.

Well, you could do that in Rome, with a very simple edit to a text file, though yes it wasn't the 'normal' way and otherwise factions remained off-limits. That's why I think most people tend to say you could play all factions from R1, because it was so piss easy to do. I'm assuming it's quite a bit more complicated with R2TW.

[Vympel]

Also, let us not forget them lying about "everything is going to be patched", only for the patches to never appear. You were essentially told to buy Napoleon just to get the fixes they promised for free for Empire.

They did patch it several times to a much improved state though. However, the siege pathfinding bug (where the frame rate would drop to shit if there were more than two holes in a fortress wall) was never fixed - heck, in general sieges in Empire were the worst thing ever.

That's a bit skeezy, I think. One of the things which turned me from a diehard TW fan to a much more cautious critic was the handling of Empire vis-a-vis Napoleon. Calling the latter a separate game in the series is, frankly, a little insulting (coming from CA, I mean). Yeah, Napoleon was polished and rock-solid top to bottom... which is all well and good, but the problem is that's what Empire should have been. Empire was a mess on release (though not quite to the extent of Rome 2, here). They eventually patched out the worst technical issues, but many still remain to this day. Then they shit out Napoleon and say "here, pay money for Empire 2.0... again. It's better this time, we promise."

CA seriously needs to take a page out of Stardock's playbook. They botched the release of Elemental (though not nearly as badly as CA did with both Empire and Rome 2). Not only did Stardock fix the issues promptly, they said "Yeah we fucked that one up," went back to the drawing board to re-work the game, and then gave it and several DLCs for free to those who bought Elemental on release.

So it's an example of rather jaw-dropping chutzpah to demand money for a title like Napoleon, and to call it a separate game in the series as if it represents some serious evolution of the franchise when it's nothing more than a re-branded re-issue of a defective product.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. Napoloen was really the state that Empire should've been released in, and it should never have been a full priced release. A sort of premium expansion (like the far more innovative Fall of the Samurai) level pricing would've been far less insulting.

Did you try the 1.5 patch beta they just released? Its sole purpose is to fix up inexplicable campaign fps lag apparently (is a beta though, so for some its not doing anything).

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Did you try the 1.5 patch beta they just released? Its sole purpose is to fix up inexplicable campaign fps lag apparently (is a beta though, so for some its not doing anything).

I'm downloading it now, though if all it fixes is the campaign map I'll probably still have random slow-downs in battles. Still, thanks for the heads up. For all the issues, I do enjoy the underlying game.

[The Vortex Empire]

I don't know what "passive AI" you guys are talking about. As Macedon, Athens is my client state and Sparta, Egypt and the Ardiaei have been reliable allies for the whole game. Nearly every other faction in the game has declared war on me by this point and I'm fighting on three fronts. The only war I started was the one with Rome.

[Vympel]

It seems to be an either/or thing. I've done close to 90 turns as Rome and no one has ever declared war on me and/or attacked (except when an ally of someone I'm attacking is drawn in to the war, and even then they didn't actually attack me). I just attack juicy looking regions at my leisure.

[Steel]

I've seen someone posit that the AI wont attack you unless it thinks it can win a total war. Presumably win with its estimation of battle results. This means if you're the most powerful at any point the AI wont fight you, they will fight each other, weakening everyone else and allowing you to get even more powerful in the mean time and then mop up the survivors.

on the one hand this is great progress as the ai will now no longer suicidally break treaties the moment your back is turned only to be crushed 3 turns later. On the other hand as there is no pressure on you it means that its easier to grow more powerful and then nobody will challenge you ever again, as the ai never makes effective alliances, and always has more wars than alliances.

I had two things happen yesterday that surprised me. First I was besieged, and had all my troops set up ready to block the gate if the enemy attacked. Previously when the enemy had siege engines they would not fire and sit outside until I sacrificed some plebs to kill their engine crews, and then they would attack. Suddenly I heard the walls breach and the enemy were coming in.

the other thing was some gallic tribes unifying into a gallic confederation. Unfortunately it was just two hopeless tribes on the verge of defeat, but if all gaul could have come together it could have been a serious threat. It goes to show that there is the capacity for the ai to do things that could make it a threat, like alliamces against a common threat, but it doesn't do it often enough or at the right time.

there is a fine balance here between rational effective pragmatic ai and 'bother the player' ai that works against its interest just to make the game harder for the player faction, but better alliances could make that challenge without being irrational.

Also I 'lost' a battle where there were no enemy left. I had 20 units spread over the entire map, los everywhere and men in every wood and no sign of anything. I had routed the entire enemy army, and all my units were shown as hidden, but no sign of any remaining enemy until the time ran out and I lost. ..

Is fatigue disabled for your troops on normal difficulty?

[Vympel]

Patch notes for Patch 2 are here.

They're a very good list of fixes, with some clever stuff in there about showing AI moves!

[Scottish Ninja]

some clever stuff in there about showing AI moves!

FINALLY. How did that take like six games?

[Vaporous]

The AI still builds armies made up entirely of one unit type, which was a problem at least as far back as Rome 1.

[Vympel]

I haven't seen that. The most I've seen is an army of two unit types (not including the general's unit), but that was clearly a matter of the faction only having one region and not enough diversity in its tech tree.

According to AJ's twitter feed the Patch 2 beta (which you can download now) offers noticeable improvements in graphics and performance. I'll wait for the full release myself though.

FINALLY. How did that take like six games?

I know right? I was wishing for this for ages. I guess having hundreds of factions finally woke them up.