Yes, guys, I am aware of the grammatical error in the title, that was very much intentional worth, Rome 2, is 207823, it

@Momomomsen

10 ай бұрын

worth does it is?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

10 ай бұрын

is worth might it be?

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

Does it?

@felszi1043

9 ай бұрын

Bro there is a mistake in your title

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

@@felszi1043 is it tho?

3:45 I agree, the morale mechanic IS was made Total War great, by ruining it, battles are more boring with less strategy.

Rome 2 will be Worth 169¥ (Not including taxes)

You nailed it imo. arcady statboosts replacing actual simulation, morale and terrain mattering so much less, clamping down on player freedom with army limits and other 'tricks' - those things by themselves all but crippled RTW2 in terms of emergent gameplay and indeed made it feel like a fancy cardgame that pads out playtime by enforcing a playstyle and difficulty curve. With RTW, MTW2 and Shogun, you felt like you actually got better at the games and it mattered, here the only really effective strategies come down to cheezing.

Does it is worth in it in 20202023333???

The conclusion part of the video is spot on. The biggest issue with any given TW game isn't even it's own quality (or lack thereof), it's the legacy that the series gets burdened with thereafter. A single game you can play or pass on, but the baggage that it introduces to the series is unfortunately there for years (a decade now and still going strong) after the fact due to the way CA iterates on their design. Rome 2 saddled us with the 'an army is an entity bound to a character' system, the recruitment system that depends on what local buildings allow you to recruit (later extended with the concept of global recruitment bandaid). Warhammer brought immortal generals into the mix, which is now going to replace the entire concept of a family tree and faction politics in Pharaoh, the MAIN CHARACTER(tm) of any given playthrough of this "fully historical" game is never going to die, just become wounded upon being definitely-not-killed in battle. Warhammer also brought in the shit growth/tier building system that further limits unit availability, which was then also ported over into Troy and seems to be the new default (fortunately there seems to be some variation on it coming in Pharaoh, but time will tell if that's any different in substance). The arcadeyness of the game hasn't changed one bit since R2, Warhammer just handles it better and makes it more tolerable because that game goes so hard on RPG gameplay it's essentially an RPG/RTS hybrid version of total war. There is no such saving grace for Troy or 3K though, and I will eat my dick if Pharaoh battles are any less about pure unit quality and efficient stacking of campaign buffs. The projectile physics model that was gutted in Warhammer because the series focus is elsewhere stayed gutted for 3K and Troy, and is still gutted in Pharaoh (the preview ambush battle where archers stand on a cliff - whose edge they cannot approach because CA hasn't bothered to implement any real advancement to terrain so all edges of cliffs are just impassable rock - and shoot at units in the canyon below by arcing their arrows or worse yet sling shots at something like a 60 degree angle made me vomit). The health system combined with hitboxes and mass that leads to unmanageable behavior on battle like units clumping into a ball when shattered and nobody being able to hit them as well as single entities unable to land a hit on each other when one is routing (or when they're just fighting) keeps coming back despite not even being efficient to develop - although we'll see how they implement matched combat with such a system and if it can lead to improvement. Bullshit mechanics keep being accrued and stuck with, while cut features either never come back or return in some scuffed form that is maximally easy to implement and market without actually contributing anything to the gameplay, or worse degrading it. The sad part is they do develop a lot of cool new features that could be integrated and reused (for example 3K has nearly perfect campaign mechanics, like 85% of which could be reused for a Medieval 3 or any other historical game), but then they are extremely resistant to using them for some reason and they only find their way into faction mechanics for DLC in one form or another.

About Roster Bloat I believe it can be similar to "Unit Variety" in some sense of Units having a lot of "Variants", which existed even in Rome 1 and Medieval 2. In Rome 1 the entire Greek Infantry is a bloated as all of them are Phalanx Hoplites where one is better than another however the better Hoplites needed a better Barracks which can only built in better cities so there's a time window where you would use Militia or Regular Hoplites. In Medieval 2 you have the Town Militia, Spear Militia, Sergeant Spearman and Armored Sergeant being similar units, the same can be said for Mailed Knights, Feudal Knights, and Chivalric Knights as they're literally the same unit with the difference being in their armor. however the Godly Mechanic of Unit Stocks which is the best Mechanic(fight me), makes that even though you unlocked a much more superior Armored Sergeant and Feudal Knights, you cannot just mass recruit them as soon as you unlocked them as the literal Stocks/Men is still in limited supplies forcing you to use the Sergeant Spearman and Mailed Knights as buffer until your Barracks and Stables actually produces the stocks of Armored Sergeants and Feudal Knights, but when you unlocked those superior unit the inferior unit also gain an advantage that they're now faster to replenish and you can keep a larger stocks of them.

Attila..could be worth it and has very few but nice overhaul mods. For the more deadly calvary flanking. I kind of liked the morale and fatigue in Attila better than Rome 2. Very fast paced battles like Shogun 2 fots. But the flanks, oh the flanks are so much more deadly, love it.

@Dolfy

10 ай бұрын

Attila doesn't even have high ground morale bonuses what the fuck are you talking about

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

Is attila worth it in 2077?

@Vadim_Ibragimov

9 ай бұрын

Attila is the best TW together with Shogun 2 and Medieval 2 in my opinion

@antoniocarlosgomesfernedag1637

7 ай бұрын

Rome 1 is a gold masterpiece!!! But my favoutite is Med 2....

@m0nkEz

7 ай бұрын

I think Rome 2 and (moreso) Atilla are good in spite of their flaws. I agree with daimyo's conclusion though in that the worst part of rome 2 is the way that subsequent games in the series have distilled more and more of its worse attributes until that's all that's left.

It still boggles my mind why CA doubled down to use Rome II, the hands-down worst received Total War game, as the template for future releases, instead of Shogun 2, its direct predecessor, which was undoubtedly one of their best. Of course, now in modern day they've probably just lost track entirely what made the franchise what it was in the first place. Their focus now is strongly on generic RPG elements (health bars, numbers crunching, weapon damage etc) instead of real time tactics. It's precisely for this reason the franchise will unlikely see a rebirth.

@lewisyeadon4046

9 ай бұрын

If you look at the IMDB for Rome II, the vast majority of CA staff never worked on a Total War game before, let alone major tent-pole releases in general. The Director worked on Kinect kids games. It's less that they consciously chose Rome II to be the template, and more that an attempt by amateurs to create a Total War game resulted in Rome II- and now said amateurs continue to blunder and not learn. They didn't use Shogun II as a template because *they can't make Shogun II*, let alone something approaching the quality of that game.

6:26 that's realistic pikes are next to invincible from the front at the cost of being a juicy target for archers and easy to flank

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

yea and i wasnt denying that... my point is that the AI has no capacity to flank plus its ranged units are incredibly easy to disrupt due to skirmish mode

The unfinished character models really look like Skibidi toilet.

To quote Mr.Sanity: ''I wanna fight against the interesting factions of Antiquity, not the Grand Republic of Arse''

Ok, Real talk. As much as I have come to Dislikes alot of CAs changes over the past decade, everything on the Campaign side of the game is "fixable" and can be fleshed out if they bothered to try. BUT if their is ONE thing and ONE THING only that i would want changed/reverted/removed, it would be the HP and Weapon Damage system that got introduced with Rome 2. The fact that a ye olde Hammer and Anvil tactics in Warhammer TW can do like 2,000 HP of damage but not get a SINGLE KILL or very few kills on a unit of 160 (insert race here) is A SHAMEFUL DISPLAY! Troops having 1 HP with elite units and generals having 2 or 3 is FINE, its simple but it works and adds to the lethality of Combat. Then all CA would have to do is work on making the Combat look good.

Hey brother, imo I would remove the "does it" from the title as it doesn't really make sense with the last part of the sentence. Can't wait tho!

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

10 ай бұрын

That was an intentional error It has a long and deep history on our discord

@Volound

10 ай бұрын

this man cant wait to find out if rome 2 does worthing it in 2023

@Madmagic

10 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 ohhhh understood

@Madmagic

10 ай бұрын

@Volound ill fly out to the uk with you and we can fight the menace that is CA

@Volound

10 ай бұрын

DD must be there in the shield wall@@Madmagic

Long post alert: Unpopular opinion. Current Total War doesn't have the depth and engagement needed to actually hold up to the standard of other games today. Before you tar and feather me, let me elaborate. When one watches the old dev videos of how they developed Shogun 1, what you'll see is that the devs developed the battle grid system first as that was the breakthrough tech that they had which gave them an edge at the time. TW was built as a brand due to large scale and authentic battles. They then tacked on grand strategy after in order to give a context to the battles but it was an afterthought. The overarching problem is that the formula for the campaign is extremely simple and repetitive with very little depth (build resource building to boost income, then build army to conquer territory to then build more resource buildings that will boost income, sometimes build building that boost troop effectiveness, make an alliance if needed etc) and you end up microing the same stuff but at such a large level that it becomes tedious. Take paradox games like CK3 or Victoria 3. The managment of character relationships and an economy that is based on actual supply and demand with complex internal politics, respectively, is infinitely more fun than the total war bland campaigns that just involve 4xing. The other problem which has now caught up with CA is that the lack of depth and the arcadeyness of their battles has made the one thing that they based their franchise off, extremely tedious. In real life battles were won before the sides even met up in 97% of the cases. Skirmishing, scouting, seizing power positions and territory, raiding local villages to force an enemy to engage on your terms, and maintaining your supply chain was essential to how the battles would play out. Currently TW does not have any of these systems that are implemented in a thought provoking or fun way. You have supply trains but that's just a number based on the territory that you are in due to local buildings. It just means that defenders start off with an inherent advantage of taking the high ground and you spend the first 10 mins of a battle trying to outmanouvre each other which isn't fun to do manually. When you add to this the lack of a complex economy that organically allows you to access a certain number of techs/weapons, then you end up with armies designed to specifically counter an enemy army and the battles devolve into a moba/rts game of trying to match swords into spears, axes into swords, maces into heavy armour etc and it's just tedious trying to play optimally. IRL armies could only be built depending on manpower and resources available (which victoria 3 actually does incredibly well despite what people think of that game). So many people just auto resolve battles once they become insignificant. The best Total War Battles IMO are Napoleon's and Shogun2: FOTS simply because everyone has gunpowder and the battles are way more about manouvering rather than trying to match up units like a rock paper scissors RTS game. This lack of depth to the game is why CA's only solution is to give the AI insane bonuses. The constraints on the player are too simple and easy to start snowballing. IMO CA really need to take time out and redesign their franchise into an engaging and deep game without fear of losing players due to complexity (youre already bleeding players with your shit games). The best part is that people play TW for the battles so the campaign wouldnt even have to be that insanely complex. As much as I loved the old TW games I just can't go back to them after having played CK3 and Victoria 3. For authentic, non rts moba battles, games like real general/admiral are way better than TW now. If Total War wants to leverage its authentic battles as a selling point then devs really need to learn how warfare was conducted and how ultimately the goal is to leverage all of your state's resources to break the will or remove the ability of your enemy to fight with whatever you have at your disposal.

@knightshospitaller5366

9 ай бұрын

paradox game too boring.too complex and repeatitive.

@MrJabbothehut

9 ай бұрын

@@knightshospitaller5366 spoken like a person who's never played a paradox game or tried to but couldn't get their brain to work for 5 mins. Total war is infinitely more repetitive than Paradox games and much more shallow.

@Albukhshi

2 ай бұрын

I actually agree 100%--and I LOVE the original Rome TW and Medieval II. I'm making this mod for the former, set in the mid-18th century, and I've had so many ideas pop in just designing the mod, and there are so many features that could have been amazing to have. One thing that I'm shocked TW never innovated on is the strategic dimensions of units. To me, it was always obvious when designing the mod that these should be considered (I still have the notes from all the way back in 2009), but to my chagrin, there isn't even a way to approximate most of the ideas I had. For example: Why not give a trait to the captain (or general) of a force that contains light cavalry, that reduces the probability of ambush, and increases the line of sight? That would simulate scouting very effectively. Yes, it would also overlap with spies, but a lot of military intelligence was in fact from reconnaissance: a troop would observe the enemy, count the standards, and guesstimate the number of men following the said standards. Spies can then not only give more precise counts but maybe tell you the likely routes of march. But it also gives you a reason to use light cavalry: Total War games have this problem where units are only thought of as tactical pieces, which then leaves players going only for the heaviest units since they last longer in battle, because there's really no reason why you'd keep lighter units. You can even expand it further: have tiers based on the known quality of your prospective scouts, but also how good the general is at dealing with all this reconnaissance. Light cavalry that sucks at its job wouldn't be as effective as those who are really good at it; similarly, a general who can't be arsed, or is too conceited, may not listen to his scouts. You can even create an overall grade based on the variable quality of your units in a single army (averaging them out). You can extend this to light infantry too: light cavalry aren't all that great at scouting in woods, but light infantry might well excel there (think of warfare in America). Both can also be used for picket duty if you choose to camp. Boom! now you have a reason to use light infantry, beyond the tactical role. Another idea: in sieges, you have the option to assault. But what if you also have the option for a sneak attack--basically an ambush, but on a static position--especially an unfortified camp? That was basically what the battle of Hochkirch was: the Austrians mounted a sneak attack on the encamped Prussian Army. Here, having light infantry or other specialists would be awesome: they can go kill or otherwise silence the enemy pickets (or, you could just go all in and drive the pickets back, which could alert the enemy camp). While we're at it: why only forts (really, fortified camps) and towers? How about camps, fortified camps, and even fortresses--plus actual forts? Heck: why not build pontoon bridges? Can you imagine how cool that would be? You should even be able to build during sieges: trenches, pavise walls, breastworks--anything and everything your heart desires: this would be your chance to recreate Alesia (or the siege of William Henry in 1757). Here, you can add further strategic depth by carrying engineering units: they'd help you plan the siege and do things you otherwise can't. Yet another idea I had: what about a trait tied to the personality of the general in charge of a campaign, that reduces the effectiveness of enemy spies, or--and yes, this happened--lets you feed these spies bad intel, to obfuscate the enemy (de Saxe famously did this in the lead up to Fontenoy). You can even detach units and set them to "obfuscation mode": just have them march in circles or make extra noise (at night), to fool your enemy. The AI--depending on who's in charge--may or may not fall for this. Still another: make some units' recruitment and retraining "vampiric": special units would "drain" the other units of manpower to fill themselves up. This was common practice in ancient armies, but also in 18th-century armies (best line soldiers refilled the grenadier companies). You can then turn this off or on, to change how recruitment is done. All that is is the mechanic behind generals replenishing but taken a step further. You can even tier it: for example: the best militia go to the Grenadier Royeaux; the best of them (and line infantry) are used to fill the ranks of French Grenadiers; and the best grenadiers fill the ranks of the Grenadiers de France. Why stop there? Have competing units do it: Gardes Francaises and French Grenadiers both draining fusilier units of their best men--done! And yet another: on the battlefield, if you've been waiting for an enemy to come to you, why not have the option to build field fortifications? People have done this since antiquity. If you know an enemy must march to your place and do so from a specific point, you can build the fortifications well in advance, and really mess with them. Finally: more phases to the battle itself? At any point up to the main phase, you may decide it's not worth it and withdraw; you may fool your opponent and psych him out in return. You may want to wait for reinforcements--or anything. Anything prior to the main phase would lead to an indecisive result. This reply has gone on long enough, but what I have in mind here is far more complex than what RTW has (or indeed, any other TW game). EDIT: and don't assume these are the only things I've thought up. They're just the most unconventional. I got ideas on everything from military medicine to campaign diseases to even venereal diseases.

​at this point the devs at ca should create modding tools and new engines, and leave making an actual game to modders. because the devs at ca are just incompetent, everything over the last decade has been trash.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

lol based on how modders have messed up actually good games (look at all the popular shogun 2 mods that just break the balance) I would not actually trust them to make a decent game.

@user-or8ut2sf1b

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 that is a really great point. but to play devils advocate CA also can't be trusted to make good games either anymore. i predict pharaoh will be like a tombstone for CA.

@Landshark4008

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498Shogun 2 is perfect as is so there’s no need for mods. On the other hand I haven’t played Rome 2 without DEI for years.

great review as always! thank you.

If CA will just release a Med2 Remastered, I reckon that would be their most purchased game in a long time. If Pharaoh bombs, CA may just do this to make up for lost sales. Great video brother.

Excellent analysis.

I were introduced to total war series with shogun 2, and after all this time, I could not be more thankful to my friend to recommend me it.

One thing i will say about Rome 2 is that is has by far my favourite multiplayer of all the games. This is because many of the issues you brought up with the combat often stem from the ai's inability to properly deal with the mechanics presented by the units. Take pikes for example, while very strong in campaign they are normally pretty poor in multiplayer because their two main weaknesses flanking and missiles are something the ai doesn't seem to able to take advantage of. A skilled player will use their sword units to unload javelins into the face of pikes and then use their superior manoeuvrability to outmanoeuvre the pikemen. The capped cost for each army also means the unit rosters for each faction are fairly well balanced and the fact that the unit rosters are decently varied means different factions can bring some interesting builds and have different playstyles. Also the online siege community is fairly vibrant right now and Rome 2's sieges are very enjoyable overall. Thanks for the video btw dude, love your content.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

while multiplayer can solve the issue of the AI it still will always be a downgrade without Shogun 2's avatar conquest or the Key Buildings that forced players to actually fight, whereas in every other game there is nothing to stop players from just sitting around camping their own corners of the map

@AlfredBundy

9 ай бұрын

I mean i think saying shoguns 2's multiplayer battles are superior just because it has key buildings that force players to fight doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument tbh. Warhammer 3 domination has capture points that force the players to fight while also having superior unit variety, variance in playstyles between factions and more modern controls than shogun 2. Don't get me wrong shogun 2's multiplayer is great and i don't necessarily prefer Warhammers, but saying every games multiplayer battles are a downgrade compared to shogun 2 because of key buildings just isn't very compelling on its own. Avatar conquest is awesome though and i wish other games had a similar system.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

No, sorry, it is a very compelling argument because that radically, fundamentally changes your approach to the battle. I have played multiplayer battles in Medieval 2 & Warhammer and the amount of camping and indecisive gameplay was far, far more excessive than anything in Shogun 2's multiplayer. If you seriously don't consider that a major point then I really doubt whether you've even played Shogun 2's multiplayer battles seriously, come on. And what is this superior unit variety you're talking about? You're still dealing with mostly the same assortment of spear infantry, missile infantry, etc and much smaller armies to boot.

@AlfredBundy

9 ай бұрын

​@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I never said it wasn't a major point. I said it's not a strong enough argument on its own. Especially when there are other games that also have very similar features. Also it isn't inherently superior to have to fight over a specific area. Part of the skill in other total war games multiplayer comes from your ability to force a fight on your own terms through unit composition and superior battlefield positioning. If you always have a set area to fight over this element of forcing an opponent to fight on your own terms instead of theirs isn't nearly as prevalent. This issue is compounded by every army having almost the exact same roster meaning all armies pretty much win in the same way. It means every match plays out more or less exactly the same whereas total war games with more diverse rosters and without set objectives on the map allow for much more variety in how different battles play out. Because all the factions have different ways to win to each other. Ultimately i don't think one is inherently better than the other. It all comes down to personal preference.

@ciruelo5921

9 ай бұрын

Capture point is a lazy uninmersive solution to camping players, I prefer just to play in flat maps or maps where the most atvantegeus position is in the center, which feels far more natural than a hardcoded capture point. And I actually liked camping players sometimes as it was a way for noob players to be able to stand a chance against a veteran, making mp more accessible. And yes, Rome 2 has more diversity tactically speaking, slingers aren't the same as archers or javalines and the tactical way you should use each of them is different. Shields also add a degree of tactical diversity, and then you have heavy big units that can trumple through units like chariots and elephants. So yes, the diversity is real in the fundamental way, whether this is important or not to make a game better is questionable, I don't find diversity adds any depth, it just adds complexity, which isn't necessarily better

@ 18:50 With the earlier games, the real problem was that the settlements were too large compared to the armies--at least, that's my impression (productivity being tied to population in those games). It works out that the sheer productivity at larger sizes just lets you snowball FAST.

7:55 In Rome 1 and Medieval 2 Pike Wall does have somekind of buffs for the unit as they uses their Pikes which have the range and anti cavalry bonus, however if the formation is broken they will switch to their sidearm which can often have higher attack but losing on the range and anti cavalry, in Shogun 2 Yari Ashigaru will always use their Yari when fighting against cavalry on their rear, making a high morale Yari Ashigaru quite dangerous, but it's still worse in Rome 2 as even though Pikeman will switch to their sword when they're rear charged by cavalry, that sword is still magically imbued with the Anti Cavalry Bonus. On "The New & unimproved Army System" The only positive thing is armies are easier to manage but not from what you think, it's just the Unit Cap Tally allowing you to know how many units are in the army which is missing in Shogun 2, but in Rome 1, Medieval 2 and Empire the UI helps you in knowing how many units are in your army without the tally. The other positive is not having all of your family members spawning as a General unit in the Campaign map It's still a shame that Rome 2 Introduces Minor Settlements but removed Minor Armies/Captain Led Armies which could help in multitudes of things such as Garrisoning, supporting Major Armies(General led Armies) and even in Rome's Case, Supplying the Major Armies with Auxiliaries that are often region specific. On the point of Realm Divide I believe it's possible in Rome 2's Setting in the form of having Cultures just deciding that you're a danger, like if you're stomping the Greeks, those of Hellenistic Culture Faction would eventually join up in a coalition against you. In Shogun 2 where you can outfit the province capital with Military or Economic builds. Rome 2 Province System is basically just Shogun 2 Province System where those Small Campaign Buildings such as Farms and Mines being their own Region, Which I speculate being a change they need to do since in Shogun 2 Food can often be a problem due to a Province only able to produce like 4 Food no matter if it's fertile, Rome 2 Allows you to build up those Minor Settlements to become the Food Producing or those multitudes Economic Regions, which is often just a % Increase in Income Rather than having it's own model like Commerce needs Resources in the first place to work properly, which is literally Rome 1 and Medieval 2 Internal Trade System. 23:56 *looks at my Waifu Unit Card mod for Rome 2 because I was angry that I accidentally recruited Scale Thorax Hoplites instead of Thureos Spears* Yes.

Nice video. Good luck with KZread bro. :)

Ironically, CA or CA Sofia seem to have FINALLY realized after A DECADE that the Armies do limit your ability to defend your territory. So in Pharaoh, you can build FORTS (in specific spots) and put units in it, these units will then come in as reinforcements for settlement battles. Its not MUCH, but its a STEP in the right direction. Although its a solution to a problem that didn't need to exist in the first place. Look, its been done to DEATH at this point but, everything that alot of TW players complain about NOW, started with or came from Rome 2. And even then it somehow got WORSE! As a friend of mine puts it "CA does not innovate", they have all of these GOOD and INTERESTING Mechanics from ALL these TW games, but instead of BUILDING on top of what they made previously, they just ABANDON them for something "new" in the next game. AND YET all the "BAD" stuff that started with Rome 2, they have KEPT.....WHHYYYYYY?!!!!!! This has led to every game feeling the SAME. Same Province system, same General/Army system, Same Character system. Total War has been reduced to its CORE elements, and those CORE elements are BORING as hell. ID RATHER PLAY SW EMPIRE AT WAR FROM 2006! And the MODS for Empire at War make the game BETTER, not "bring the game up to par".

@ciruelo5921

9 ай бұрын

Unlimited number of armies is unrealistic tho, an army can easily overthrow your government so you need them to be leadered by someone. Specifically for bronze age civilizations, they never had more than one army roaming at the same time. If the game allows army without generals, they must have a high chance of becoming a rebel/pirate/ mercenary army, and you should be able to hire leadershipless armies of the enemy as mercenaries too

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

@@ciruelo5921 yea but you could never have unlimited armies in any of the older games; it was simply a question of how much money you had. There was no need to impose an arbitrary cap and it achieves nothing on the realism aspect (which is nonsense anyway, I don't generally play games looking for realism).

@ciruelo5921

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Money limits the number of units, not the number of armies. Realism brings you closer to the strategic difficulties of logistic, which is a main concern in Warfare, but I agree that a hardcap is the worst way to simulate it and I find unlimited armies preferible even if it's unrealistic to have 0 penalty from spliting your army, freedom of choice is always preferible

@andrijakocic1049

9 ай бұрын

I miss the handling of generals in previous titles : your units shatter immediately without a general if their morale drops to 0, no replenishment without a general or outside a city, serious morale benefits from general's aura, you didn't need a general but they were very important, army limit didn't exist but you would almost always lead campaigns with a general. Old recruitment made a lot more sense and was far less tedious ironically, you trained units inside provinces and could move them wherever. Since replenishment was slow or nonexistent you had to merge units most of the time, only waiting for reinforcements to arrive to replenish numbers. And the ability to build forts on the map, loved using it in Empire and Med2. Encampment stance kinda works the same in Rome2 and Attila but you can't leave units behind to guard a place, which is a shame since I used encamp stance it to defend chokepoints at mountain passes.

@jaywerner8415

9 ай бұрын

@@andrijakocic1049Yeah the removed of "simulated logistics" REALLY shafted the amount "strategy" you could do in this "strategy game". They are KINDA bringing back "army spliting" in pharaoh by letting you build a fort (specific) and garrisoning troops in it, they will then reinforce settlement battles. But as they say "its just not the same".

Better than Total Wars after 2015 but worste than Total Wars before 2013

The first total war game I played after Medieval 2 was Attila, since the setting is compelling. I was surprised to find out that I cannot separate units from the army. At first I thought it was a bug. I also discovered the crappy unit upgrade system of Attila, where almost every unit is replaced through the tech tree. Also tech trees. It also felt as though my tactics did less in the battles. A very disappointing experience. Would not recommend.

Attila main problem is lack of faction diversity. Most area is conquered by Rome, and you can't build empire from scratch. You have to destroy or weaken Rome first. In Rome II you could play as British blue men, and try to conquer Belgica. You could do stuff as North tribes. You could play as Egypt. You could solve strategic problems as Cartago... There were naval battles. Strategic part was oversimplified, and that was MAJOR weakness in comparison to Shogun 2. And there were no "assassination" videos. However, if they released Rome II as a freeware it would compete with new CA Pharaoh title. Flaws can be overlooked when a game is available for free. And it has better simulation of morale and other important stuff than Warhammer 3.

Every good TW feature and game design was sacrificed on the altar of bringing warhammer fantasy to life in 3D form. This is at the detriment of the total war series and warhammer total war, which could have been so, so much better (I love warhammer, but I hate warhammer total war) An easy example is how combat animations were simplified to "allow" for all the different unit models and single entity units in warhammer. Simply compare combat animations between shogun 2 and warhammer... choreographed duals vs air swinging... CA chose the lazy approach and stripped everything to simplify adding warhammer 3d models. The entire warhammer series focus is simply selling 3d models through expansion packs, which is also the entirety of the development budget. The sad truth is CA is no longer actually capable (both skill wise and profit pressure wise) of innovating. The business model will continue to be extract most easiest $$ for smallest budget focused on 3D models for as long as the stone still bleeds, then TW will die. I dont think the current team even understands the code written for past games, if they actually updated Medieval 2 it would be a best seller. Unfortunately, Medieval 3 is more likely to be warhammer with a medieval skin on top if it actually does happen.

The solution to the lack of strategic utility of navies in Empire and Rome 2 total war, would have been simulating a "fleet in being" effect where fleets in port would have a very large interception range, carrying on the army interception/reinforcement zone that Shogun 2 pioneered, this would deal with the OPness of naval invasions as dedicated navies would have a large "patrol area" despite the turn-based nature of the game, another example of a good mechanic already existing in the engine not being utilised properly to deal with other campaign/gameplay issues.

28:50 While the complaint about hitpoints as a mechanic are valid, I believe Rome 2 still displays the color of the health bar based on remaining models, evidenced by how units hit by javelins at first don't die, but as the javelins pile up, each volley becomes progressively more lethal to the model count as the models lose HP. Tragically, this is useless information meant to obfuscate the fact that a unit is a mass of hitpoints now instead of using unit strength as the unit's hitpoints. I generally find that the discourse about hitpoints is overinflated when talking about these games. I play a lot of tactical RPGs where hitpoints are a consideration but do not diminish the experience. My favorite example of a game where hitpoints are only part of the experience is Battle Brothers, a squad-based medieval tactical RPG where even if you level up an individual's HP stat every level and take a perk that raises their overall maximum, they still might be vulnerable to a single headshot from an enemy killing them in one blow if their head is unarmored and exposed. Far worse for Rome 2 specifically is the overall death of the tactical experience: melee combat feels terrible compared to Shogun 2, with units flanking having an impact but not nearly as much as they should, and morale renders most units weirdly unbreakable, even undisciplined barbarians that should rout the second they're hit from behind. Even if we accept that Rome 2 combat is just Age of Empires with extra steps, the unit interactions are somehow less deep than Age of Empires, while lacking the status conditions and interactions that deeper tactical RPGs often have that you can experiment with and form strategies around. Warhammer 2 alleviates this *somewhat* by having spells, but not nearly enough to stop the problem that these newer Total War games are about sending stat blocks at each other instead of overcoming an enemy through superior positioning and mastery of both terrain and unit alike. I don't think DeI fixes things as much as people say it does. I mean, it is better, but that's not only a low bar, it's a relativistic approach to assessing game quality that feels more like a big cope than anything else. The combat still feels stiff and uninteresting, and perhaps most offensively of all, battles can take a very long time in DeI because unit lethality is quite low, and feels overall antithetical to Shogun 2's decisive action. That was my experience, anyway. Great discussion as always.

damn I feel your story so much, pretty much got the same. now the only way i ll start Rome 2 is to play Divide et Impera, thx to the modders for being better than anything CA ever done

@GodofToast

5 ай бұрын

Most of these issues still persist even with dei though

Even though Rome 2 is not the best TW by far, I still believe in modding wholeheartedly! My best experiences with many different games in different genres comes from the mods! It makes me shake my head when you say you don't trust modders to improve games... While many mods might be unbalanced/broken, I would much rather have a moddable game with some good and bad mods than a slightly better game with restricted modding potential. Look at the Rome 1/Med2 for example. Those games have SO MUCH amazing mods (DaC, Stainless Steel, etc). It was the developers who decided to lock the modding features away so they would not have to compete with modders and could sell crappy DLC's (which plagues the TW since Empire.). And it makes even more amazing HOW MUCH modders managed to achieve facing these restrictions recently (e.g. Attila campaign editing tools). It really makes me wonder why you refuse to even look at DEI... After having so many videos covering Rome 2 topic and explaining its flaws so well. So, to be short, I strongly disagree with your take on the modding. But I agree with most of your other points in the video. Have a good day!

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

7 ай бұрын

I dont talk about DEI because the video is about Rome 2 in its stock state, if that wasn't obvious enough. Factoring mods into a CRITIQUE is a can of worms because no one is going to agree on what the "definitive" version of the game is. Go look at DEI on steam and you can see all the offshoots of it that were made by people other than Kam. The point is that the game is garbage. And yes there are plenty of games out there that are great out of the box, maybe you haven't played them.

@leh2012

7 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 , in my experience good mods work like this: they make good game achieve greatness! Mods also to some extent can improve games which are not that good in vanilla state (Rome2 for example). They extend the life of the game greatly and make older games playable. Just look at number of people still playing Med2. There is even correlation between concurrent player numbers and released date of DaC... But there are things beyond redemption as well. Not everything can be fixed. Nevertheless, here are few different games that get so much better with mods (that I played personally) in no particular order: Mount&Blade, TES, Total War, ArmA/Flashpoint, STALKER, Mass Effect/DAO/KOTOR, Gothic, BFME, GTA, Witcher, Civilization, Eador, Il-2 Sturmovik, Corsairs (Sea Dogs). Look, possibilities are endless! These games were not bad out of the box either. Some better, some worse. But they all did benefit greatly from having amazing modding community! Now Imagine if all these games would be sealed tight by devs and never get any mods...

@GodofToast

5 ай бұрын

Rome 2 with DEI still has a lot of these issues anyway lmao

Is it worth does?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

10 ай бұрын

worth not, it is

@Momomomsen

10 ай бұрын

wow spoiler

This was a really interesting video to watch. For context, I've only played Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2 and the Warhammer games. I was already using mods back then for Rome and Medieval 2 (I remember playing the LotR mod and wishing so badly that a Total War game would release in a fantasy setting...) and I ended up not playing too much of Shogun 2. In the end, I was never much of a fan of Total War games, I think it's because I come into this genre through a different angle than most - as I play a lot of turn based strategies and grand strategies, I always found Total War campaigns to be lacking a lot of depth. However, Warhammer: Total War hooked me in through that fantasy setting I was wishing for. It's kind of silly how effective it can be. Now, I'm sitting here with playtime in the three Warhammer games larger than I ever played the previous historical games combined. Yet, of course, the campaigns have not gotten deeper since theold days. Quite the opposite. There's a lot of things wrong with that game and now I can trace it back to Rome 2 and blame that game alongside the veterans. I've ended up back in Shogun 2 recently, which is how I found this channel actually. By serving as a fixed Warhammer (fixed in a way no mere mod could do) I can finally fully enjoy it. Thus the final point I want to make is that Rome 2 is truly terrible. I have no nostalgia glasses. No glasses are needed to see that Rome 2 did almost everything worse than its predecessors. However, as you have pointed out in this video, the biggest tragedy isn't that it is just a bad game, it's that it is the template that all subsequent Total War games were made from. And I'm coming full circle, back to where I was, thinking how awesome it would be if they made a Warhammer Total War game, but after the legacy of Shogun 2.

watching this to know whether to buy Rome 2 or not for multiplayer head-to-head campaign (had enough of FOTS) - I would assume mods changed the army cap limits, forbade free naval movement without navy, and reduced unit hitpoints to 1 HP to make Rome 2 playable?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

no mods to this day have been able to alter the army system, I am not sure about the other points, though Maybe people on our Discord might know: discord.gg/W4vn46EAqf

@tantentuntinton

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 so I just bought Rome II in sale to see for myself...and oh my god, it's horrible. It's actually jaw dropping to see how bad Rome II vanilla is, and it's all mostly because of the horrible design choices. I did play every Total War game up until FOTS and then stopped having time for videogames mostly, trying to play Rome II is like having my child's dreams crushed. And since there is sale for all Total War games, I decided to buy Thrones of Britannia to see how even lower CA can sink...AND OMG IT'S THE BEST TOTAL WAR GAME, no kidding. It has a real strategic depth on the campaign map while having very streamlined gameplay - and that is why I rate it so far even higher then FOTS, because now I value my real-life time too much to hassle with agents, 20 towns, scout and raiding parties or reinforcement units running around the map. Also it is possible to start playing as a big kingdom right away, and these factors are really important for me in multiplayer campaign where two working adults don't want to build up their empires and fight AI for first 40 hours of the game before getting to each other. I especially like villages not having walls or garrisons forcing armies to maneuver in open fields while tows having strong garrisons making formidable strongholds. Limitations on how many man are there able to be recruited also diminishes the army limitations and provides interesting compositions. Personalities system seems to be very engaging and much better then in Rome 1 or FOTS. Overall it is different experience on smaller scale then other historical Total Wars, it is a different take on the franchise and has to be viewed as a slightly different game with different game play. It is clear that designers clearly thought out the design of the game and it is well put together - and I put ToB in front of FOTS (so far after 10 hours) just because I prefer to spend less time in a game and love the streamlined gameplay while having meaningful strategic decisions to make. The AI actually also tricked me few times in campaign map and battles as well, outmaneuvering me to my surprise. And MOST IMPORTANTLY I RAN YOUR BATTLE TESTS 2 times with 4 levy spearman and 2 scout horsemen (1 st tier cheapest units, 1 200 gold total) against 3 Earl's Thegns and then 2 Mailed Thegns (2nd and 3rd tier sword units, the best and most expensive, 2 100 and 3 550 gold total) and with flanking and repeated charging I won in both cases - confidently in the first battle and barely in the second. Thus THE BATTLES APPEAR TO BE WORKING PROPERLY. Even in vanilla.

@tantentuntinton

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I joined your Discord and are looking forward to see an analysis of ToB if you ever get to it :)

I don't even play TW war but found this interesting, its good video about game design

Man, after hating TW for a full decade now, but coping through WH 1 and WH 2, which got DECENT by the end. Idk. I lost most hope in CA, but the last patch of WH2 leaves it in a perfectly playable state with few gripes aside of the arcadeification and the game essentially being dumbed down so that retards can play it. But now? After all that has happened. This video was soul cleansing. THANK YOU!

I personally got it for mods and because it was at 90% discount

worth it? I tried to play it back a few years ago to try it out again to see if I get a good experience. got half way in before I went back to shogun 2. I don't think it's worth your time.

It’s going to be a worthy wait for Pharoah

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

I will be paying attention to that game's launch with great interest

CA tries to improve new Total Wars with additional "content" in the form of new factions and units, when their games are not even polished in the very basics. Why do I even need all those new units when I'll will use only a handful of them, because the rest of them are utterly dogshit?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

line go up very much wow

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

on a more serious note, and this partly informed by my obsession with Super Smash Bros. many years ago. Whenever a new character was announced I would hang out on the reddit for the sense of "community" and that's the point, that's why companies are so enthusiastic about maintaining their own online social spaces: it allows them to "sell" the "community" experience instead of making an actually good product. This is why a place like the TW sub is so hostile to anyone pointing out the obvious issues with games: the toxic positivity, the shared experience around the product regardless of its merit, of hyping up a new DLC and buying it together, is what they are there for.

Why the long segments of the shooter game?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

8 ай бұрын

total war footage actually sucks for B roll + total war footage might have people think it is reference footage when it is not (yes sounds weird but some people have awful listening/visual comprehension)

For some reason every day I have to re subscribe

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

yea YT does that sometimes

@joebonaparte1490

9 ай бұрын

Ok as long as u know

@joebonaparte1490

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 love the videos thank u

First thing that told me Rome 2 was garbage was "YOU DONE FUCKED IT UP!"

Whats the name of the FPS game that keeps getting shown, like at 23:14?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Battlefield 1

@TheDavid2222

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Thanks! And I'm grateful for your extraordinary exposure of the decline of Total War games. Your videos have no equal, in my view. You continue to highlight the central issue: the replacement of real, physics based, game mechanics with hidden or push-button modifiers. You're doing fantastic work!

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

glad i could help, stay tuned for Pharaoh coverage :))

I think Rome II is a pretty good game, it does have its problems to the core but eh it’s pretty decent and Im happy with the game except for the Lag sometimes… Unfortunate that, yes with mods you can and have to fix most of the issues and problems that the game has, but at least there’s a whole community to it and mods to help ya. Great video I guess, it did make me sadder and regretful about my purchase of Rome II, but at least I’m happy-ish with the game lol.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

2 ай бұрын

Modding communities are great when they can put their efforts towards total conversions, adding new modes, taking a completely different approach to the gameplay. But if modders are instead effectively being tasked with fixing a game, I would much rather their efforts have gone to something more worthwhile.

Rome II is worth it for DEI mod.

22:14 the entire reason i stopped playing literally any total war game that doesn't have independent troop movement

@Ahmadabdal_

2 ай бұрын

well that's one of the biggest reasons. the other reason is that formations and troop types are just stat differences and not actual simulation of fights. IT SUCKS!

In a vacuum I like Rome 2 now. Compared to something like shogun no. With mods it's great. People tend to discount mods because they aren't part of the game and so and so should make a good game without relying on mods. And while true games that are well made I still use mods for like stellaris and ultimate general civil war so idk

I never had any problem with a game's UI until I played Rome 2 and I never had any problems with ANY AI in games until I played Rome 2,imho Rome 2 isn't bad it's just boring lol

Does?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

10 ай бұрын

there is a history behind this one

Yeah Rome 2 suffers from the Medieval 2 morale issue where units just refuse to break at least Medieval 2 had the overpowered cavalry that kind of balanced it out. Cavalry in Rome 2 can do some damage but that mass routs are pretty much gone, i do think that many people overexagerate the issue but its still there

@hopedream11

9 ай бұрын

Medieval 2 would have units whom refused to break because of their status say Varingian Guard or a Sultan guard etc and often it said that in the unit description. Aside from the Pikemen bug, Fixed in the DLC BTW, There wasn't much issue of that ingame.

I dont see nothing wrong with the unitys in the old games regaining their moral after running from the combat blob... It is really historical, if the men mannaged to escape from the middle of the chaos, they could form up again and come back to fight!! Medieval 2 teach-me that very well, kkkkk that is for what you need to have a calvary force ready to chase and kill as many men as possible, to prevent them from regroup and came back!! This is very cool...

In case of AI and difficulty, WH3 in patch 4.0 finally has introduced a handicap meter where you can set battle bonuses either to you or the AI. After all these years, a handicap meter. Something that has been in RTS games since long, long time ago. So now players can actually utilize that very hard difficulty in battles without resorting themselves to archer-only tactics and blatant exploits. Nevertheless, the game is still like a shallow lake. It's wide, it has lots of races and units but it's damn shallow. No real economy play, no real politics, no population mechanics. Nothing. Just spawn units, build stuff, amass money and off you go. It has been already proven that you don't even need to use core faction mechanics. Just spawn units and start a killing spree. Sure, you can patch it a lil bit by modding it but it's just as you've said in the video - it's morally wrong to attribute a game positively based on efforts of a modding community. And now with majority of WH3 team being put into "Hyenas" development, Warhammer is left with a handful of devs actually trying to save what's left of this game.

it could use some improvements for sure, one of the most enjoyable total war games for me. but it requires heavy modding to enjoy. does the claim that you require a heavy amount of mods to enjoy prove it is bad? perhaps.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

oh boy get ready for some talk in the video. addressing this point exactly

ahh great shit

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Finally some good fucking videos

All the stars must have aligned when they were developing Shogun 2. That or after a game like Shogun 2 to executives at Sega and or CA thought they didn't need to try as hard anymore. Now I know the yearly releases didn't actually start with Rome 2 but there was certainly a dip in quality and one could argue it took time for them to get that ball rolling. Developers of Rome 2 despite having a year or more gap between titles didn't have the time to fully flesh out what they were aiming to do. That is my theory, I don't understand the sudden dip in quality and know for a fact the people actually putting in the work to make the game didn't want it to be that way. I also loathe the idea of mods being there to 'fix' a game. Mods should 'fix' what you dislike about a game. Too easy, too hard, fun unit too inaccessible etc. Or just add content to the game like making unplayable factions playable in the case of Total War (or just changing the map completely). Mods should not be there to fix broken mechanics or bugs the developers failed to address be that because they were incompetent or their bosses were.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

7 ай бұрын

one theory I've heard but can't vouch for is that the team that worked on rome 2 was a carry over from Empire, and that shogun 2 was developed in parallel which is part of why it's such an anomaly. A more likely reason: Empire broke sales records but damaged the sales potential of later titles, including Shogun 2. Shogun 2 despite being the best designed underperformed, which could have been (wrongly) read by CA as a sign that they need to radically change course.

During your interfacing section. I noticed you mentioned that Rome 2 has less clear unit cards (which is true). However you failed to mention the unit banners themselves and how that plays a role in identifying what units your enemy has. For example in both shogun 2 and fots if a unit in the enemy army is of a particular category there is no visual distinction in the unit banner between say a levy infantry and a shogunate infantry. Or a Yari ashigaru and a warrior monk. In order to tell what tier the unit you are facing is you have to either hover over the enemy units banner or zoom in and look at the unit itself. This is massively important as you have to check the enemy unit before engaging lest you accidentally send a light cavalry to fight a great guard. This translates to either inefficient engagements if you don't check the enemy units banner, or valuable time wasted if you do. Rome 2 on the other hand provides the player with much more clarity by providing a lot more visual distinction on the banner about what the unit type is. For example the unit banners for heavy melee cavalry, light melee cavalry and medium melee cavalry are all different. And this is true of every category of unit in the game. There is clear visual distinction of the weight class and therefore relative power of units. This assists greatly in helping the player choose which engagements would be good and which ones would be bad at a single glance. Something you would need to mouse over the enemy unit banner to check in shogun 2. While I don't disagree with a lot of the arguments made in this video. You also cherry pick mechanics to talk about in order to support your pre determined view of the games. Which leads to an unfair representation at least in my opinion.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Shogun 2 has units that are quite easily distinguishable based on their unit size and the density of their formation. Both Yari and Light cavalry have different unit sizes. Same with Samurai vs Ashigaru. No Dachi Samurai stand in a looser formation than Katana. None of this has anything to do with icons. The units themselves can be distinguished by their own in game properties. Even better: Fall of the Samurai. In that game line infantry march in tightly packed formations whereas traditional units stand in much looser ones. You can tell the units apart at a glance, no unit icon, no unit card. The fact that Rome 2 has to rely on icons to convey this information rather than use other differentiating properties like density of the unit is a downgrade. It does not help that the roster is so heavily bloated. And this icon bloat has only gotten worse to the point that so many people are pointing it out in Pharaoh. I'm also not entirely sure how I "cherry-picked" my conclusions. All of the observations regarding the army system and combat feature prominently in the game; this is not some obscure set of edge cases, this IS the game as a whole. At every turn you are dealing with the dual problems of restrictive army systems and defenseless settlements, not to mention the overly stat-centric combat that I showed in multiple battles. If it's the case that I came to the wrong conclusions then it should be easy to point where and why and what the correct conclusion should be.

@urmomgayming1834

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 You say fall of the samurai has units that are easy to distinguish between. And yet levy infantry, line infantry and SIR infantry have no visual differences in their banners or unit sizes. The same is true of Yari kachi, spear levy and Kyoto police. As well as Armstrong guns and parrot guns. Shogitai and katana kachi. These are all units with massively varying performance and the only way to tell them apart when the enemy brings them is to hover over the unit banner or zoom in on the unit itself. Both of which take time. There are many other examples of units this is the case for in shogun 2 but they would take forever to list. Rome 2 doesn't suffer this issue. Simply because it provides more visual clarity about what type the unit is on the banner which can be seen from across the entire map. In shogun 2 you have to be much closer to either see the unit or have to hover over the unit itself in a large proportion of cases. This is clearly an area in which Rome 2's battles provide superior visual clarity to players. I mean do you really believe it is easier to count the number of models in a unit or see if one unit is slightly more dispersed then another from across a map then it is to see a unit banner with very identifiable differences from the same distance? Especially from the perspective of a new player who isn't super familiar with either game yet? Not talking about this in your video but mentioning shogun's superior unit cards visual clarity is the complete definition of cherry picking an argument.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

@urmomgayming1834 yes i really do think its quite easy to tell a 200 man unit apart from 160 or 80 from 60 man unit apart easily; i do it all the time subconsciously Are you so inattentive that a 20-30% difference in unit size does not visually register? That's ridiculous. Furthermore the fact that Rome 2 needs to rely so much on icons is precisely because 1) roster bloat 2) indistinguishable unit cards In shogun 2 you take 1 second to visually interpret all the different colors on cards in a pre battle screen to know what kind of battle you're going to fight. Lots of blue? Those are rifles and I'm going to have to use positioning and terrain to negate their ranged advantage. Red? You're going to have to keep your men out of the melee as much as possible; using defeat in detail as much as you can to avoid getting bogged down. The icons don't need to do the work because the unit cards already did that. Are all units in FotS easily distinguished at a glance? No but that was hardly the point I was making. Rome 2 makes 0 use of color in its UI meaning you have to have an intimate knowledge of all the different units in the roster before you can consistently come up with an effective battle plan. It's a downgrade from what the previous game had.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

man I took your word for the Rome 2 unit icons being more expressive than FotS but I just went over my footage for a few seconds and can you imagine my surprise when I found out Rome 2 doesn't even distinguish between different types of ranged units; slingers, peltasts, archers, etc. all use the same bow and arrow icon. Shogun 2 had different icons for archers and matchlocks. FotS had different icons for levy/line, archers, skirmishers, elite infantry (in addition to distinct icons for sword infantry, spear, and all the different icons for cavalry types). Rome 2 doesn't even improve the legibility of its unit icons; it actually regresses. It's hilarious that I, the supposed cherry-picker, actually took your argument in good faith and even accepted the claim that Rome 2 has better unit icons at face value; took only a few seconds to find that this isn't even true. You aren't cherry-picking, the very premise of your argument is flat out wrong and thanks to it I found out yet another manner in which Rome 2 is a regression from earlier titles.

Have you tried playing online? the balance is very good and skill wins most games.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Shogun 2 has key buildings that actually force players out of corner camping Rome 2 does not have that and it suffers from the same issue med2 has where players will sit on opposite hills refusing to attack

@Deathrow2493

9 ай бұрын

Not sure what kind of online games you been playing mate but not even sieges go like that all the time and land battles definitely don't. Did yoy try Divide Et Imperia, for campaign immersion and different AI you will appreciate that.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

@Deathrow2493 the discussion is about rome 2 the vanilla game Anything that DEI supposedly fixes is besides the point. I don't discuss mods for the total war games i like, either, because I'm not going to praise or criticize a game based on unofficial contributions. I thought i stated this clearly in the chapter of this video addressing the unproductive handwaving with mods.

@Deathrow2493

9 ай бұрын

Rome 2 Vanilla online games are slow paced games though in multiplayer. I just suggested that i've fought a valiant AI with a MOD, so i'm saying if a modder can do it, why can't CA do it in their base games? I also spent £$£$ on the new Pharaoh Dynasty edition so I guess i'll get rinsed on that until a good mod comes out :D @@dishonorable_daimyo1498

@dabo5078

8 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498That never happens, and in the rare cases a noob does this they get torn apart by missiles and maneuver.

@Dishonorable_Daimyo As always, to insipre thoughtful critic from informative outlook, here are a few things I have to address. 1) Empire & Navies : Before Empire, navies were used to fair troops and only that, the battles were all autoresolved which often led to frustration that many don't even recall yet are easy at trashing naval battles as a fuitle attempt. The arrival of those battles couldn't have come at a better time, from the period the game is set in to the lunch date(people were still fresh of memories of Pirates of the Caribbean), it was spot on. The battle themsevles were a blast! the visuals are spectacular(even to today's standards), The sea, The ships ,The little details of the units animaitons on the ships, and obviously the damage models all were top notch. But it wasn't all spectucal like newer titles as the battles had plenty of mechanics to enrich them, Winds direction & destructable sails, number of canons which were also destructable, sinking, fires, critical shots (explosions), different ammunition types, crews, boarding, and more... But alas this was only half the picture as befitting TW since the campaign aspect was just as important if not more. Empires navies were magical because of the importance sea control had recieved in that game, and this wasn't just due to the scale of the campaign map (WH has a huge sea area as well but no were is it even close in importance as in Empire), the true importance of the sea was its lucrativity! Sea control meant holding the trade nodes which were one of seas best design moments, those combined with trade lanes which can be raided created focal points for the navies to clash over the vast open seas, together the ability to hijack ships and with the different campaign theatres which provided much wealth naval battles became part of TWs DNA. Rome II's naval battles didn't fail only because rows weren't destroyable, crews weren't a thing, and there was plenty of bugs and annoyances - they failed because the campagin aspect didn't came close to the one Empire offered. P.s. most naval warfare wasn't to deny landings but rather for sea dominance, I have no problem that it is a rare occorance to capture an enemy invasion fleet. 2) Late Game : I would 100% agree with you that for many years TW's end game was criticized as lacking, the first TW to try to address it and did in a solid manner was Rome with its Roman houses split, giving the player strong allies early own which allows both them and the player to grow enough to pose a viable threat and then pit them against the play as part of the road to victory. The follow up game how ever resorted into cheaper means of acheiving that by introducing the spawm many stakes to produce challenge and this where the criticism ramped up, since the way the challenge was presented wasn't organic, wasn't sandboxy, it just popped up. Empire & Napoleon kind brushed off even the idea of giving a challenge but it was Shogun 2 that came back to this issue and introduced the Realms divided and sorry to say but unlike what you described the criticism stuck around cause while certainly many players found this feature challenging they also found it to be obnoxiously aritificial, many including me disliked those kind of features as they having nothing of the core sandbox nature that was at the core of the older TW experience - Instead of improving the AI CA resorted as always to cheap solutions by just instantly kill any build up that organically happened in a campaign by instantly turning half of the map against the player. Rome II on its lunch wasn't doing any better, the end game consisted of a thematic solution just like Realm Divided disgusised as a civil war but in practicality it was just a mass spam of stacks out of thin air which was I will admit worse. However CA had patched Rome II and completely replaced the mechanic (which I praise them for doing so) by creating a proper mechanic that was sandboxy and was way more in line with the players actions, counterable as it should be and while Rome II still suffers from lack of late game challenge at least it doesn't suffer from artificial sandbox killers as Shogun II does. Which leads me to 3K, as it features by far the best endgame for any TW, taking the Realm Divide and improving on it drastically by creating 'the three kingdoms' as a result of proper sandbox development of a campaign and splits the map in a manner that much more organic and fun to play against. Mods. 3) Failure : There is a huge difference between how a company that focuses on revenue (like CA) and playerbase/a company that focuses on a good product(Larian) will consider success, which is very unfortunate because this is the main reason TW looks the way it does today. Unlike what many think, Attila, Thrones of Britannia, probably Troy(I have less information on that one), and most likely the upcoming Pharaoh release are not failures for CA, they success, actually much better success than CA had expected. Attila sold way more than CA thought it will and it was priced really high for what it cost to make, Thrones of Britannia was also so cheap to the point that even modest sales secured it as a financial success. Yes people complained about follow up games like Napoleon and Attila which signaled the abandoment of the 'Main Games', Yes people complained about the small scale and simplistic Thrones of Britannia, but at the end of the day more than enough people bought them. The fact that they were considered failures in the eyes of veteran players like us didn't transelate financially, and since profit is the key figure in pushing CA's actions and not a good product, those were clearly served as greenlight to the next steps CA took. WH2/WH3 are 'follow-up games' that can also be called expansion packs, the DLC for Attila sold so well it inspired the WH path of DLC's which are even cheaper than those expansion pack projects that sell at a much bigger profit margin. And as for abandoning projects, this has nothing to do with how successful a game was, Rome II was abandoned despite being the best selling TW game till 3K (yes WH1 & 2 didn't do anything close to Rome II while those games demanded CA to play a large cut unlike Rome & 3K). The only question is the revenue opprotunity, so its not that CA abadonned 3K cause it didn't do well - hack its by far the most profitable game they ever made, but the DLC made less than WH DLC and that is all that mattered - if you need to invest the few people you have on developing a DLC better make the best out of it. As for why so few people ? It's also has nothing to do with TW's success, in fact the company has doubled in size!!! from 400~ to 900~ employees, and this is almost exclusively thanks to the revenues from TW, but almost none of it is being reinvested and this is why the franchise doesn't develop (not that it isn't at all but it takes one step forward two steps backwards). As for WH, WH fans want to think they are all that CA has, well they are wrong, yes they had been very lucrative with the DLC costing almost nothing compared to the prices they are sold for, but CA has been known to abandon titles when it feels they have had enough - what CA does is just find a new crowd that doesn't complain that much - probably 40K is the next big thing for CA till then they will keep the crowd with as least effort and reinvestment as possible just like they did with the 'historical crowd'. Wrapping up : People who forget the past bound to repeat it, while I agree with not forgeting how Rome II came out, I disagree with the harsh tone attached to the manner you suggest remembering. Rome II had recieved many updates, in particular the 2018 update that really bumped it head by fixing crucial core mechanics which is something that till that date CA had never done before (something I really was angry about since Empire had such potential but they never gone back post Napoleon to implament any of the fixes). Hack even taking Reynold's critique and checking one by one if CA addressed his issues, the amount of things they had addressed are pretty substansial (one could argue some things should have been there from the first place[such as flags in land battles]) - transport ships, sieges AI and functionality, unit collitions and formations (he didn't mention sphaggeti lines but I hated them and still seeing them in your videos of shogun makes me happy they are gone), family trees and aging, politics, Units Ui, and the list goes on and on... Yes, I agree the vanilla experience still has issues, but it isn't a shit game like it used to be hack it is a solid game, but is it an extraordinary game like Rome was ? nope not even after all this fixes, unfortunately, simpley because it continued the trend of killing the core of TW experience which is the connection between campaign and battle. Missing features like population and recruitment mechanics like Rome & Medieval 2 is severing this tie, destroying the need to be tactical on the battlefield, resourceful & stratigic and this is just one of those connections out of many.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

The improvements you mentioned--taking your word for them--still pale in comparison to the main point: combat is still a one dimensional unit card trading affair, and the asinine army system and province system are still in place all these years later. My "negativity" is completely justified because no amount of patching has fixed the broken, uninspired gameplay loop. All of the major, negative changes that Rome 2 brought about are still being resold to us to this day and whatever improvements they made to secondary features like diplomacy do not compensate for that. The "superior" Realm divide in 3K is always going to get knee capped by the poorly balanced battles. These features and mechanics don't exist in isolation. Furthermore, Fall of the Samurai already solved the question of an artifical difficulty spike in Realm Divide, splitting Japan into 2 blocs (and leaving you to go it alone, if you wish). 3K is not a major leap in that aspect.

@DeadLikeMeJ

9 ай бұрын

​@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 You are right about the battles, they are still far from being as good the old TW games. But you are also completely wrong regarding calling Diplomacy a secondary feature ... couldn't disagree with you any more than that, Diplomacy is CORE for TW. WIthout good diplomacy system no challenge can occur organically, which means you need to facilitate it either by cheats or cheap mechanics. This is again why 3K system was so much surperior cause while it did had a bit of a scripted nature to it, most of the relationships and build up to that point were driven by the BEST TW diplomacy that ever existed. As for your statement regarding that no feature exists in isolation, I completely agree, the fact that the game was built to be played in Romance and that the Characters are semi gods and it was only at the end of the life cycle of the product that CA implamented a bit of mechanics and AI to handle its single entities(such as spearmen able to knockdown character from horses) is a huge detremite to my ability to enjoy this game till today (that and the ass ladders, which ruins what could have been great sieges). But this statement is also just as valid towards Shogun 2, which isn't lacking it's share of issues, a game that just as much forsaked the CORE mechanics which were of great importance such as populations and their impact on recruitment, replenishment, economy, and development. So no Shogun 2's isn't living in isolation either which is why I find it also problematic. And don't get me wrong, I am completely with you in juding CA and their flawed designs and lack of investments in their products, they deserve negativity, it is just that I don't think Rome II is complete garbage, as it was back in the days. Most people will call me negative as I criticize CA all the time, so don't take offense on that part, I have no issue with you criticising or judging, I just try to aim you to do it fairly.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

@DeadLikeMeJ population as a mechanic being removed from shogun 2 was fine because the game was designed around not having it from the foundation. This is different from gutting a feature without thinking about its impacts on the rest of the game (removal of leadeless armies) or adding a feature without thinking how it will affect the rest of the game (rome 2s imperium system) Shogun 2s gameplay was not about population, it was about having limited building slots and expensive upgrades for settlements. It was a different set of constraints entirely. I'm tired of people just listing features as though their quality or value is a matter of fact without explaining whyy they are good and why removing them was problematic. All of the issues i highlighted in this video, i took the time to explain why they had a negative effect on the game. It follows a basic format of explain change-> explain its effects on gameplay. Sometimes removing a feature can actually be a good thing; but this is not the case with the features gutted from Rome 2. It's not enough to say "x game removed y feature" you need to explain why and how that removal was negative. Furthermore your view of what diplomacy is is being constrained to the actions in the diplomacy tab; rome 2 and 3k might have more actions and options provided to you in their diplomacy screens: but let me ask you, what does a non aggression pact add to the game when the AI is already so passive? Every single time i play rome 2 or 3k i am struck by just how much diplomacy can be ignored and have no discernible impact on how you play the game. Diplomacy is a secondary feature of total war; it's main purpose has always been to influence the types of battles you end up fighting. The problem being the battles are crap and if I wanted proper diplomacy the only venue for that is multiplayer games because AI has not reached the point where it can diplomatically compete with a human.

@DeadLikeMeJ

9 ай бұрын

​@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Unlike in a video essay where one can talk and condese a lot of information that needs to be written over many pages into a few minutes of speech, the written text have downsides such as the 'walls of texts' which many people avoid (in general reading lengthy texts is less of a thing nowadays). That is why when I comment which is arleady way lengthier than most people, I do it still in a manner that tries to focuse on the issues as best as I can without over dragging it (here is a good time for me to give appreciation for you for taking the time and reading through those comments). I emphasize this becuase this means that I won't necessarily stop and explain every tid bit, but I do agree that usually saying something is good and not being able to explain it can be frustrating to hanlde with cause. That being said it is far from being the situation in regards to the Population question. Many of the avid fans of a feature aren't equipped with the analysis mindset to explain them to others, luckily I am not one of them. The reason the Population feature was so good damn good was because it did the best thing any feature can do and did it really well, it interwinded several exisitng systems in the game together and created a stratigic depth in that connection. What does it mean? That system alone tied the EconomyRequritmentReplenishment

Can't be worth. Is not Shogun 2.

The DEI mod with some submods has kept R2 interesting for me, but yeah total war has been trash since the R2 release.

Thureos Hoplites are terrible.

It does not'nt

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you have obviously taken some time to formulate yours for Rome 2. I would offer a few counterpoints to your video: 1) You seem to have contradictory expectations with this game. You don't like how the army count is capped and limits settlement defense, but on the other hand you note that settlement defense is too easy given the built-in garrisons. You criticize the game for emphasizing unit stats at the expense of tactics and morale impacts, but you then you reference cavalry or infantry charging into braced phalanxes. I'll certainly acknowledge that Rome 2 is far from a perfect game, but I do also see a lot of critical feedback (in your video and elsewhere) which lacks uniformity. Someone criticizes the game for having too much of something, but someone else laments there is not enough. I just sense that a lot of people like to criticize this game because of the perceived target that the online community has put on it. 2) I really don't understand the problem people have with game's morale system and the perceived lack of tactics. IMO, the morale of an enemy unit can be targeted and tactical maneuvers do have their place in the game, so long as you understand each unit's soft strengths and weaknesses. E.g. phalanx units were historically very difficult to defeat with frontal attacks and this is reflected in game; but you have different options for dealing with them (missiles, flanking attacks, counter phalanx units). The impacts of your count-actions may take some time to impact and rout a targeted unit, but I consider this a good gameplay feature rather than a problem. In many TW titles (pre and post Rome 2), you could quite literally rout enemy units in a matter of seconds with well-timed charges or otherwise morale-degrading elements (elephants, certain fire weapons, artillery). Excluding fights with elite stacks, some battles would literally take only a few minutes to fight. IMHO these engagements were never fun. Rome 2, for all its faults, does tend to give a bit more staying power to most (though not all) units, which prolongs the fight a bit. Flanking, elephants, missile attacks and cav charges still have impacts on unit morale, they just take longer to materialize. Given how many battles of antiquity were prolonged slugging matches, I'm perfectly fine with current state of Rome 2 battles. Frankly, I prefer them to be a bit longer (for which I rely on mods). 3) I certainly respect Shogun 2 for what it is, but the tactical formula for that game was certainly different, offering more of a rock-paper-scissors element (spear beats cav, cav beats archers, archers beat whatever cant touch it). By comparison Rome 2 employs a more flexible approach, meaning that each unit type has a designated purpose on the battlefield but can still function in secondary or tertiary roles. Hoplites are a great example; ideally they'd be used to counter cav, but they can also put up a good fight against heavy melee infantry. Javelin skirmishers are meant to harass enemy infantry, but can also be used to attack enemy skirmishers and conduct flanking attacks. IMO, this approach gives more tactical options to the player and adds some nuance to what would otherwise be a very binary decision-making process for army comps. 4) I acknowledge that giving each Rome 2's AI the ability to maneuver at sea without a dedicated fleet is a bit of cheap tactic, but I also recognize that most TW games (pre and post Rome 2) do an absolutely horrendous job handling naval invasions, maritime transport and naval fights in general. With prior games, there wasn't much reason to maintain a navy after you wiped out the AI-controlled fleets. At least with Rome 2, you do have to constantly keep watch over your coastal regions and you have some incentive to maintain a standing fleet. You do make some good points. Arbitrarily restricting city development with the building slots and province system was short-sighted on CA's part. The army cap does limit player agency (though I have rarely found myself needing more armies than allowed by the cap). The tactical UI (unit card info) isn't the best design, though I have come to appreciate the UI for the strategic map. Some of the building and army unit buffs/abilities do come across as arcadey at times - the fact that you can stack building bonuses and support your empire with income from just 2-3 provinces is a bit immersion-breaking. I admittedly don't know enough about the newly-implemented hitpoint system to be able to analyze its fidelity, but I can't that I have noticed any abnormal interactions on the battlefield: lightly armored units tend to die quickly, and heavily armored units tend to stay around longer, as you would expect. I will certainly admit that this game has it's faults, but I also consider Rome 2 (and Attila) to be the last true historical titles (worthy of the TW brand) before CA went full arcade mode with games like Troy, Three Kingdoms and Pharaoh. So is Rome 2 perfect? No. Is it a decent game with a depth of DLC campaigns and modding potential that offers longevity and replayability? I think so, but everyone will reach their own conclusion on that. Edit: Regarding your final note on how games shouldn't rely on the modding community to remain viable. Firstly, I don't think Rome 2 needs any mods at all to stand on its own 2 feet; the game runs well and offers a decent-enough experience without any modding whatsoever and to call this game "garbage" because of the state of the meta and mechanics is a bit hyperbolic. Secondly, the fact that there is such a strong and vibrant modding community for this game indicates to me Rome 2 has a lot of traction with the TW fanbase, despite its shortcomings. Medieval 2, Rome I, Empire and Napoleon experienced a similar wave of post-launch support for the same reasons. Thirdly, if you truly believe that Rome 2 Vanilla is too streamlined and arcadey, then I would highly recommend giving DEI a shot. Core mechanics (food, banditry, sanitation, empire management) are enhanced, and supply lines and area of recruitment constraints really make for a challenging gameplay experience.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

4 ай бұрын

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you have obviously taken some time to formulate yours for Rome 2.” First thing you should know about me is that I prefer people who cut straight to the point rather than start with disclaimers. “I would offer a few counterpoints to your video: 1) You seem to have contradictory expectations with this game. You don't like how the army count is capped and limits settlement defense, but on the other hand you note that settlement defense is too easy given the built-in garrisons.” Yea, I made it pretty clear that *minor settlements* are difficult to defend thanks to a combination of no fortifications + army limits reducing your coverage. I also think that it is nonsense to have a free garrison capable of reinforcing field armies in the vicinity. The problem should be apparent. Army caps mean you have to end up concentrating your limited armies to take out the major settlements where the AI clusters its armies (as shown with footage in the video, first in my early game Seubi and then late game Parthia). The focus on unit quality also means that 1v3’ing the enemy-something that was easily achievable in prior entries with the exception of Empire perhaps-is not feasible. Which takes us to the next point… “You criticize the game for emphasizing unit stats at the expense of tactics and morale impacts, but you then you reference cavalry or infantry charging into braced phalanxes. I'll certainly acknowledge that Rome 2 is far from a perfect game, but I do also see a lot of critical feedback (in your video and elsewhere) which lacks uniformity.” And…why are you vaguely talking about a lack of uniformity and bringing up other videos? Do you expect everyone to have some sort of unified opinion on the game? “Someone criticizes the game for having too much of something, but someone else laments there is not enough.” Same as above. “I just sense that a lot of people like to criticize this game because of the perceived target that the online community has put on it.” Excuse me, are we talking about the same game? What part of the internet do you hang out on? Because for the past 5 years at least the general consensus is that Rome 2 is a good game/good game with mods/it was a bad game but now its good. No surprise, because the people who called it out for being a regressive turd didn’t stick around, they went off to play other games. And in any case how is this even relevant to the critique, this is not a popularity contest and I’m not interested in that. “2) I really don't understand the problem people have with game's morale system and the perceived lack of tactics. IMO, the morale of an enemy unit can be targeted and tactical maneuvers do have their place in the game, so long as you understand each unit's soft strengths and weaknesses. E.g. phalanx units were historically very difficult to defeat with frontal attacks and this is reflected in game; but you have different options for dealing with them (missiles, flanking attacks, counter phalanx units). The impacts of your count-actions may take some time to impact and rout a targeted unit, but I consider this a good gameplay feature rather than a problem.” Pikes being overpowered has long been common knowledge even going back to 2013, even if some fringe counterplay exists. (and before you say it, just because other games had their OP unit types does not make it less bad that Rome 2 has this). Even people who view the game positively admit that pikes have a very centralizing effect on the gameplay. Also this is not the only example I gave of unit stats being the only thing that matters, look at the two fights where my army lost while fighting downhill and the defense battle where the enemy had to be ground to the dust. “In many TW titles (pre and post Rome 2), you could quite literally rout enemy units in a matter of seconds with well-timed charges or otherwise morale-degrading elements (elephants, certain fire weapons, artillery). Excluding fights with elite stacks, some battles would literally take only a few minutes to fight. IMHO these engagements were never fun. Rome 2, for all its faults, does tend to give a bit more staying power to most (though not all) units, which prolongs the fight a bit. Flanking, elephants, missile attacks and cav charges still have impacts on unit morale, they just take longer to materialize.” Idk man but having to grind even mid tier units down to their last 20 men is not a fun or rewarding experience, what is the point of the morale system if units have to all be close to completely crushed anyway? Also units in Med2 had plenty of staying power, since we are on that point, and even shogun 2 had high morale naginata warrior monks and the entire Ikko Ikki faction (very dominant in multiplayer) that are known for being very formidable in brawl. “Given how many battles of antiquity were prolonged slugging matches, I'm perfectly fine with current state of Rome 2 battles. Frankly, I prefer them to be a bit longer (for which I rely on mods).” Pre industrial battles including battles of antiquity were comprised of only a few decisive actions (largely due to the difficulty in managing such large forces). While they took a long time (several days at most) to “be decided” that isn’t time that men were necessarily fighting. If anything the lack of decisive morale shocks and the tendency of units to absorb such high casualties (a 15% casualty rate in real life would be catastrophically high, let alone the 80% or more that is common in TW battles). Total War has always been very inaccurate to its history and Rome 2 is even more so. “ 3) I certainly respect Shogun 2 for what it is, but the tactical formula for that game was certainly different, offering more of a rock-paper-scissors element (spear beats cav, cav beats archers, archers beat whatever cant touch it). By comparison Rome 2 employs a more generic approach, meaning that each unit type has a designated purpose on the battlefield but can still function in secondary or tertiary roles. Hoplites are a great example; ideally they'd be used to counter cav, but they can also put up a good fight against heavy melee infantry. Javelin skirmishers are meant to harass enemy infantry, but can also be used to attack enemy skirmishers and conduct flanking attacks. IMO, this approach gives more tactical options to the player and adds some nuance to what would otherwise be a very binary decision-making process for army comps.” Once again people skip over Fall of the Samurai which already did this (and did it better). Like I do not for the life of me understand how many people just don’t know that game exists. It moved away from the RPS of the base game to more positional based combat. “4) I acknowledge that giving each Rome 2's AI the ability to maneuver at sea without a dedicated fleet is a bit of cheap tactic, but I also recognize that most TW games (pre and post Rome 2) do an absolutely horrendous job handling naval invasions, maritime transport and naval fights in general. “ Again, Fall of the Samurai. I even brought it up in the video and you are pretending I didn’t. 13:41 Overall though it seems like you just ignored the parts of my video that address these exact points I brought up.

@kevinp5325

4 ай бұрын

I’m not going to reply in full because it seems you and I have completely different perspectives on this game and what constitutes good and reasonably accurate gameplay. You think pikes are OP, but the fact is that they are easily countered (hence why they are used so little in MP battles), and what you consider to be “fringe” measures (flanking, missiles), I consider to be logical and historically accurate tactics. The morale and hp system isn’t perfect, but I really don’t have much of an issue with getting units to rout (long before they run out of men) with well positioned and well timed maneuvers. Warfare of this age was primarily infantry based, and the battles were brutal when decisive engagements took place. Standing armies of Heavy infantry generally had some staying power, and mass routs generally occurred only after the outcome had become obvious. I’m aware of shogun 2 and FOTS; great games both. But they’re also dated and I think nostalgia causes some to paint an overly optimistic picture of their strengths relative to newer games. And as I said several times in my original post, Rome 2 certainly has its faults, but to refer to it as “garbage” just seems a bit over the top. And the idea that the game only lives on because of the support from the modding community is an ass-backwards portrayal of what is currently going on with the game. Modders will only take the time to work on a game if there is halfway decent product to build upon.

Rome 2 with DEI is worth it, the plain game itself is shyte which is sad since all the Multiplayer action is with the vanilla game

yeah let’s go back to being able to recruit units freely, it worked so well with the AI…

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Yes it actually worked well in shogun and FotS, the games directly preceding rome 2 What's your point? That rather than putting the bare minimum nominal effort into improving the AI we should just nuke the rest of the game to make it a chore to deal with. This type of nonsense reasoning explains a lot regarding how CA can get away with so much because people are willing to write their defense for them on forums.

@lSn3z

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 chain and ball recruitment is better for the Ai, easier for CA to programme army composition templates, although that’s subjects to how well the buildings and recruitment are designed which is a big problem in basically every TW, without chain and ball the Ai has no understanding of how to make army’s it just shots out a whole load of shite, not to mention the Ai has more cohesion and able to concentrate its units into army’s better. Recruiting units freely only really works well if we go back to risk style strategy map back in shogun 1, since we departed from those risk style maps Total wars has actually got worse.

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

​@@lSn3zbruh i played rome 2 and constantly getting attack by a single general unit each turn, which just destroy the argument about the new recruitment system being better for the ai

@lSn3z

9 ай бұрын

@@mrsherman2906 ABug or Ai had no recruitment structures, that’s a problem with buildings and recruitment, my point still stands, the Ai is still far better off having ball and chain recruitment then it would otherwise.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Man you really need to play Fall of the Samurai for 30 minutes to see that game already had an AI that regularly consolidated its forces and reinforced them effectively

I disagree with your criticism of army reinforcement and the garrison mechanic. Historically sieges were incredibly long, costly, and rarely lead to victory for the invader. More often the lead to diplomacy. No total war game has a system to correctly represent sieges so they have to be made gamey. Versions older than rome 2 made sieges too easy, and too complete. And relied on AI being smart enough to save a settlement before you starved it out, this made older games a cake walk as you would siege one settlement after another, maybe 10% of the time the AI would eventually show up with a reinforcing army. The sally out feature in Rome 2 is much better and more realistic...requiring player to have overwhelming force to defeat two armies or at least take losses if the AI is stupid and doesn't protect a settlement.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

8 ай бұрын

yea no i don't go looking for "realism" in my video games i go looking for engagement and there is nothing remotely engaging about 2v1 autoresolving a settlement. I'm not implying the older system was perfect, but gameplay wise this was a clear downgrade.

@orclover2353

8 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Yes, autoresolve is/was a major problem, easy fix for modders but if autoresolve was logical to discourage rushing, and encourage fighting and skill sieges then the overall system would be fine. Sieging out settlements until they starve and sally out is also awful gameplay.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

8 ай бұрын

Rome 2: The Greatest Game that people spend more time talking about on forums than they do actually playing it.

It realy depends what player like to play. To me rome 2 is far better now than shogun 2 and there are many reasons. Rome 2 on release was terrible but now its very good game, it has some flaws but mods can help it. RD in shogun 2 should be an OPTION before you start to play so you can avoid it. Shogun 2 lack replayability coz every campaing is the same (try playing 2 times in row with same faction/clan and you will see it yourself). Upkeep in shogun 2 is forcing you to not use other units than ashigaru. Economy in shogun 2 is garbage. shogun 2 is still a decent game and have some interesting things but rome 2 is far more superior.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

7 ай бұрын

i have played almost every faction in shogun at least 10 times on legendary difficulty. To state that each playthrough is just a repetition means either 1) you barely played the game 2) you never bothered experimenting with different openings. timestamped: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qnx5z8uOhdmyndo.htmlsi=Z-u89lBwJYj7ajR2&t=216 This is like saying "every faction in AoE2 is just the same, you get 1 unique unit but that is it, every match is the same thing". Also high level shogun 2 play DEMANDS usage of every unit class, you need katana samurai, cavalry, and matchlocks to have consistent success in that game.

@picogagula448

7 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 i did different openings with more or less same outcome just your position make more enemies as you expand. Very linear AI, whats the point of trading in game when you can just use it for short period of time coz you will be very soon at war with everybody. For example if oda declare war on you on turn 4 you can reload save (on lower difficulty) 100 times oda will declare war on you. There is no other way than war, maybe you can pay oda (worthless) but you will never have enough koku coz every border is red coz you are in war. It is fun and challenging game 1st time but when you do it again its just boring and annoying. Total war should be an option, not for everybody. Mod for RD saved game for me but still im in war with everybody either way coz i play on higher difficulty. Ashigaru units are OP in this game against AI. Why have 1 katana samurai when you can have 2 yari ashigaru (+ gen buffs) units for same upkeep and KS is struggling to win against 1 yari wall you just attack with 2nd on their back giving them morale penalty. You probablly know this already and yari have 150 while KS have 120 units. In aoe2 british dont have paladins as i remember or some faction dont have arbalest, and buffs are different for every faction more or less. Aoe2 is totaly different game (masterpiece). There is too few type of units compared to rome 2.. There is too few unique units to factions. S2TW is still decent but not the best ever. Rome 2 is better now. S2TW is like working all day and when you need rest you go to do night shift on another job. I dont like when game force me to do something and thats what RD is. In rome 2 you have civil war (worse than RD) but you can control it. Thats the whole point.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

7 ай бұрын

Realm Divide is the best addition that Shogun 2 made. The only thing making the late game a challenge. Total war was never a diplomacy simulator, go play a crappy PDX game if that is what you are after (or Rome 2 lol). Also you flat out state that AoE2 works despite only minor differences between factions, yet this is a problem in Shogun 2 for some reason?

@picogagula448

7 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 actually RD is in early game for me, it happen on 12 province conquered (+ 2 or 3 vassals), i wasnt ready and still beat AI asss even on my first takeda campaing on hard. you speak of challenge? Why dont you play without diplomacy at all on your campaign if its not important? Why you using money made from diplomacy? From now on play total war for real on all total war games and stay with your word. Declare war on all in all campaigns. AND REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU USE DIPLOMACY AGAIN lol I never played paradox games coz they are boring. Ofc i will play rome 2 coz its good not this annoying and boring shogun 2 (without mod for RD) Aoe2 is different game.. shogun 2 can work with 6 units also. S2 only need yari ashigaru, bow ashigaru, general, 1 cav type, matchlock ashigaru and add samurai(katana on naginata nvm). Maybe there would not be any difference. Who knows? Would then S2 lack any units? I like challenging games sometimes but not always. Time is precious. Rome 2 > shogun 2 for now

You're wasting your breath on the mods/DEI point. R2 is R2, a review of it doesn't need to concern itself with a total overhaul mod that may or may not be good regardless of what the base game is like. "Oh but DEI is good" isn't any kind of counter point to anything said in an R2 review. The only response or disclaimer required is "don't care, not talking about your preferred mod here". Likewise that entire litany of copium about expectations, ethics, or the desire to fiddle with computer stuff has nothing to do with either an R2 review, or the validity of modding a shit game into [whatever the modders in question decided to put out]. If someone recommends R2 on it's own, none of that matters because it's not R2. If someone recommends getting R2 specifically to play a specific mod (let's assume DEI), again none of the stuff you went over holds up. If a garbage game is only good as a vehicle for modding, and there is a community of people that volunteer to make mods, and people enjoy said mods and recommend them, that's all well and good. For my money (literally, because the game is still sold at full price a decade later) R2 is dogshit and no amount of modding can save it, but I'm certainly not gonna be consent jesus going "is there someone you forgot to ask" and finger wag/concern troll about the evils of the bad incentives making a garbage product from a garbage company more profitable. Game is shit. Do not recommend, in any year. Simple as.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

no it absolutely is necessary to outline the reasons, because a LOT of the people making the argument in favor of modding have not considered those points nor do they have any idea of the unwitting role they are playing in ensuring we never get good games again. They don't have to agree with it but I'm also not addressing them specifically; I'm also addressing the people who are caught up in the middle of this mess who are being misled into getting bad games and investing their time into modding them when they would be better off doing, well, anything else.

@TheWujuStyle

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Pretty bold to assume that people are investing the massive amount of time it takes to make an overhaul mod as comprehensive as DEI not because that is their genuine preference, but because uhhh they are idiots I guess?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

I was not referring to the people making the mod. I was referring to people who handwave any criticism of the base game with "but x mod exists." And there are plenty of them, you only need to look at this comment section to see them popping up.

for me its the worst TW game. The dev's cant even sort out the most stupid stuff like armies magically pulling a whole fleet of transport ships out of no where and yet that transport fleet is way stronger than any actually fleet you can build. They should never have allowed those transports to be able to fight. This is why historically transport ships were escorted by an actual naval force. Dumb shit like this should not be in a TW game.

Well, let me start out with saying: watched the whole video, read through most of the comments, and am now here. I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed by some that your gripes are cherry picked while you ignore parts of the game that are extremely well done. First, I agree with you that at launch, this game was bad. BUT, given by your very title, we’re evaluating the game as it stands now, not when it launched. Since it’s launch the updates, attention, and overhauls it has received have truly improved this game into something worth playing. For example, the diplomacy and politics aspects are nuanced and enjoyable. This receives little to no recognition in your evaluation. Second, terrain, flanking, and encircling have no effect at all? I find this to be outright false after well over a thousand hours in the game both at the modded and vanilla levels. The high ground is extremely valuable, especially when outnumbered or “outgunned.” Encirclements, especially against barbarian factions, lend to extremely effective routs of the enemy. Are you implying that the second a unit is flanked they should all turn tail and surrender? How is that any more realistic or enjoyable than what currently exists? When the statements above are factored into account, the battles become much more nuanced than simply “trading cards.” Third, the interface argument you made feels like it can be boiled down to “because it’s different from shogun 2 it’s wrong.” Many critics of the video have astutely pointed out that banners in earlier Total Wars gave little to no information regarding the strength or composition of an army, but in Rome 2 both details are clearly expressed using the banners alone. Your counter-argument that “units differences should simply be noticed through differences in unit spacing and formation” feels shortsighted: different infantry units in Rome 2 are spaced differently AND they have the extra detail provided in the banners. Fourth, if you had bothered to address the diplomatic and political overhaul, you would have realized it’s effect on countering your snowball issue. Especially in the late game, avoiding civil wars and secession becomes a huge late game threat. In fact it acts much in the same way realm divide gives you a momentous challenge when you’re on the cusp of victory. Beyond that, is it unrealistic to say that once an empire has begun in earnest, they can curb stomp smaller factions through devoting superior manpower and resources to their efforts? I would say no. Fifth, the reasoning given for why you didn’t explore DEI is quite a sorry excuse for “I didn’t do my homework.” When evaluating a game such as Rome 2, a critique is simply incomplete if you ignore the effect DEI has had in the game, and this is coming from someone who plays the game without DEI most of the time. Simply concluding that “the game is shit if it needs mods to be excellent” is lazy and shortsighted. If you had taken the time to try a DEI campaign, you would have realized that it takes game and completely polishes it into a masterpiece. One cannot evaluate the identity of Rome 2 in 2023 without addressing DEI in more detail. In conclusion, is the game without faults? No. However, the game gets some things so right, but you fail,to recognize those aspects whatsoever. Your evaluation feels shortsighted, cherry picked, and incomplete with little to no respect for the improvements this game has seen over the years. We get it, you really really like Shogun 2. However, you cannot fault Rome 2 simply for being different from the Total War you love the most.

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

does this mean that Rome 2 Is worth the 264¥ that i spend?

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Rome 2 was always WORTH

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

DEI???? I'm sorry but how dare you imply Rome 2 is not literal perfection! Diverse, equal, and inclusive

@mrsherman2906

9 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 But DEI increase Rome 2 sense of roleplay

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

"First, I agree with you that at launch, this game was bad. BUT, given by your very title, we’re evaluating the game as it stands now, not when it launched. Since it’s launch the updates, attention, and overhauls it has received have truly improved this game into something worth playing. For example, the diplomacy and politics aspects are nuanced and enjoyable. This receives little to no recognition in your evaluation." Yes and I examined the game as it stands as of August 2023. Almost all of the footage I used in the video is under 2 months old, with a few exceptions that are stretching back to about a year ago. If I was using footage from 7 or 8 years ago I might concede but that is simply not the case here. Diplomacy is not going to save a game that is fundamentally broken in other aspects of its design; the revamped army and province systems are massively negative changes and diplomacy will not be able to make up for that. Furthermore, no, diplomacy is literally as simple as getting non-aggression pacts with everyone you can and in my time playing the game for this video I did not encounter a single case of backstabbing; please also address the fact that you don't even need military access to walk over other factions' land, and they don't even retaliate? How is this supposed to be better than what we had before? Now that doesn't mean I'm implying previous games had ground-breaking diplomacy (they never did); but to act like Rome 2 isn't a downgrade from Shogun 2/FotS is delusional. If you fought a war poorly and lost an army the AI would take advantage of that and declare war on you; this does not happen in Rome 2. Likewise breaking alliances, looting and backstabbing in Shogun 2 incurred major public order penalties across ALL your provinces; it was still too lenient because of how weak rebels were but it's too bad Rome 2 undid any sort of meaningful consequences for not committing to your agreements. The fact that the AI is so passive towards the player just removes the value of pursuing alliances and other agreements (first to remove that faction from a list of enemies, and second to call on them in case you're attacked); you can add features like non aggression pacts and defensive alliances, but none of it, none of it is worth using because of how little impact these have in real terms. A feature that has no practical use adds nothing to the game. Moving on. "Second, terrain, flanking, and encircling have no effect at all? I find this to be outright false after well over a thousand hours in the game both at the modded and vanilla levels. The high ground is extremely valuable, especially when outnumbered or “outgunned.” Encirclements, especially against barbarian factions, lend to extremely effective routs of the enemy. Are you implying that the second a unit is flanked they should all turn tail and surrender? How is that any more realistic or enjoyable than what currently exists? When the statements above are factored into account, the battles become much more nuanced than simply “trading cards.” Already had more than a few battles and unit tests in the video covering the most important aspects of the game's balance. Pikes have long been the go-to for any faction that has them, and if you don't have pikes then the meta is to pin down the AI (they always blob so bad) and have your missile / javelin units fire at them from the flank. Cavalry are not decisive and dedicated melee infantry are terrible in a melee and are only worth bringing if they have missiles. Yes, I believe that all but the most elite units should suffer horribly if they get hit in the rear or flank with a clean charge; if you leave your men exposed like that, you SHOULD be punished severely. Go play Fall of the Samurai where the most basic units will rout at full strength; it's unforgiving and that's the point, the point is to avoid leaving your units in such a bad spot in the first place. It's about planning and you should be punished for doing it poorly. Finally height advantage does technically exist but it is so miniscule that it hardly matters. I should have featured a clearer 1v1 on that (though I thought the fact that Spartan Hoplites were demolishing my units while fighting UPHILL at 8:50 demonstrated that, but it seems people have trouble following reference footage). "Third, the interface argument you made feels like it can be boiled down to “because it’s different from shogun 2 it’s wrong.” Many critics of the video have astutely pointed out that banners in earlier Total Wars gave little to no information regarding the strength or composition of an army, but in Rome 2 both details are clearly expressed using the banners alone. Your counter-argument that “units differences should simply be noticed through differences in unit spacing and formation” feels shortsighted: different infantry units in Rome 2 are spaced differently AND they have the extra detail provided in the banners." Gave little to no information? Do you know that Medieval 2 had different shape banners for every unit class, in 2006? And what information are you asking for? Unit numbers and the name? You seem to have missed the point entirely: the only reason Rome 2 has to try and convey all this information through icons is it being a self-inflicted issue because they chose to bloat the roster. I think you might have serious comprehension problems if you don't see why having different colored unit cards like Shogun 2 is a much easier interface to parse than Rome 2 where all your faction units have the same color. Wow look at all these same color units for Rome where the only detail distinguishing them was a slightly different artwork on the shield, I can't wait to have to parse through this in the middle of battle. All I can really take from this is you are an extremely casual player who never actually tries to optimize your gameplay, because you would very quickly notice how much less intuitive the visual interfacing is in this game. "Fourth, if you had bothered to address the diplomatic and political overhaul, you would have realized it’s effect on countering your snowball issue. Especially in the late game, avoiding civil wars and secession becomes a huge late game threat. In fact it acts much in the same way realm divide gives you a momentous challenge when you’re on the cusp of victory. Beyond that, is it unrealistic to say that once an empire has begun in earnest, they can curb stomp smaller factions through devoting superior manpower and resources to their efforts? I would say no." Yea no I actually ignored politics during my playthroughs and it rarely ever resulted in serious issues. By a certain point in the mid game where you are pulling in 15-20k a turn you can easily afford the armies that are needed to put down rebels easily; all the army cap really does here is make you play a game of cat and mouse as the rebels never pose an existential threat to you. This is a severe downgrade from Realm Divide in FotS which split Japan into 2 superpower blocs. And because the other factions AI is so incredibly passive, there is never the threat of an enemy taking advantage of internal chaos to expand at your expense; which is something you very much had to deal with in FotS. Do you see how all these different elements are working together to just make the game tedious rather than providing a decent challenge? "Fifth, the reasoning given for why you didn’t explore DEI is quite a sorry excuse for “I didn’t do my homework.” When evaluating a game such as Rome 2, a critique is simply incomplete if you ignore the effect DEI has had in the game, and this is coming from someone who plays the game without DEI most of the time. Simply concluding that “the game is shit if it needs mods to be excellent” is lazy and shortsighted. If you had taken the time to try a DEI campaign, you would have realized that it takes game and completely polishes it into a masterpiece. One cannot evaluate the identity of Rome 2 in 2023 without addressing DEI in more detail." Sorry man but you genuinely lost me at this point; your sense of entitlement is pouring onto my screen. No one, absolutely no one attempting to do a factual review of a game should pass praise or criticism to it based on the community's work; it is a slippery slope and I am not going to open up the can of worms over what is the "Definitive Edition" of the game because a lot of people will have different ideas what that would encompass. I don't do it for Shogun 2. I don't do it for Empire TW. I don't do it for any of the games analyze; and I'm certainly not going to make the exception for Rome 2. I approached your comment critically and honestly but your fifth point really reveals what it was about all along: just a sad attempt to validate your own feelings for a mod. "In conclusion, is the game without faults? No. However, the game gets some things so right, but you fail,to recognize those aspects whatsoever. Your evaluation feels shortsighted, cherry picked, and incomplete with little to no respect for the improvements this game has seen over the years. We get it, you really really like Shogun 2. However, you cannot fault Rome 2 simply for being different from the Total War you love the most." I love how you paint this picture of me blindly hating Rome 2 and not once did you acknowledge the fact that I praised the game's implementation of the line of sight feature in field battles. All of your counterarguments are either disproven by the reference footage in the video (combat being a stat trading affair, the campaign being extremely restrictive and linear) or just don't compensate for all the regressions (the diplomacy). There is only one person with a clearly unhealthy attachment to a game here.

shogun 1 was the only good total war

@Tom_Quixote

8 ай бұрын

Medieval 1 was also good. But then that was it.

AI will use the natural counter to pikes, which is ranged units. Kind of hilarious this massive video on them, i dont know why youtube is recommending me your videos but your takes on balance are quite bad.

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

8 ай бұрын

yup, the AI used ranged units that have skirmish mode on which means you only need 1 unit of cavalry to disrupt them and ensure they almost never fire for the entirety of the battle. It's pretty fucking well known that pikes are by far the most effective unit class in the game. Truly an amazing game.

@blackknight4152

8 ай бұрын

​@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I would understand complaining about shitt unit cohesion, shit matched combat that breaks the game, shit collisions.... but pike balance? have you even played rome 1? When you dropped the pikes in front of AI they just instantly explode... same like rome 2. Pikes are meant to be defeated from behind, AI has been always retarded and it cant flank. you can use thureos spearmen, destroy them with prrecursor javelins, then hold them and flank and you win in a similar way.. The only difference is that the anvil is really strong in this case...

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

8 ай бұрын

this is an exercise in whataboutism. Yea, pikes in Rome 1 are also really good. Doesn't mean that Rome 2 is off the hook on that part. If a game in 2013 is achieving parity with one from 2004 then the former has failed. 9 years saw not only stagnation, but regression. Furthermore "AI has never been able to flank" yea maybe in Rome 1 and Med 2, same with Empire. But you know which game the AI reliably did flank? The ones directly preceding Rome 2: Shogun 2, FotS, RotS. Cavalry regularly flanked your spears meaning you would have to either budget your own cavalry to counter balance them or invest in sturdier spear units (Yari Samurai and Warrior Monks) who had the morale to guard the more vulnerable ashigaru. It was still quite exploitable but whatever progress we had made by then was just dumped by the wayside in Rome 2.

@blackknight4152

8 ай бұрын

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 What do you mean off the hook? You are in the succesors crisis period, you gotta have pikes doing what pikes do, its a matter of history through the lens of the game, last time CA made pikes terrrible was med 2, and they got heavily criticized, they found kind of the middle ground in Attila by giving them terrible stats and requiring you to use at least 3 ranks deph for any meaningful effectiveness, while lower tiers being bad against enemy heavy armor, which aligns with the era as well, because phalanx tactics were kind of gone until high middle ages, even then this pikes do work great. And it is surprising you call, charging the last unit to the side of the enemy formation " in the flank" to a cavalry unit that just suicides into a spear on the left or right, exposing its side to your own melee and ranged units... A proper flank is going straight for enemy back lines, disrupt ranged fire and force cavalry engagements to avoid this. AI can be tricked so many ways it hurts, and even when you dont, none of their flanking attempts are good aggainst the simplest of formations, spear in front archer behind. This happens in rome 2 and attila as well, and fails miserably by just angling a bit your spears in deployment phase. You can also in shogun 2 use bow cavalry to bait enemy cavalry into yari walls, like you can do in every total war with skirmish cav. AI plays like it has insane tunneling vision and very rarely makes decisions to change course and avoid certain major threats or disadvantageouss positions. I think you overestimate Shogun 2 greatness, battle wise, ai didnt change much in 20 years, this is bad on CA but doesnt make earlier games better than newer ones. I will agree with the notion that shogun 2 is one of the best tw, it drinks from the single hit point system from the goats (rome and med 2), has great campaing mechanics and AI that generally works great on it. Battles are quite good but the matched combat system is a quite bad inheritance from Empire and Napoleon when it comes to lines clashing, Shogun 2 collisions are inferior to medieval or rome 1 because of this. Unit balance is great, and the huge difference between yari and samurai gives a player something to play against near non-stop because there are so many ways too exploit AI to make their samurai advantage meaningless.

Switching from hit points to health bars jist ruined battles. Units have no weight or meaning to a charge, projectiles aren't even there, just white streak indicators.

Rome 2: worth it ten years later? In short, no. In long, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

@dishonorable_daimyo1498

9 ай бұрын

Eloquently put