Why do people think this will be fixed? Evidence and history tells us the opposite.

[chris10]

Do you remember defending a hole in a wooden wall from an entire army with 3 units of pikemen? Do you remember full stack armies of peasants and ballista? Do you remember an enemy army stack walking around with a captain, and the general walking around by himself nearby? Remember suicide generals?

Heck....yeah...those ballista armys were hilarious in RTW
I too remember units which, under certain circumstances, lost cohesion and spread over the entire map...
or the siege-battle-reinforcement-click-end_battle_CTD which never got fixed and haunts Rome mod players until today

[Yuko]

Do you? Do you remember defending a hole in a wooden wall from an entire army with 3 units of pikemen? Do you remember full stack armies of peasants and ballista? Do you remember an enemy army stack walking around with a captain, and the general walking around by himself nearby? Remember suicide generals?

b-but muh nostalgia!!? r-rome 1 was perfect


But seriously, people have this weird nostalgia for Rome 1. like the game was perfect and Rome 2 needed to be Rome 1 with better graphics.


Honestly, both Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are completely unplayable anymore without mods, at least for me, but for some reason people like to glorify them as the perfect total war games...

[VektorT]

I have to agree with some that had being said here.

When I first play Rome1, that game has some deep problems, like the total lack of hoplite units, with all of them being just pike phalanx. It hurted my soul. Also every other faction besides Rome was very basic to play with. But STILL... when I played it was epic and I could sense that, sonner or later, with mods, someone will make is outstanding. And, yes, it happened. Mods like EB and RS made it a mindblown game, almost bug free and a huge development from the original game.

Medieval2 also was something like that. At first, I played it and was like "blergh! will wait for mods" but also I could feel that this game had the potential to be awesome. And it is with mods like Stainless Steel.

But Rome2... I cant see how it could be that great since all one can do is rebalance some things and add more units! It simply lacks important features and the game mechanics are very basic! I know it will be good at some point, but it wouldn't be half epic as I was expecting to be! Maybe a miracle save it, but unfortunately I'm not a pious guy and I dont believe in miracles... sorry Ramones

[SonOfCrusader76]

Beta Patch 2 seems to suggest otherwise; it's already fixed a great many things, although there is still a lot of work to do, CA.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

But Rome2... I cant see how it could be that great since all one can do is rebalance some things and add more units! It simply lacks important features and the game mechanics are very basic! I know it will be good at some point, but it wouldn't be half epic as I was expecting to be! Maybe a miracle save it, but unfortunately I'm not a pious guy and I dont believe in miracles... sorry Ramones

Why do you think this?

When the proper tools come out, this will be (At the absolute very least) as moddable as Napoleon. And if you think all they can do is rebalance stats and add more units, I'll kindly point you over to The Great War mod.

And, for that matter, I am sure that Rome 2 will be more popular than NTW, with more modders working on it.

[Yuko]

I have to agree with some that had being said here.

When I first play Rome1, that game has some deep problems, like the total lack of hoplite units, with all of them being just pike phalanx. It hurted my soul. Also every other faction besides Rome was very basic to play with. But STILL... when I played it was epic and I could sense that, sonner or later, with mods, someone will make is outstanding. And, yes, it happened. Mods like EB and RS made it a mindblown game, almost bug free and a huge development from the original game.

Medieval2 also was something like that. At first, I played it and was like "blergh! will wait for mods" but also I could feel that this game had the potential to be awesome. And it is with mods like Stainless Steel.

But Rome2... I cant see how it could be that great since all one can do is rebalance some things and add more units! It simply lacks important features and the game mechanics are very basic! I know it will be good at some point, but it wouldn't be half epic as I was expecting to be! Maybe a miracle save it, but unfortunately I'm not a pious guy and I dont believe in miracles... sorry Ramones

hmm Shogun 2 is more moddable than Rome 1 and Medieval 2. CA did say they were going to release modding tools for Rome 2 at one point, so this "all you can do is rebalance some things and add more units" won't be true in a few months I imagine. and tbh, forgetting some things like unit speed, Rome 2 is not a game I look and think "oh mods will make it great!" like Rome 1 and Medieval 2. that already speaks volumes about it.

[King Xiao]

They can patch the game all they like, but i doubt they will do anything about the lack of features. The game has ZERO depth. So many game mechanics are hollow or just non existent.

[Unahim]

Let me try to follow this logic... So first: Admission that some games have been good, some games have been bad, establishing that similar situations can play out different with regards to CA releases. Followed by: statement that CA releases can not play out different compared to one another, and that a bad game will thus not be patched because a previous one also was not. Right, some massive confirmation bias in this thread.

[Yuko]

Let me try to follow this logic... So first: Admission that some games have been good, some games have been bad, establishing that similar situations can play out different with regards to CA releases. Followed by: statement that CA releases can not play out different compared to one another, and that a bad game will thus not be patched because a previous one also was not. Right, some massive confirmation bias in this thread.

Oh funny thing? the game that apparently was not patched and was a disaster. is actually patched and perfectly playable nowadays.

[Metallistic]

The game has ZERO depth.

Compared to what? Rome 1 and Medieval 2? Don't be ridiculous.

[King Xiao]

Rome 1 and Med 2 had family trees, character development that you actually cared about. Battle speeches relating to your characters traits. It had settlements where you could build more than 5 structures. A campaign battle experience that wasn't 90% sieges.

[Yoke]

Ill be honest it was 5/10 for me on launch day(faults and the added anti-climax let down) its a low 8/10 now, and in several weeks prob a 10/10

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Firstly i remember the good launches like Rome I,Napoelon,Medieval II and Shogun II and i remember my distinct feelings towards each title including the bad launches of Rome II and Empire Totalwar.When i first played the original rome sure it had faults and needed a realism patch but i still felt the game was epic and that turned out to be warranted going by the spawn of realistic mods and televisions shows like Time Commanders and Decisive Battles.Medieval II launch was more of the same except the Naval Invasions and day one patch took two months to quell some unrest.Napoelon was also a polished launch apart from again the same realism and minor bug's denting the perfection of the titles.And Shogun II apart from DX 11 at launch and another invasions bug was again a great game that although too fast just felt and looked perfect.

Rose coloured glasses here - R1TW was far less functional than MTW and even STW. A part of it relates to the fact that the AI couldn't deal with the new 3d map at all and changing the units to 3d led to a myriad of problems. Diplomacy was completely dysfunctional as being attacked by an ally or enemy purely depended on the adjacent cities garrison and if they attacked it was with a stack purely composed of peasants. In that attack, it then charged the only unit that wasn't a peasant (in most cases the general, if it had one) into the closest phalanx unit it could find.

In sieges, the AI wouldn't do anything except get itself get shot to bits. In bridge battles, AI soldiers drowned in masses because they all fell off the bridges, just as player units fell off walls by the thousands.

The unit roster included screeching women, germanic phalanx and bretons armed with armor-piercing heads.The entire unit roster was so ridiculous Dodo Death-Squads wouldn't have significantly stood out.

M2TW did more of the same and introduced all catapult AI armies, two-handed units that couldn't deal any damage because their combat anmiations were so slow their strikes would never connect as well as a two year/turn campaign with characters aging a year per turn, resulting in kings ruling for 140 years on top of that.

ETW was completely dysfunctional at release and was unfixable, whereas I can't say much about NTW as I never managed to play it for more than a couple of hours.

S2TW did a lot of things right - especially picking the right scenario, which allowed for a very well balanced campaign, an overall campaign duration that allowed for 4 turns/year and interesting choices (guns vs bows).

Having played R2TW for 70 hours yet, I must say that it is one of the best releases so far - battles need to be slowed down by about 50%, unit cohesion needs a lot of work, 2 turns per year should be default (not an issue, but having to edit it back to two turns/y each time they release a patch might become annoying and it's just so much better) and they need to add family trees by all means.

A rushed release with lots of flaws without doubt, but after having played a modded 2.0 beta for 12 hours today, I can safely say that I will sink >1000 hours into this game (as a comparison: S2TW ~600 hours, ETW and NTW <60 hours combined). And I don't even like the classical period.

[Metallistic]

Rome 1 and Med 2 had family trees, character development that you actually cared about. Battle speeches relating to your characters traits. It had settlements where you could build more than 5 structures. A campaign battle experience that wasn't 90% sieges.

So 2 minor features and being able to plonk a variety of buildings with no planning required is the difference between zero depth and having an abundance of it? That is an extremely ignorant way of thinking. The features that you mentioned can easily be addressed with a patch and the province system with the combination of the technology tree actually offers way more depth than the previous system of plonking random buildings and getting away with it with no negative setbacks. Your choices MATTER. Having a variety of buildings is such an illusion of depth, especially when ALL of them can be constructed in the same settlement. Where is the challenge in this? Not to mention that the buildings are available from the get go provided that you are at the current settlement level and have the money... The introduction of food as a resource emphasizes the need to pay careful attention to what when and where you build.

Silly statements like that irritate me as they are not objective at all and just ride the wave of blinded rage and negativity. Before you pull the "hurr durrr fanboi" card, check out the history of my posts in other threads. I still maintain the opinion that the game should have been released at least 3 months later and that its initial state is inexcusable. But to thrash the game just for sake of it and to spout nonsense left and right without looking at both sides of the coin is moronic.

As for the "campaign battle experience" and the "90% sieges", patch 2 beta addresses just that. Even some of the most vocal critics have praised it for how it has improved the game overall.

[Turtle Kent]

You say that history tells us the opposite - that Empire was never fixed. Empire was fixed, and you even admit that you never played Empire again after your first experience with it. With mods etc, Empire turned into a great game. I played the American Civil War mod for a really long time. Stop being pessimistic; if CA doesn't fix it modders will.

[Metallistic]

Not to mention that this is not just "another" TW. This is a sequel to their most respected and beloved title - Rome 1. Do you seriously think they are going to leave the game with some basic fixes? Have you forgotten that they are also working on 15GB of extra content through DLCs and expansions? Those two questions alone put your whole statement to rest.

[Colonel Dax]

Rome: Total War...had a good launch?

[Yuko]

Rose coloured glasses here - R1TW was far less functional than MTW and even STW. A part of it relates to the fact that the AI couldn't deal with the new 3d map at all and changing the units to 3d led to a myriad of problems. Diplomacy was completely dysfunctional as being attacked by an ally or enemy purely depended on the adjacent cities garrison and if they attacked it was with a stack purely composed of peasants. In that attack, it then charged the only unit that wasn't a peasant (in most cases the general, if it had one) into the closest phalanx unit it could find.In sieges, the AI wouldn't do anything except get itself get shot to bits. In bridge battles, AI soldiers drowned in masses because they all fell off the bridges, just as player units fell off walls by the thousands.The unit roster included screeching women, germanic phalanx and bretons armed with armor-piercing heads.The entire unit roster was so ridiculous Dodo Death-Squads wouldn't have significantly stood out. M2TW did more of the same and introduced all catapult AI armies, two-handed units that couldn't deal any damage because their combat anmiations were so slow their strikes would never connect as well as a two year/turn campaign with characters aging a year per turn, resulting in kings ruling for 140 years on top of that.ETW was completely dysfunctional at release and was unfixable, whereas I can't say much about NTW as I never managed to play it for more than a couple of hours.S2TW did a lot of things right - especially picking the right scenario, which allowed for a very well balanced campaign, an overall campaign duration that allowed for 4 turns/year and interesting choices (guns vs bows).Having played R2TW for 70 hours yet, I must say that it is one of the best releases so far - battles need to be slowed down by about 50%, unit cohesion needs a lot of work, 2 turns per year should be default (not an issue, but having to edit it back to two turns/y each time they release a patch might become annoying and it's just so much better) and they need to add family trees by all means.A rushed release with lots of flaws without doubt, but after having played a modded 2.0 beta for 12 hours today, I can safely say that I will sink >1000 hours into this game (as a comparison: S2TW ~600 hours, ETW and NTW

this pretty much sums all of my opinion. great post!

[Irishman]

I don't even know how you can think Med 2 and Rome I were "good launches". If anything, the current playability of those games should make us hopeful for the launch! Oh, and you can't really cite Napoleon as it was an expansion.

All of these games (even Empire to an extent) became very playable, engrossing experiences through patches and mods. Why would this be any different?

[Kenios]

I knew this is a joke thread when OP said Rome 1 and Medieval 2 had good launches. Hah, that's a good one! Peasants sitting on top of walls can smash elite units climbing up. Cavalry can smash phalanxes by charging them from the front. Allies would, for no reason, blockade your port and start a war. Campaign AI would go senile once you stop the game.