I just pre ordered my copy of Rome Total War 2. Anyone else going to play this?
I love this set of games and have looked forward to this, since Medieval 2.
I may try it - big Medieval TW fan but could not get into the last couple of titles they put out.
Hi Der Kuenstler.
I hate Shogun and played Empire to death, but had issues with it. The main one was that I could not get rich playing it!
Napoleon I love. As England I get to rule the waves and trade lanes in a massive way, whilst defeating arrogant France and I can get to fight the world as Prussia, sitting in the middle of the world as it does, all making for a fun game.
Tell me RJPeters: are you a Roman, a Spartan, a Carthaginian or a Barbarian?
I flit between Roman and Carthaginian.
Cant wait to play it
I should have downloaded it to steam yesterday, so I could have been playing this morning. Both my wife and daughter are out. Might not get the opportunity until Friday now.
I have an A&A student friend(London) currently playing and loving it. Grrr!
If anyone plays before then, tell me how good it is and how much I am missing out please!
Here’s a review of the game that I found by accident in The Guardian. I haven’t done more than glance at it, but the final paragraph is pretty harsh in its assessment:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/06/total-war-rome-ii-review
Thank you Marc.
It is possibly early to judge at the moment, but I have made up my opinion.
I do not love like it like the first, with its Barbarian expansion.
I hate Shogun and this is reminiscent of it.
Pity.
I might have to stick to playing AAA here!
I was obsessed with the original Medieval Total War (+ expansion). The original MTW had lots of non-siege combat since an army was either in or out of a territory, the AI tended to mass on border territories, and crossing the border usually resulted in battle.
When they introduced more realistic strategic map troop movement (in the original Rome Total War) where armies move within territories (not just between them), the AI performed poorly on the strategic map and it seemed like almost every battle I was fighting was a siege. Did that bug anyone else? Has this improved at all?
I liked the campaign map of original Rome, but found fighting the battles infuriatingly slow and visually displeasing.
Med 2 was excellent, but more often than not it would crash in the battles. Graphics were better than Rome too.
I know what you mean about the countless sieges and all you had to do was wait it out on 20 mins and you would win anyway. Could leave the room half the time!
AI was very retarded. They say they have tried to correct this in Rome2.
I just do not like the campaign map as much as the older games. This one is like Shogun2.
Also, I feel like there is no revenue to be had.
I like becoming a millionaire!
I was such a tight arse when I played Medieval and Rome.
You could never get rich with Empires and I think this looks the same. . Napoleon was a fine game. I even played a friend on line.
Is it good, is it good?? It should be in my mailbox, I am on vacation and cant wait to get home ;)
As for sides, it can only be Macedonia, of course.
Cant say my battles were all sieges, Wheat, but there were too many skirmishes. With the new system of limited number of armies, that should be remedied.
Btw, Europa Universalis IV is very good, much better than III. Not sure if known in the US, though.
Alexgreat: I think it will be worth playing and I hope you enjoy it more than me.
It just doesn’t blow me away like Napoleon, Med2 and Rome did when they came out.
Have fun as Macedonia. I am 20 turns in and have only conquered 2 provinces. I have twice marched to a City, only to find another State besieging it! Very annoying. Attacked the besieger, it was so frustrating.
Am off home soon to play another hour. And probably attack Carthage as they are knocking on Caralis’ door.
Enjoy the rest of your holiday.
@alexgreat:
Btw, Europa Universalis IV is very good, much better than III. Not sure if known in the US, though.
I dunno, but I bought EU4 when it came out because I was missing a good historical strategy game. Took awhile to get the hang of it, but I’m enjoying it.
Thx witmann. With Napoleon, I never found a way into it, I guess I did not try long enough. I like the period, though, playing a PBEM game called Austerlitz - The Rise of the Eagle. There was a US provider, think not anymore.
There was a great version for Rome I, I think it was called Rome Total Realism. Was great, many new units. Isnt it great as Macedonia to deploy such a mix of units, so many specialists.
EU IV surely needs time. But so many decisions almost all the time, really well made. Which nations you like to play, Wheat?
So far I’ve enjoyed Sweden and the Ming Empire.
I had less success trying to play as Bohemia, but I’ll probably try again at some point.
What do you recommend?
Hm, Sweden is my favorite country, always has been. Once you beat Denmark and secure against Rus, its easy normally. I like playing Austria since I am from there, but although France is a pain in the ass, it is not that difficult normally (its nice to get the Dutch countries early through an event, but takes resources to core them). England, France, also Spain are big countries that go well usually. Starting with a one territory nation is fun, but hard. I enjoyed native American nations, and also Mayas (hard technology-wise once Europeans knock on the door). Never played Asian.
Bohemia is tough I guess, having Austria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and many others so close.
Whatever I play, I change to Protestantism as soon as I can. Even with Austria. Strangely, I never was elected Emperor after that ;)
oh dear, the RTW II forums kill the game. Better not read more than I have already…
I must admit I am finding it hard going and not too much fun, but I hope you do not.
Thx. I definitly have no high end computer, so I hope technicalitiea dont atop me. Bad enough should the game itself be problematic, as it seems to be. Will find out soon. If they remove most problems, maybe we can have a game together a some point?
