This is all I have seen so far. I was hoping Zorine might be able to get some more info on this for us:
"There is also a cap on the number of armies a faction can have at any time based on the faction's power.
A faction can gain more power by conquering more regions and filling its coffers with gold.
This system has been implemented to make battles more decisive and for them to have a bigger impact on a war between two factions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War:_Rome_II
I personally don't like arbitrary, artificial limits in games like this. That's why I'd like to know more about the how and the why of it? I suspect some of it may have more to do with limiting game engine resource usage than with anything dealing with "pure game design elements".
Nice video for those new to the TW type RTS game series, although it did take me a while before I realised from your pronunciation that "mapawareness" might in fact be a single word.
Do you have any info on new Army limits in Rome 2 TW as compared to previous TW games? There is talk of Army "caps" in this game that did not exist before. Before, as long as you could afford them, you could have as many armies in the field as you liked. Now, it would seem they as though they suddenly want to limit us. Why and how would it work?
First of all, good review. It is accurate in almost every respect - except it takes 2 points to turn around iirc, not 1.
I agree entirely about the missing multiplayer opportunities here. For example, it is on Steam, but I have to "create" a new SH account to play with friends? I can "create" a random game in an invisible lobby, but I have no earthly idea who may join or even when, and no way to join others' games because I can't see them. The dev working on this part must have gone on vacation way before he finished the job.
Another stinker is the view - you can't really change it. You can rotate 45 degrees left or right at a time and sort of scroll in and out a little, but there is NO FREE CAMERA option. That is simply an inexcusable oversight for a miniatures-based game like this. Just allow us to move the camera around like in any modern RTS-style game so we can "take in the view".
The tutorials are a MUST for newcomers to the game. I would also recommend pushing the gamma way up - it is just too dark to enjoy what view you do have on "normal" imo.
All this is really a shame because I played the original and the computer versions, and I would unfortunately have to recommend the actual board game over this if you have a kitchen table and friends to play it with.
They did a great job porting a board game to PC. They just needed to do more because it is entirely too dry and overall uninviting the way they did it, and they totally missed the mark for online multiplayer.
They should also have included an optional campaign game with rpg-style elements as suggested in the review.
@eldermic Kind of looked like a gamepadder playing on a PC - "Duh, where are da buttons? And where is da wiggly stick thingy? How is I pos' a aim wifout my wiggly stick thingy?"
Half the time he was being chased by the enemy and didn't seem to even realize it.
And they called this vid "Scoutin' Classy"? "Scoutin' Lollzville" might have been more appropriate.
Currently Warner has the license. They also own Turbine which runs the LoTR Online mmorpg game.
EA dropped the licensing agreement as they rushed Conquest out the door ahead of time because they wanted that money in their pockets instead of supporting the games they had put out.
That's why the LoTR Battle for Middle Earth RTS series games came to such a screeching halt. Not because they weren't good, they were very good, but because some people at EA wanted to make the wad in their billfolds even bigger. This is one of the poorest examples of asset management in recent gaming history, or as some at EA at that time might have put it as they lit their cigars with hundred dollar bills, "Just another log on the fire buddies, just another log. Ain't nuthin to worry 'bout, snicker snicker".
duderdave's comments