I'm almost overwhelmed by all that you can do in one single battle!!! Can't wait for this to come out!!!
If CA can live up to this game's hype... It will be the best game I have played in my life. Not exaggerating. Been waiting way long for this.
Also: CITY VIEW!? WILL THERE BE CITY VIEW!?!?!?
I have a embarrassing number of hours put into Total War: Shogun 2. I'll be buying Total War: Rome 2 as well.
That looks awesome!!! I just hope they get AI right though as they don't have a very good track record in that area... Sill looking forward to it though!!! :)
Any word on bringing the dev console back? I still play the original Rome because of the easy modding that Rome allowed and the flexibility that use of the dev console allowed. I've have easily put more hours into Rome than all the other Total War games combined.
Every followup to the"original three" has been a quantum leap in story, replayability and graphics. Rome -2 will not disappoint. Then what?
I DESPERATELY WANT SOME TW: R ii DEV TO READ THIS (-not a piece of crap by a long shot;):
I noticed quite a curiosity regarding the preview battle footage:
How come that around 7 min mark the Romans are able to just sail into the carthaginian harbor on their ships uncontested - the least thing one could do since ancient times is to SECURE THE HARBOR ENTRANCE WITH A CHAIN!!!
I propose the dev-team squeeze in some sort of removable barrier/trap (lets say an automated turret like any other, which would make passing ships susceptible to hurled projectiles and fire) that can only be removed once such a defensive feature is captured by infantry storming the harbor through/over nearby walls, or perhaps by some specialist units like SPIES (pre-battle attempt like the old one with disabling city gates in RTW1 maybe?).
All I ask is that there not be too many scripted events. I enjoy the freedom of doing however I want.
VI Victrix/Sith/Arcani/Gerudo- Kraken approves of this.
May I ask two things?
One maintain a healthy balance between infantry - cavalry - missile, make sure one of the three does not dominate the others.
Secondly please make sure you get a better unit diversity than what we saw in Shogun 2. That was probably the greatest flaw of shogun.
With the roman-era some of that should be assured with the vast variety of nations. Even so try to avoid clone-like factions. I know it is alot harder to balance this properly. But the richer gameplay and strategies you end up with are definitely worth the trouble.
Oh and if we are going to see the avatar gameplay in Rome 2, would it not make alot more sence to make ranked battles in classic mode/non avatar games?
I mean no traits, no talents, everyone is at an equal footing, only skill decides who wins. From a ladder/tournament perspective there seems no reason to add anything to that, it is already perfect.
I wonder why so many games focus on uninteresting aspects of history when there is so much more to be found in real, creative games.
If they are investing so much in visuals, and since they already have a unit-cam why not let the player control specific units in FPS mode. Rise and Fall: Civilizations from Stainless Steel attempted to do so but not very successfully. However I think it's a very compelling idea that would essentially bring a whole new dimension to the game: turn-based strategy + RTS+ FPS.
You could for example control the General for limited amounts of time in FPS mode during critical moments of a battle. Also, you could conduct undercover missions such as assassinations from an FPS perspective. It seems they already have a pretty detailed model of Carthage, I would love to walk around in it as a spy or an assassin. Is this too much to ask? Maybe so..
Looks great, but I always felt that the TW series shifts focus from gameplay to spectacle. I'm sure nobody here will agree with this, but I would not mind one bit if the game played out in a fixed iso view and enabled the free roaming cam in replays only. Free roaming cams in RTS have virtually no value other than being in place to look sexy and give the player one more thing to contend with other than strategy and tactics.
@Greyskin1 Been watching this trailer now about I don't know 5 times at least and it looks better and better every time. Can't wait to play this, still hooked on Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai.
@jon2435 is that less than 40 hrs or more?
@mk_ultr4 They are not the same game by any means, I'd try out some of the older ones. For the record, the most critically acclaimed Total War game was actually made by CA when Activision was running it.
@AncientDozer Going off previous Total War games you should be fine.
@VIVVKraken Going off Rome 1 there should be loads of diversity.
@VIVVKraken is this the same Sith that worked on BareBones Wars? if so, that was the greatest mod for the first Rome and I played that more than the original
@VIVVKraken Agree with the no-traits/talents. The upgrading of the MP avatar could be: lvl 1 - roman units, lvl 2 - greek and carthaginian cleared, lvl 3 - unit experience point, etc.
@lalberro you mean like Urban assault? Urban assault was an rts game where you created units, but could also control one of your units. It worked well, but there were only like 10-30 units in your army, this game where you have like 1000 people in your army, it seems less worthwhile.
But in fall of the samurai you could control your gatling guns.
@lalberro don't mean to be a troll but you said it yourself
Rise and Fall: Civilizations from Stainless Steel attempted to do so but
NOT very successfully
that would require some serious time on conceptualizing of new mechanics and even more on testing and coming up with new solution. 9 times out of 10 radiclly new ideas dont work right away perhaps in 20 or 30 years we may have something that can balance the pros and cons of two different genres. In the mean time there is no reason to risk ruining what is shaping up the best total war so far.
All i can say is give it time
@lalberro If you want to be an assassin buy Assasins Creed this is WAR. You have some good ideas though. But I think you are asking too much.
in shogun 2 at least you can activate real general mood where you are fixed on the general and you have to move him around to see more of the battle from his propective just fyi
I agree, they're the supermodels of the strategy genre - great looking and high profile but kinda dumb. Good fun though.
That being said, Homeworld is still one of my all-time favorite games which is partly because of the great story AND immersive audiovisual presentation.
@ChaosUndivided Why can't you have both? The FPS mode for undercover missions could be optional by using auto-resolve
@ragnar320 Now that's a cool idea. Maybe they could expand on that by giving you fixed commander views? Say you are Alexander and only have his view, then you hotkey over to your Hoplite commander and then get his view. Pretty immersive then. Without the ability to pan the camera though, it could be tricky issuing move orders. I'm sure something can be worked out though.
@phrozac dude, have you even played a tw game? calling the close up camera fluff? wtf are you spouting off about. you dont like it dont scroll the mousewheel! lol.'
you sound like some derp trying to be some elite strategist when saying that it "gets in the way" again dont like it scroll all the way out.
most people want good looking beards and graphics. you want pure strategy play checkers....thats basic enough for you?
@lalberro It amazes me how spoiled people tend to be.
They are giving you a lot more than a finger, yet you keep asking for even more than a hand.
Total War is exactly what it is; stop trying to make it something else and irrelevant. Enjoy what you get. They are working hard enough as it is to deliver on this game.
@vrgada @ragnar320 the point of the commander mode is immersion. In a fluff RTS combat mode whose focus is to give the player the experience of being on the ground in the fight, this mode makes perfect sense. It isn't the best way to command an army in a game, but it is the closest thing you can get to BEING one of those ancient commanders.
I think the difference here is that you care more for the cinematic experience and should maybe watch Gladiator or LOTR instead. I want a GAME that I PLAY and am 100% responsible for the outcome, rather than watch. There is more at stake and you feel like you accomplished something if you win. I feel like a lot of the big RTS's out there are playing for me and all I do is sit and watch. TW rts and DOW 2 campaigns feel like that. Warcraft 3, various C&C's, DOW 1, and Homeworld, all made me feel like I worked for it, thus greater satisfaction at a job well done.
@vrgada I'm assuming you're a kid because adults should have better reading comprehension than what you're displaying. If you ARE in fact an adult...oy. There's a happy medium of playability and fluff. I think TW leans towards the fluff. I'm not saying turn it into Checkers or a bland hex-based game. I used Starcraft as an example of more focus on gameplay than fluffy cinematic in-game cameras. It's not an example of how I would advocate TW emulate. It's also much more attractive looking than a hex-based tactics game. Would you play a fighting game like Street Fighter or Tekken with a controllable 3d cam? How do you think that affects gameplay? What do you think that adds to the experience/playability/dev cost/dev time? How much time would you spend rotating the cam and looking at stuff rather than actually PLAYING the game? I'm approaching this as a fan and a developer. A lot of careful consideration has to be made when discussing a 3d controllable cam. As I said earlier, Creative is leaning towards fluff. My whole argument is an observation and criticism of their philosophy. Imagine how much better a strategy game TW could be if they leveraged their resources more into the gameplay department? You obviously like what TW has to offer. I can respect that. I'm looking for something different and wish Creative could cater more to me (lol) since they DO make gorgeous games in historical periods that I find fascinating.
@phrozac lol i love how you assume im a kid, not really, grown man who just appreciates the mix of strategy and outright action the total war series is. there are plenty of boring hex based strategy games out there, total war has no equal, its in its own class. please, dont advocate changing it to your basic strat game.
@vrgada me - "close up camera fluff"
vrgrada - "most people want good looking beards and graphics."
Good looking beards, huh? How good looking those beards are sure does have an impact on the flow of battle. Like I said, Fluff.
Don't get so angry, kid. I'm not saying the game sucks, I'm saying that if they shifted their focus on gameplay more and less of fluff, maybe the game would be even better? Look at Starcraft. No fancy camera and it's a huge eSport, way bigger than TW. TW gives you an option to auto-resolve your battles. Creative Assembly builds these games to have flashy fluff RTS combat that is OPTIONAL. The meat of TW games is the strategic map. Bros like you should just stick to things you know about instead of making silly arguments, maybe Mortal Kombat?
@Gelugon_baat It's always been my opinion in this entire thread. And the subject wasn't "aesthetics", rather it was "gameplay". But I guess we can assume that "aesthetics" was the subject over at Creative Assembly.
@Gelugon_baat But I do appreciate cinematic cams, if used appropriately in situations that call for it. TW's cam is all fluff. I guess I wasn't super clear in my 1st two comments.
@Gelugon_baat Anyway, something for everyone. I love how the TW games look. Just making an observation about the camera. No need to get all fussy about an opinion. :)
@Gelugon_baat Haha. I'll try to simplify my language. Technical specs are immaterial. All the games in question can be equally well-designed for arguments' sake. My entire point is about the single choice of having a 3d cam for a 2d game. A 2d game with a 3d cam gets 1 benefit = it looks sexier. The downfall for that sexiness is control. To best serve gameplay, a 2d game should have a 2d cam. A 3d game can easily warrant a 3d cam as it uses 3 axes of space. My whole argument is in favor of not sacrificing gameplay. My initial statement being that I believe the TW series places greater priority on looks over gameplay. There is no gameplay value added to zooming into a single soldier's beard. Also, dev time is increased with a 3d cam, as the dev's must then build their world assets in such a way that a 3d cam will not break the visuals.
@Gelugon_baat And to be absolutely clear, yes, Homeworld was a perfect case for a 3d camera because of the absence of gravity...that's a 3d space RTS and not a 2d TW game with no real elevation to consider. This was beyond a genre-based argument I was making. 3d cam's shouldn't be the sole property of space games, you could make a strong case for having a 3d cam in a Naval RTS which takes place above and below the surface of the water.Your point was...?
@Gelugon_baat I sure do. The argument I'm making is the uselessness of a 3d camera in TW and other 2d RTS's (COH & DOW & WIC if we're staying earthbound), not genres. My personal opinion is that the 3d camera gets in the way of gameplay purely for the sake of good looks. Gameplay is then slowed down just to look sexy. No matter how good you are, there is a certain amount of time you'll be spending fiddling with the camera that could be spent making strategic decisions or issuing tactical commands. I understand that I can always set the camera up top and not move it, but what about competitive play? The 3d cam introduces balance effects in competitive play in either case of two 3d cams, or one 3d and one fixed cam. The best case scenario for the sake of gameplay, is a fixed cam in all play modes. Just sayin'.
@Gelugon_baat I plug that brilliant 13 year old game every chance I get. ;) Homeworld was a game that made sense to have a 3d camera as the game played out in 3 axes. There isn't really any elevation to consider in TW games.