All of the things released about this game looks awesome, im just hoping the game will deliver on release. Not preordering though, too many games released lately, that weren't similar to pre release footage at all, make me stay my hand. 

As far as I understood the DEVs, the PC and console version will be identical, content wise - the only thing they will change in the pc version, is controls (obviously) and some UI changes to go with the PC rather than console as well as graphics options. 

Basically, the content of the game will be the same, when it's fully released.

I completed the game using KB/M just fine though, so I don't really see a big point waiting to get this one.. It's not like the other early or beta games on steam, that are missing most of the content. (even though beta's should be feature complete..) 

Just completed it on PC using M/KB. Really good zombie survival - SURVIVAL - game. The best I have played so far. Can only recommend it to other GS'ers!

If the reviews are good, im probably going to get it as well. The game looks awesome, but what is shown before the release of a game and what you actually get to play on release, are not allways the same thing, so im carefully optimistic.

I also think poor management is one of the reasons so many things about Rome II feels unfinished, but I can't help but wonder why CA was not allowed to finish the game by SEGA, when it's pretty obvious that things like AI needed fixing before release. 

I know Rome II got preordered by a lot of people and everything and that SEGA would earn a lot of money from the release, but don't they think about the next total war game?

Seriously, a lot of my friends have allways bought CA products on release (TW games mainly), but now, none of us are going to preorder the next release, because of Rome II and Empire - I can't help but think we are not the only gamers who will wait for reviews etc. when the next TW game is released and that is a shame, because CA repaired their image with the release of Shogun II. 

SEGA should really think a bit about the brand of CA and how much the brand name is worth..

I run the game flawlessly on extreme settings, and the graphics are very very good. 

People who encounter bad graphics either have an unfortunate combination of specs on their comp, or they don't meet the requirements for the game to run on extreme settings. 

The game has been set on a new course compared to earlier TW games. The battles feels disjointed somehow, and you don't have the same feelings as you did in pre warscape games (game engine) of the "flow of the battle", from just looking at the screen. 

The reason for this, is, that most of what you see on the screen when playing a battle in Rome II, is "cosmetics" displaying the data being worked through in your computer i.e. if you engage a hostile unit with your own unit, and two men from each unit engages into melee 1v1 combat, shown graphically with pretty awesome animations - you will NOT see, that either of those engaged in the 1v1, can have a stat like "surrounded". Because in Rome II, if a man during combat is surrounded by hostiles, he will mathematically be attacked by all who surrounds him (and die A LOT faster) - BUT the warscape engine of Rome II is not capable of showing this, thus - instead we see a 1v1 battle - where a peasant might defeat a spartan royal guard (if the spartan royal guard is surrounded).

In short, this means you cannot - with the warscape engine - "feel" how the battle is evolving, unless you look at the stats and display and ui. 

The ebbe and flow of battles in Rome II aside, the battles them self feels over too fast. If you engage in gigantic battles with 5-10k men, the whole battle will be done in between 5-10 minutes. 

When starting a battle in Rome II on legendary (hardest (not that hard- seriously, a major complaint as well) difficulty, the best strategy to employ is usually selecint all your enemies and right clicking on the center of the enemy, maybe hold your cavalry back to do a charge into the enemies backs/flanks). 

Besides that, the AI is very very shallow, and have problems with pathfinding, sieges and a "capture the flag" a somewhat disputed addition to Rome II. 

On the campaign map, you will instantly see the increase in graphics detail, the world map has under gone - it's really beautifull. But soon after the initial impressions, you get past the feeling of "oh shiny" and starts realising, that good mechanics from earlier games have been scrapped from Rome II (city taxing, family tree, building what you prefer in cities, walling cities etc.) and some new, questionable mechanics have been introduced (politics system - without any impact on gameplay, what so ever (you can ignore the politics system, did that in 3 games, and it will not have any impact at all, on your game). 

The artwork that went into cities and buildings icon earlier, as well as the "details" on any given building or unit in the game, has been replaced with "icons" that are easy to recognise, but putrid to look at, compared to what could be. The desciptions of buildings and units are done without the creative feel they previously had, but has as a trade off remained closer to historical accuracy (though granted, there is still a way to go). 

Some good things can be said about the campaign map as well however, cities are now put into provinces, from where you control the entirety of the regions (smaller unwalled cities) included in the province - this makes it easier (something Rome II tries really hard to, and is recurrent throughout the game - being easy) to manage your province. 

The overall feel of the game, is barely existant. It's very hard to get attached to your generals when you don't know from whence they came (missing family tree) and when they die so fast, they never really become usefull (1 turn per year, instead of season). 

Later in the game, where you will be replacing your generals in a steady pace, maybe 1-3 per turn, you just select a new generic general from a "pool" and you stop caring about wether they live or die. 

There are many things to write about Rome II, but I will force my self to stop at this juncture. Rome II is a good game, better than most out there in the world - but Rome II is not just Rome II - it's a TOTAL WAR game, and because of that, my expectations were higher and I anticipated more, a lot more from Rome II, than what I am currently able to play. 

Many of the things about Rome II that I don't like can be fixed, like the AI pathfinding, AI Siege mechanics, battle speed and of course optimization for those unfortunate gamers, that have awfull perfomance on their otherwise great rigs etc. 

But many of the things about Rome II that I do not like, cannot easily be fixed, like the use of the warscape engine and it's limitations, the whole streamlining of the core concept of TW games to make them easier. The design choices that went into making the game easier to play, has in my oppinion taken away depth and immersion, while granted, streamlining the game. 

Would I prefer to play a streamlines TW game, where every action I take have less meaning?  (if you loose a legion, don't worry about it, they can magically respawn again (reinstate legion) with the same experience, as before they got wiped out by those pesky barbarians), (did my general die? Casear, im afraid so, - well pick another one from the magic hat Trebonius and do your best for a happy face). 

No, I would prefer to play a TW game where my decisions have impact on the game, that could change the outcome of how my nation will evolve. I would prefer some kind of connection to the house/family/tribe I play, I prefer more depth to the gameplay - let me choose what to build and in which order, do I want to focus on infrastructure, improve the roads and networks in the empire, thus allowing trade to flourish and my armies to reinforce the frontlines at a faster pace or will I instead want to improve my economy? well sorry lad, but you don't even have the option to focus on building infrastructure.   

Towns and cities have a set of building slots, which makes sure that the city of Rome for instance, cannot have more than 5 buildings. Pantheon, colosseum, cirkus maximus, Arch of Titus, Baths of Trajan, and a farm/villa cannot be build in rome you say? - nope, Rome is restricted to having only 5 buildings, sorry!

To end my ramblings, I wanna give a heads up on the official apology from Mike Simpson, Creative Director at Creative Assembly - who gave an apology on the Rome II forums, for the state of Rome II at release, promising to fix, most of the issues not having with design decisions => Im Sorry! 

As for the rest, we can allways hope CA decide to add more depth into expansions/dlc's or sequels and as allways, we allready have and will get more great mods for Rome II on www.twcenter.net

I've played it for a bit, it became too boring, so I stopped halfway through - concept of the game is pretty good, the nailing of the concept failed thou..

Medieval would be awesome, China would be interesting as well. Im not interested in modern times for total war - Sword N' Board all the way :)

Preordered Rome 2 on disc :)

Preordered, most anticipated game since Shogun II :)