Is there much diffrence between Rome I and Rome II

[elpbee]

I have Rome I and i think of buying Rome II. But ist there any difference

[Coldhands]

The Total War series changes each game. Every other game or so, it changes a lot, and it's been 5 games since Rome I. So yes, they're fairly different.
I mean, they're still both Total War, so you're going to build armies, and upgrade towns, and fight battles to conquer the known world, but the specifics of that are reasonably different in Rome II.

Do not roll into Rome II expecting it to play just like Rome I. Rome I is comparatively small and simple (but, at this point, also more polished). Check out reviews to get a better idea of what's new in Rome II before you decide to buy it.

[elpbee]

Postat inițial de Coldhands:

The Total War series changes each game. Every other game or so, it changes a lot, and it's been 5 games since Rome I. So yes, they're fairly different.
I mean, they're still both Total War, so you're going to build armies, and upgrade towns, and fight battles to conquer the known world, but the specifics of that are reasonably different in Rome II.

Do not roll into Rome II expecting it to play just like Rome I. Rome I is comparatively small and simple (but, at this point, also more polished).

thanks for your quick and well written answer. I guess im gonna wait some time until there are less bugs

[Coldhands]

^That's probably a solid plan, because Rome II is following the usual Total War pattern of launch with bugs, patch for months. It'll end up being a real good Total War game by the end though (my opinion).
If you've got a Total War itch right now though, there're several other, cheaper Total War games on Steam, and they've all been polished up pretty well.

[TotallynotaBot]

Yes a huge difference....Rome 1 is 10 times better.Stick to the original and slap Darthmod in it if you want to spice things up.

Don't waste your money on this hardly working DLC ridden piece of rubbish.

[Diamondeye]

Yeah, the immersion level, the sense of "I can change history" is gone in Rome 2. It's more like an arcade version of history. Arcade can be fun.

The battles are awsome specticals, sound is top notch, controlling 40 units on the battlefield, etc.

The game falls to mediocracy on the campaign map. It is very dumbed down compared to Rome 1. Historians will cry at hearing that the Baleric Islands produce as much food as the bread basket of Northern Italy. Oh. and having Praetorians in 250 BC. Sad!

[Chinese Mao]

Yes theres a difference,
Rome II is ♥♥♥♥ and Rome I is much better if it comes to battle.

[DaLagga]

Postat inițial de Coldhands:

Do not roll into Rome II expecting it to play just like Rome I. Rome I is comparatively small and simple (but, at this point, also more polished).

Say what? I'll grant you that the campaign map is larger and there's more factions in Rome 2 (this is actually a bad thing though), but to say that Rome 2 is more complex than the original? Rome 1 is more complex in almost every single conceivable way, including the battles. Comparing Rome 1 to Rome 2 is like comparing Counter-Strike to Call of Duty or Halo Wars to Starcraft. Almost everything in Rome 2 has been dumbed down and simplified for a much more casual audience. It looks better, but ultimately, it's a perfect example of a game that prioritized flash over substance.

And no, it's not just a matter of fixing bugs (of which there are many, the worst of which being the worst AI the series has ever seen). Even if the game were bug free, there's no fixing the dumbed down mechanics. TC, either wait for a total conversion mod (probably take a year or so to get something really good) or just play Rome 1.

[Coldhands]

^Not really. In Rome I you can build every building in every town, and you eventually will given enough time. So the only real complexity to the empire management half of the game is figuring out the best build order and then applying it to all your cities. That ends up being: Focus on money making in the early game, military in the middle game, and then pretty much whatever's left in the late game when you're pumping uber army after uber army from your super rich empire of Romes. Public order is largely taken care of by buildings and what isn't can simply be quashed by piling super cheap troops on the unhappy people until they stop *****ing.

If you don't play as Rome, you don't have any kind of senate/political mechanic, and if you do play as Rome the whole approval system is pretty much satisfied by just playing the game and conquering territory until you're ready to turn around and get rid of it all by taking Rome. Beyond that, your only objective is just Fight Battles, Take Land.

Rome 1 was a really fun game that I put a lot of hours into when it came out, but it's not really a very complex one. Rome II is no Civilization, and neither game is particularly difficult, but it requires more thought than it's predecessor.

[DaLagga]

Postat inițial de Coldhands:

^Not really. In Rome I you can build every building in every town, and you eventually will given enough time. So the only real complexity to the empire management half of the game is figuring out the best build order and then applying it to all your cities. That ends up being: Focus on money making in the early game, military in the middle game, and then pretty much whatever's left in the late game when you're pumping uber army after uber army from your super rich empire of Romes. Public order is largely taken care of by buildings and what isn't can simply be quashed by piling super cheap troops on the unhappy people until they stop *****ing.

If you don't play as Rome, you don't have any kind of senate/political mechanic, and if you do play as Rome the whole approval system is pretty much satisfied by just playing the game and conquering territory until you're ready to turn around and get rid of it all by taking Rome. Beyond that, your only objective is just Fight Battles, Take Land.

Rome 1 was a really fun game that I put a lot of hours into when it came out, but it's not really a very complex one. Rome II is no Civilization, and neither game is particularly difficult, but it requires more thought than it's predecessor.

That's not the case at all. It's true that you can build everything in every town, but that only adds to the strategy because build times and cost are concerns. You don't necessarily want to just focus on economy early game because if you're playing as Rome, then the other two factions are going to get valuable territory before you can. So it's a tradeoff. Meanwhile, in Rome 2, all you have to do is find a balance between food, economy, and military regions and that's it. Moreover, you rarely get to build new structures because of the way the food/population mechanic works, so often times you'll go several turns without even being able to build a single new structure anywhere.

In addition, it's not a simple matter of just having military cities either due to costs and build times. In most games, I have some cities that focus on cavalry, some for infantry, and others for archers. I then have to coordinate their production and logistics to keep my armies properly reinforced. In Rome 2, all you need is a single military province and you're pretty much set. You don't have to worry about losses or resupplying your armies either because unless you lose an entire unit (highly unlikely), your men magically resurrect themselves in a couple of turns after the battle.

Also, Rome 2 doesn't have any viable diplomatic or political systems at all because they're essentially non-functional. The political system in particular makes no sense and essnetially just leads to a bunch of armies spawning out of nowhere in some backwater town that nobody cares about. Put simply, Rome 2 is a mess. A simplified, broken shell of what Rome 1 is. For a more detailed analysis and comparison, watch this.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXkWfEIALxM

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

[Coldhands]

^You play what you like, but I don't agree with you that Rome I is the more complex game. I played them both, Rome II's mechanics have more going on, but I'm not going to get into a wall of text war trying to make you believe me.

[DaLagga]

Postat inițial de Coldhands:

^You play what you like, but I don't agree with you that Rome I is the more complex game. I played them both, Rome II's mechanics have more going on, but I'm not going to get into a wall of text war trying to make you believe me.

It's an opinion to say that you like Rome 2. But it's not an opinion to say that it's more complex. That is just factually wrong. Battles degrade into spamfests, the AI is so bad that you can't lose, losing troops means nothing because they magically revive themselves after a battle, generals are generic and homogenous, general traits are very limited and simplistic, the political/diplomatic system is convoluted and non-functional, and naval combat is a broken imbalanced mess.

[electricnomad]

There is a big difference between the games. I played hundreds of hours of both games, and if I could choose just one to play from now on, it would be Rome 2. Things like the unit variety, campaign map, faction variety, diplomatic options, etc have all evolved for the better.

Rome 1 was great, but even its biggest fans here almost certainly all use serious mods to make it the game they love. Neither Rome 1 nor Rome 2 are games I would want to play in their vanilla versions.

The AI in TW games has always been an issue, hence the popularity of DarthMod and other AI overhauls. Rome 2 is no exception in that regard, it has AI issues, and to trash it but give Rome 1 and previous TW titles a pass is to rewrite history.

Everybody should know the drill by now - you will need to use mods to get stronger AI in a TW game.

[Kreud]

"Say what? I'll grant you that the campaign map is larger and there's more factions in Rome 2"

More factions?

Boy, i dont see thrace, armenia, spain, numidia or dacia being playable factions. they were included as playables in multiplayer and custom battles and if you edit the strat.file, they can also be playable in campaign in Rome 1 but i guess epirus is the only faction you can excuse of but other than that, nothing else.

Yes, campaign was larger but when was size ever a big deal? The Rome 1 map was just fine in size and with so many settlements to conquer, i can stick my eyes for millions of hours raiding towns and cities playing as egypt(i have like 31 settlements in 230 BC already). If you look closely, the camera is zoomed to a deeper scale, making the map look huge but if you ever had the ability to move your camera up, it might not look as big as you think, just the average size of Rome 1.

Overall, if your PC can run this game without suffering crashes and casual gameplay, ENJOY! Have fun and experience the epicness of Rome 2 but even in Rome 2's biggest improvements, there is NO way Rome 2 is better than Rome 1.....for now. I understand that this is just an explanation but nononono and NO! Rome 2 does not have more factions and camapign map size does not matter at this state.

Also, whats wrong with complexity in Rome 1? I had tons of fun defending against eastern and roman huge armies, making the situation look hopeless. The Ai in Rome 1 is good and it gets me really moralized fighting against chariots of pontus and the principes of the scipii! In Rome 2, the AI has hardly any intelligence that is challenging for TW veterans that play enough hours to make valid reviews. In sieges, the enemy units just stand there like complete dorks after ramming the walls to death. Its so frustrating to play with medium mode and hard mode. The only way to fix that is play legendary as it is nowfixed and ready to roll the AI onto some serious brains.

[Powellinho.72]

Postat inițial de DaLagga:

Postat inițial de Coldhands:

^Not really. In Rome I you can build every building in every town, and you eventually will given enough time. So the only real complexity to the empire management half of the game is figuring out the best build order and then applying it to all your cities. That ends up being: Focus on money making in the early game, military in the middle game, and then pretty much whatever's left in the late game when you're pumping uber army after uber army from your super rich empire of Romes. Public order is largely taken care of by buildings and what isn't can simply be quashed by piling super cheap troops on the unhappy people until they stop *****ing.

If you don't play as Rome, you don't have any kind of senate/political mechanic, and if you do play as Rome the whole approval system is pretty much satisfied by just playing the game and conquering territory until you're ready to turn around and get rid of it all by taking Rome. Beyond that, your only objective is just Fight Battles, Take Land.

Rome 1 was a really fun game that I put a lot of hours into when it came out, but it's not really a very complex one. Rome II is no Civilization, and neither game is particularly difficult, but it requires more thought than it's predecessor.

That's not the case at all. It's true that you can build everything in every town, but that only adds to the strategy because build times and cost are concerns. You don't necessarily want to just focus on economy early game because if you're playing as Rome, then the other two factions are going to get valuable territory before you can. So it's a tradeoff. Meanwhile, in Rome 2, all you have to do is find a balance between food, economy, and military regions and that's it. Moreover, you rarely get to build new structures because of the way the food/population mechanic works, so often times you'll go several turns without even being able to build a single new structure anywhere.

In addition, it's not a simple matter of just having military cities either due to costs and build times. In most games, I have some cities that focus on cavalry, some for infantry, and others for archers. I then have to coordinate their production and logistics to keep my armies properly reinforced. In Rome 2, all you need is a single military province and you're pretty much set. You don't have to worry about losses or resupplying your armies either because unless you lose an entire unit (highly unlikely), your men magically resurrect themselves in a couple of turns after the battle.

Also, Rome 2 doesn't have any viable diplomatic or political systems at all because they're essentially non-functional. The political system in particular makes no sense and essnetially just leads to a bunch of armies spawning out of nowhere in some backwater town that nobody cares about. Put simply, Rome 2 is a mess. A simplified, broken shell of what Rome 1 is. For a more detailed analysis and comparison, watch this.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXkWfEIALxM

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

this !

[NotActuallyACat]

Postat inițial de Diamondeye:

Yeah, the immersion level, the sense of "I can change history" is gone in Rome 2. It's more like an arcade version of history. Arcade can be fun.

The battles are awsome specticals, sound is top notch, controlling 40 units on the battlefield, etc.

The game falls to mediocracy on the campaign map. It is very dumbed down compared to Rome 1. Historians will cry at hearing that the Baleric Islands produce as much food as the bread basket of Northern Italy. Oh. and having Praetorians in 250 BC. Sad!

This always makes me laugh. Remember egypt in RTW?