Rome 2 feels different in combat

[Yorginvik]

I think it is just me or it might be in general, but the combat in rome 2 was too different for me from other total war games like medieval 2, rome, and even a little bit of napoleon. for instance in medieval 2 I line up my spear in one formation and archers behind them, general and normal formation, but when lets say I do it in rome 2 with spearmen, and slingers behind them they instantly break. I get charged by about 5-6 units again my 4 spearmen, I had other units like club infantry on the sides that flanked but it didn't matter because my units instantly lost morale. Another example is that I am not used to the instant death of every person in a cavalry unit getting shot down by rocks, by about 2-3 skirmishers shooting my heavy cav , my cav instantly died.
I don't think it might be the games fault, though my fault since I am not used to a different morale system, am I wrong or is it just me?

[Meadows]

before you read this, understand I am unclear of how to respond to your post. So I am just gonna express some things me an my buds talked about-

Alot of people will bash rome 2. When it was released it had tons an tons of bugs. An also.. the main thing, is its different.

Rome 1, Medieval 2 units would hold formations perfectly in battle. Everything would be clear to see and make sense. Shogun 2 brought that down, lines can quickly become intertwined and everything chaotic. same with rome 2. This is not a bug. This is the realism that CA wanted.

I personnally love it. in fact, the gamers who have adjusted to this realism feature call it "locking down" a unit. A unit gets locked down by another unit. Making retreat almost impossible without losses just like in real life. Locking down a unit will appear that the two lines that met have just become 1 line of just maddness. You wouldnt be wrong.

rome 2/shogun 2, the death of a general is an INSANE moral impact. In fact you can lose an entire battle just from losing your general in shogun 2. lol

Rome 2, Shogun 2, stanima is not quite as important as the others. Yet it still has a devistating effect when its one winded unit vs a fresh.

Light cav, med cav, are devistated by missile fire of any kinda in rome and shogun. Late game of both Heavy cav are introduced that can easily charge straight through missle fire with few losses but is still not recomended.

Rome 2 is great. It's just a different game. The constant sound effects is the only thing that bothers me lol. I dont wanna hear a battle cry after every battle cuz its repatative. I dont want my general SCREAMING at the top of his lungs everytime I wanna check the status of a seige. Rome 2 went over board with sound effects. It annoys the ♥♥♥♥ out of me.

Many old school players are instantly confused when their lines do not stay perfectly intact like the old games. Yet.. Guard mode is still in the game. It makes it so your inf will attempt to hold their formation and not always chase their enemies. But this has drawbacks because sometimes a perfect formation is not an adavantage.. for instance..

A high level inf unit chooses guard mode to hold perfect formation. yet is rushed by spears. units with longer range weapons ect. The enemy litterly gets free hits because they out range the men holding their formation and can easily lose if left unattended. Guard mode off, the high level unit WOULD have rushed forward and intertwined with the enemy formation thus using their better fighting skills and closed the distance. but didnt because they were more concerned with their formation.

Another..
A low level unit with guard mode on is rushed by a high level unit... The better unit is unable to intertwine with the low level unit and use their better skills because the low levels are holding their position and not breaking ranks.. Tho if the skill is much high they may still lose the battle. There is a chance they will win. 90% of the time it is not about if they can win, its about how long can they hold out til help arrives.

MASS maddness. two massive armys charge with no guard mode on either side will appear to be a huge battle of men with no clear lines... unexpected? heh.. no.. Friendly fire will come into play quickly. Skill of the units will be their only hope inside the middle of the madness. yet this madness presents opprotunitys. So.. The lines are not there.. but on certain flanks.. someone will be exposed. There will be a way to worm in a devistating cav charge and then worm your way out.

Think about a real battle... Do you think that they really held perfect lines. No.. They didnt at all. Romans actually have LOST battles because the generals in charge assumed that battle was just a case of drawing perfect lines in perfect places.
Battles are not lines. lol

[Meadows]

So I guess everything I said was just explaining some major differances. It can be hard to adjust too. Also romes AI is bad but.. Medieval 2 ai is bad as well. So many people wanna argue an say im wrong... sure... How many times did you do a V formation in front of the gate with only a few men an kill entire armys? or rush cav out your front door an force them to drop seige equipment an retreat... Yeh.. Rome 1 an medieval AI for ya..

[5n4k3d0cToR]

Originally posted by Yorginvik:

I think it is just me or it might be in general, but the combat in rome 2 was too different for me from other total war games like medieval 2, rome, and even a little bit of napoleon. for instance in medieval 2 I line up my spear in one formation and archers behind them, general and normal formation, but when lets say I do it in rome 2 with spearmen, and slingers behind them they instantly break. I get charged by about 5-6 units again my 4 spearmen, I had other units like club infantry on the sides that flanked but it didn't matter because my units instantly lost morale. Another example is that I am not used to the instant death of every person in a cavalry unit getting shot down by rocks, by about 2-3 skirmishers shooting my heavy cav , my cav instantly died.
I don't think it might be the games fault, though my fault since I am not used to a different morale system, am I wrong or is it just me?

R2TW is unlike its predecessors (in more than one respect). Need to Adapt to the new combat mechanics. Tbh, it is not 'that' different once you get used to it.

[[TUUONCUOGB]BothChicken]

The impression I got was because the Rome 1 engine had unit collision, meaning the fighting was more realistic in the sense that if one soldier was surrounded by enemy soldiers they can all simultanously attack him. In Rome 2 however starting in Empire the Engine was designed so that soldiers attacked each other one at a time and could not help a friend out. They've changed that in patches for Rome 2 and added some of that unit collission, but still the formations don't work as well as in Rome 1/ Medieval 2.

Still, Medieval had a button you could press to instantly see what units were allied and enemy, why no other total war has had that button is beyond me.

[Meadows]

Originally posted by TUUONCUOGBBothChicken:

Still, Medieval had a button you could press to instantly see what units were allied and enemy, why no other total war has had that button is beyond me.

Shogun 2 and Rome 2 also have this button. i cant tell you off the top of my head.
I think for shogun its either left control or spacebar. I know its there. its been awhile. An rome 2 its there. i swear! lol

-edit-
Just checked. For rome 2 its spacebar.

[Stubbs]

Ok this is turning into quite the topic and I want too put in my three cents. I've played both, very much. The combat does feel different, Med 2 has quite the seleciton of unit match and more power via dmg Vs'. Rome 2 it was all about who had the better map elevation and who had more disiclpined troops are the two rules of Rome 2 style warfare. Horse Archer's for example in Med 2, were alot more armored, and disciplined making tatics more of a factor. Horse Archer's in Rome 2 fell over if thre was a strong wind. cost a fortune, and tatics don't work as well because they will break if they are green rookies.

[Yorginvik]

Originally posted by *_*M*_*:

Rome 1, Medieval 2 units would hold formations perfectly in battle. Everything would be clear to see and make sense. Shogun 2 brought that down, lines can quickly become intertwined and everything chaotic. same with rome 2. This is not a bug. This is the realism that CA wanted.

Thanks that expains to me. I thought of that, since I haven't ever played any new TW games.

[Yorginvik]

Originally posted by Stubbs:

Ok this is turning into quite the topic and I want too put in my three cents. I've played both, very much. The combat does feel different, Med 2 has quite the seleciton of unit match and more power via dmg Vs'. Rome 2 it was all about who had the better map elevation and who had more disiclpined troops are the two rules of Rome 2 style warfare. Horse Archer's for example in Med 2, were alot more armored, and disciplined making tatics more of a factor. Horse Archer's in Rome 2 fell over if thre was a strong wind. cost a fortune, and tatics don't work as well because they will break if they are green rookies.

Ye I saw that the weather, elevation, maps, etc impacted the game more, which is one big reason for me to actually not like Rome 2 besides that people are listing the bad things about it ( besides after launch )

[slumpy]

Rome 2 is just adumbed down arcadey version of older TW titles.

[Ol' Knife Ears <3]

I'd go as far to say Rome 2's combat is a huge downgrade to the older games. Numerical advantage counts for nothing, since all units in battle will lock together in a 1v1. In older games, surrounding units (say, general's bodyguard with three spearmen) would cause them to drop quickly because each enemy would have 2-3 troops beating on him.

Not every change was bad though. The skirmishing units in Rome 2 are much more effective and fun to use; in other games they had limited use and were a liability because they were so dam slow. You couldn't get a volley of spears off without losing a good number of them.

Overall, I'd say Rome 1 has had the best and most intuitive combat. In Rome 1, if you commanded a unit to run through an enemy foe blocking up a gateway, they would attempt to make it through while also engaging the enemy. This is strangely absent from Medieval, where sprinting units are basically in "rout mode", where any single blow will kill them, which is really stupid; I've lost many a general this way because he "gets caught" on a few enemies while sprinting, thus smacking his health off in seconds. And also, Rome 1's heavy cavalry dominated battles as it should have, where in Medieval, spear infantry are vastly superior to heavily armed knights, which historically dominated fights (although dismounted knights are overall the best).

[Yorginvik]

Originally posted by Supra_Megason_IV:

Overall, I'd say Rome 1 has had the best and most intuitive combat. In Rome 1, if you commanded a unit to run through an enemy foe blocking up a gateway, they would attempt to make it through while also engaging the enemy. This is strangely absent from Medieval, where sprinting units are basically in "rout mode", where any single blow will kill them, which is really stupid; I've lost many a general this way because he "gets caught" on a few enemies while sprinting, thus smacking his health off in seconds. And also, Rome 1's heavy cavalry dominated battles as it should have, where in Medieval, spear infantry are vastly superior to heavily armed knights, which historically dominated fights (although dismounted knights are overall the best).

Is the rout mode in rome 2? I never heard/scene a thing in Medieval 2-Rome 1 if that's the case.

[Shadow of the SPQR]

I like rome 2 combat a bit better just with the convenience with some mechanics.

WASD I keep trying to use in medieval 2 battles, I can't put a number group to to JUST my general...

[Yorginvik]

Originally posted by CommodusIV:

I like rome 2 combat a bit better just with the convenience with some mechanics.

WASD I keep trying to use in medieval 2 battles, I can't put a number group to to JUST my general...

I think Medieval 2 mechanics/UI is better becasue it's simple to understand ( by that I mean it has a "clean" layout). That or I am just used to it so much that I can't accept the UI from Napoleon + .


Also something that is irrelevent there is a mod that allows you to be in a first person/third person of the general view, meaning that you ARE the general and you can only command your forces from a distance, you can also move around by yourself with WASD, it's a fun small mod but takes practice to understand since it's hard to command large forces without a map view.

[sämst]

Originally posted by *_*M*_*:

Rome 1, Medieval 2 units would hold formations perfectly in battle. Everything would be clear to see and make sense. Shogun 2 brought that down, lines can quickly become intertwined and everything chaotic. same with rome 2. This is not a bug. This is the realism that CA wanted.

thats no realism.... roman and greek warfare was build on holding formations and as soon as that formation broke it ment they got surrounded and lost.

and u know, many times they pretended to fall back and retreat as tactic with none or little loses.

i havent played rtw2 in a while now but i really hated that 1v1 fighting, made no sense and i hate that unit card picture :D.

sea battles was odd too, transportships would win easy in the battlemap but autoresolve they would lose against like 1 ship.

[Creek Veteran]

I like turtles