Is Rome 2 shit? I want to get back into TW, but I hear some people

Just stick to Shogun 2 and Rome 1.

>>381167760
>Should I just get Shogun 2 instead?
Yes
>Is Rome 2 shit
No. CA patched it a lot and now its accually pretty good.

>>381167760

It was initially, but they actually fixed it after a hundred patches.

>>381167914
>No. CA patched it a lot and now its accually pretty good.
Still plays like a fucking moba with ugly ass graphics and shit campaign map.

>>381167760
It's still shit. They fixed some of the most superficial problems, but the core mechanic are horrible.

Shogun 2 is ok, but lacks unit variety and combat is very fast. Total war shit in general is bad now.

>>381169012
>play like moba
Is this becoming a buzz word for insulting now? How comes it "plays like moba"?

If you can only pick one, then pick shogun 2. But definitely get around to playing Rome 2

Opinions vary. I think it's still terrible even with the bug fixes as I dislike almost every design decision that went into it but many people like it now.
Pirate it to see for yourself.

Why is Shogun 2 considered the best? Is there an actual reason or is this just weebism?

>>381170337
None of the mechanics really cripple gameplay like you get in other total wars, campaigns are fairly short and focused due to limited provinces, and end game isn't boring due to combining the remaining factions against you.

>>381169295
Most units have some sort of shit like crack the whip instead of formations or anything like that is what people mean. It isn't about out maneuvering your opponent but about out clicking the right power up at the right time.

moba like is not super accurate but it isn't completely wrong either

I really like it.
Use DEI and you are set, lots of units, nice variety and it adds more features like supplies, populations and maybe am forgetting something else. Played it tons of hours, mostly because I like that historical period.

File: 1494036890582.jpg (76KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x375px

Rome 2 had an awful launch and people will not let that go. Also, some nostalgia fags keep bitching about how great Rome 1 was. Yes it was a good game back in the day, move on..

It's not the best total war game, but with campaign overall mods it's fine.
If you buy it get it for cheap

>>381171006
>literally the worst total war game ever
>it's not THAT bad, buy it goyim!
get a load of this shill

File: 1497666988214.jpg (31KB, 640x489px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x489px

>>381171179
I have mixed views on the game.

That is all.

>>381167760
Get Attila. It's pretty much what R2 should have been.

>>381171179
Empire is the worst TW. Rome 2 may be the second worst but it's considerably better than Empire.
Also, Warhammer is one of the best games in the series and a lot of people are missing out on that because they can't get over Rome 2.

File: Sciencebro.jpg (16KB, 170x179px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 170x179px

>yfw warhammer shit was the best selling total war game and is all certain affinity is interested in making now

>>381171832
They're developing a historical title as we speak you fuck.
Warhammer's success gave them the ability to have two separate teams.

>>381171728
attila is good but it's so fucking fast

feels like i'm playing starcraft or some shit

>>381171805
Empire didn't have balance so bad that any buildings over tier 2 were a net negative if you built them. Or AI so miserable that it'd run single file through pikemen to reach an objective.

Rome 2 was an abomination.

>>381172092
Use mods that buff morale and nerf cav. Problem fucking solved.

>>381172069
Yeah but warhammer is where their A team is gonna be and the other games are just consolation prizes for their old school fans

>>381167914
It's still garbage

>oh oops, your country is too big now time to divide it in half for an epic "civil war" even though everything is going completely fine
>also half of your legions are going to the other side too for no reason

Yeah nah.

>>381171805
Battles are pretty awesome.

I'm probably just a faggot but the battles without context like a good campaign make it less interesting to me. Which is why I liked Rome 1 so much. Dudes changed their names when they were governors or generals depending on where they lived. Get some drunkards from Shrines of Bachus or some scholars from the libraries. Have one of my governors Cassius the Mad go mad and start killing your own population and you have to find a way to get rid of him etc. My dude that conquered the peninsula all the way to Carthage became Titus Victor. My guy who sat in Rome and collected male prostitutes became Publius the Lewd before people recognized his true bald beauty and he became Publius the Handsome.

All that shit is gone.

>>381167760
Yes. You should just play the original.

>>381171832
When will this warhammer sucks meme stop? I love both warhamer and historical TW I don't get why people have to pick sides ?

>>381172482
The family trees and crazy fiction behind your leaders was one of my favorite parts as well. If I had a badass General or politician in early game I used do shit like make sure his line survived and would try to make all his descendants my top generals or politicians too

>>381173171
Because not everyone is a slut like you and recognizes warhammer for the shit it is.

>>381167760
Rome 2 better than shogun if you want more hours and a good time period.

>>381171832
>certain affinity

*meant to say creative assembly

>>381167760
>Is Rome 2 shit?
Yes. Warhammer is far superior to it and any other TW game, so just get that, there's a reason everyone and their dog plays it.

File: ss_6054b66e4b0b3beb25abd977526df59bdde0f58e.1920x1080.jpg (766KB, 1917x1079px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1917x1079px

Shogun 2 was easily my favourite TW game, loving the setting helps a lot.
Rome 2 and Attila were brown and meh so I didn't play them much.
Warhammer has pretty fun but I don't care for the lore or setting really. Also the fact you can't conquer everything sucks (yes i know mods can change this)
Not hyped but Warhammer 2 but I will be buying it and the next historical one

>>381167760
I dont like it, it feels clunky to play, it looks awful and the combat isnt satisfying

I would stick to a different era, either S2/FotS/Attila/Warhammer

File: 1.jpg (106KB, 770x477px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 770x477px

>>381173441
>Because not everyone is a slut like you and recognizes warhammer for the shit it is.
Stop pretending your shit opinion matters and drop the habit of speaking for anyone but your retarded self.

>>381174405
>GUYS GUYS WARHAMMER IS BETTER THAN ROME 2!
A diarrhetic shit is better than rome 2. Try harder, shill.

File: YOURGENERALISDEAD.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>381172329
>nerf cav.
i cant let you do that

>>381174578
>>381174405
>>381173441
>>381173171
>I need others to validate what I enjoy
Why dont you both go fuck and shut the fuck up

>>381174578
Warhammer is better than any TW game.

>>381174721
>Total War Warhammer
>Is better than itself

File: 14974706867690.jpg (20KB, 300x224px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x224px

>>381174691
>tries to use ad populum "argument" to validate his shit opinion
>gets destroyed by being shown that even the ad populum "argument" is not on his side
>b-but popularity doesn't matter!

>>381174786
Yes, it's THAT good.

>>381174837
>Retards posts irrelevant opinion
>Faggots gets upset at irrelevant opinion and spouts irrelevant opinion
You're as stupid as he is

Ill be the bigger man and let you have the last reply

>>381174932
Its fun, and I agree its the best TW game.

But its also seriously flawed with how piss easy it is.

I just want them to actually give an effort for the multiplayer mode for the next historical total war.

Shogun 2 avatar mode was fucking great in its heyday, even if certain builds and retainers were op relative to their cost. Even with S2's samey-roster, it gave rise to a surprising amount of army diversity. It really only sucked when you got matched with someone of a much higher rank than you when you were still trying to unlock the basic unit classes.

>>381175042
>how piss easy it is
Any single player game is piss easy. If you want challenge, play Multiplayer. Warhammer multiplayer is the best in the series and has the most tactical depth, since it has the most functional unit variety, which is very important in determining the tactical depth of any TW game, since all TW games are all about properly countering your opponent. So, more mechanically diverse units and tactics = more shit to counter = more tactical depth.

>>381175128
>Beating a retarded level 10 with a brand new general by assassinating his general causing his army to route

>>381167760
>Is Rome 2 shit?
yes
play anything else

/thread

>>381175373
>Any single player game is piss easy.
Ahhahhahah

No.

Hey guys, i tried out total war shogun (as my first entry into the series) of course, i dived right in and it was fucking hard as fuck. Like i didn't do the tutorial or anything, just dived right in. So anyways, i got my shit pushed in after about 10 turns, i just didn't know the game that well.

With total war warhammer being cracked the other day, I downloaded that and I'm giving it a go now as I read it's a bit more noob friendly comapred to other total war games. SO far i'm doing OKAY, i guess, on the easiest difficulty (inb4 shitter i still barely understand the game mechanics lol)

Anyways, my question is on alliances/diplomacy in the game. I've got a basic understanding... But like how should I go about it? DO i literally get to choose however I want? Cause I feel like i'll get butt fucked by a 5 race alliance against me or something. Like am i supposed to go around recruiting military allies etc? or is it more important to go for trade routes?

Or is it just, sorta go as you feel type of deal?

for instance I had a side mission/task/quest or whatever to form a defensive alliance with some real. I got the friendly level to like 90, and the faggots were still giving me low chances for a non aggression pact. like i even offered them a large gift of 10000+ then offered a payment of 20000 + a non aggresion pact and they disagreed what the fuck?

>>381176021
Yes. Git gud, casul.

File: 1490976403193.png (78KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 853x543px

>>381176563
On easier difficulties you can have good diplomatic relations with pretty much everyone, you just need a big enough to be considered a threat and a bribe or two. On harder difficulties having good diplomatic relations is extremely hard, as you will need to maintain the best trustworthiness rating, have a huge army and periodically shower your allies with gifts.

The general advice for diplomacy is to plan your alliances in advance and don't break any treaties, as this will make you lose your trustworthiness rating and make diplomacy harder. Declining treaty proposals is fine, but breaking them once they're initiated is a big nono.

>>381177432
>you just need a big enough to be considered a threat
*you just need a big enough army to be considered a threat

>>381177432
thanks so much, i'm pretty sure that's exactly why I got fucked. Vampire counts kept invading me, so I was like aight fuck you gronks and brought the empires 3rd recih to their lands. At that point, they offered heaps of money and a peace treaty so i accepted but then fucking demolished them. Then did it again, to the rest of the undead armies/settlements. that's probably why my diplomacy has gone to shit.