What went wrong? Why do so many of us still prefer Rome 1?

No one?

File: 1482424409750.jpg (100KB, 450x539px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 450x539px

>retarded province system with no walls
>retarded units can only exist within an army led by a general system
>retarded forced march mechanic
>retarded walking on water mechanic
>retarded agents system
>retarded ai that cheats so much that it may as well not even be playing the same game as you

Even after all of the bug fixes, the underlying game was very poorly designed and is boring as shit to play. They really didn't change much of that in Attila and then Warhammer, but CA atleast reworked them so that they aren't so grating and obvious.

>>388136851
The AI is and always will be the biggest issue with these games. Until they fix it, for battles and the campaign map, the games will always be shite

>>388136851
I actually like the province system because it cities can have more specialization, but yeah, the lack of walls is bullshit.

Units only existing within armies with Generals actually makes sense tho, but I get your point.

How's the forced march mechanic retarded?

Also, maybe I didn't play the game enough, but walking on water?

Agents need reworking for sure, and fuck the AI.

>>388136851
>>retarded units can only exist within an army led by a general system
that's better than having hundreds of armies on campaign map with one unit each

>>388137301
holy shit, this

>>388137301
It feels really disingenous though. As I said it works better in Attila and Warhammer because of other changes made to the rest of the game but in Rome II it just comes across as really gay. It's like Rome II tried to put so much emphasis on the individual armies with their traditions and what not, but it's so forced and poorly done that I end up caring about them less than any regular army raised in Shogun 2 or any Total War before it.

>>388135369
Rome 1 is one of my five favourite games of all time. I play it every year, and have done since 2004. Rome 2 is just tedious busywork to play, it has no flavour at all. As soon as you might get into something, it just degenerates into tedium again. The campaign is ruined by all the boardgamey rules they added, and the battles by Warscape's complete inability to make units hold a tight formation. Without area denial, you can't really "do" ancient warfare, and in Rome 2 everything (especially sieges) just degenerates into blobbing. Don't get me started on those stoopid Moba-like abilities.

Unpopular opinion: I actually think Warhammer is even worse. How so many people can like it is a persistent mystery to me, and I played loads of WHFB in the early 2000s.

>>388138224
same poster, just wanted to say that Dark Omen is still really, really great, and I strongly recommend it to anyone disappointed by TWW. It has a much more authentically Warhammerish feel, and is much more faithful to the tabletop experience. Shadow of the Horned Rat was also really good in its time, but sadly it has aged rather badly.

>>388137212
>How's the forced march mechanic retarded?
It makes it borderline impossibler to catch the ai which doesn't have to deal with fog of war and can measure all the distances so it will send in an army to attack you but if you bring in reinforcements, they will just effortlessly run away because of forced march.

>but walking on water
You walk armies onto water and they magically pull transport ships out of their asses and travel across it.

>>388135369
Crippling nostalgia? Duckling syndrome?

>every non-capital city battle uses the same map
>can't trade provinces with other factions

>>388138782
If it's just nostalgia, do you ever wonder why the also-recent Shogun 2 is almost universally praised?