Rome 2 ist schon geiler 😂 aber Rome 1 war halt Kindheitserinnerung also unschlagbar 😊

I dislike how harder AI means boosted AI, deboosted player unit stats. Harder battle difficulty should mean wiser AI.

Complaining about bad AI while having your most popular content involve winning battles where you're outnumbered 1 to 10 from exploiting bad AI

OG RTW and M2TW > all the others

I think by now Ive spent more time (and enjoyed spending it) listening to Volound rant about the flaws in TW then actually playing TW games

Even if they fixed all of poor mechanics that makes this game so much worse than the previous iterations, still be terrible because of that god awful story

I think to save the franchise, they need to bring back flaming pigs

Somehow this happens in so many games lately, I remember Company of heroes 1 having extremely cool animations for the infantry in which they would jump into holes for protection and similar stuff, not seen anymore in any other CoH game

genocide joe supporter calls people "fascist". lol

3:12 after nearly 8k hours total war, every battle feels the same... hammer and anvil taktics, as alwyas sometimes in the early games anvil and anvil tactics...

rome 2 makes me wanna punsh an Ostrich, bloody bird

*Ahem* CA is trash

The “it’s fantasy, bruh” retort has always annoyed me. It’s like people who say that are perfectly content with playing games that require no critical thinking or use no logic in their mechanics. A fantasy setting is no excuse for bad unit mechanics, or even bad unit visual concept design

Sigh Simulator 2024

Players: We want to defeat AI by strategy, tactics, or empire management. Devs: We will design the AI to exit the fortifications and line up with their backs towards you. Players: WTF AI is busted. Devs: We will give the AI higher morale, more HP, and better damage to compensate. Players: This isn't fun. Devs: *BAN USERS*

I’m sad this game didn’t turn out to be what we all hoped. I feel like the team had to split their attention across so many modes and even a mobile game that everything is less than the sum of its’ parts. It’s so strange, because I loved Deserts of Kharak and think Gearbox has done good by the IP (Remasters, collectors editions, republishing The Art of Homeworld), so this is a strange and sad aberration.

I absolutely despise when spearmen or anticavalry loses to cavalry. wtf is the point of the unit if it’s not good at what it’s supposed to do? I was so excited for warhammer but when I played it, it felt soooo off. The battles were so grindy and the projectiles sucked. I would make entire gun lines of dwarf units and the enemy would just charge in but even after being shot over and over again the units weren’t dying but their health bar was depleting so much. I would see units get hit by cannon balls, lightning, get crushed by a giant foot and then the units would get up like nothing happened and start charging again but the health bar would go down. It turned me off from the game so much but I kept playing because I really liked dwarfs but after some time I stopped because I realised the only difference between all the units is stats and that’s it. I then played Rome 2 because people said it’s good. It was definitely better but the units still weren’t dropping when shot at instead health bars depleted. Then after watching daimyo’s videos I have shogun 2 a chance and the gameplay was sooooo good. Never looked back after that

CA knows how to improve the AI and it did between vanilla M2 and kingdoms. Very notably, on vanilla, if you ignore horse archers and charge at the infantry, the HA will keep shooting their arrows where they are until they run ou t of ammo, in kingdoms, if you do this, they will stop shooting and charge at the rear of your units, forcing you to deal with the before attacking.

I play rome 1 for 1000 hours, its the best total war. Why? The ki doesn't chaeat!

They could have implemented this in every game

Grandpa, tell me how you became so popular?

Form there at 32:06? You can see the camera travel the area like 6 seconds prior. They spawn the troops into that shape in the time the camera turns. No walking and forming up required. Thats why the camera looks away from the land and into the ocean. So when they faced at the ocean and revealed the fake projectile it was to cover another fakeout.

I watched the trailer, wasnt impressed. I watched the gameplay and screen shot of the map, and cities expanded and that got me excited. Then i watched campaign gameplay and the changes on army building and provinces, which on paper is actually great. How it was implemented....how did they castrate the toral war platform?! Or better yet. Why...what exactly did we expect from Rome II? As a fan base i, i mean. Persoanlly i had so many expectations regarding vanilla rome and gutted it was from historicity. But the sandbox format makes it a good game. Just super imbalanced,.which is fair but eventually lead to my decline in playtime. I was thinking about how CA could really expand on the scope of Roman formations and equipment varying in game by defeating certain enemies and cultures. Establishing satrapies and colonies. Internal politics and government functions. Empire management with a new outlook on building chains. An integral tech tree that isnt a seperate mechanic but incorporated with character traits, based on in game player actions and desicions of governing people and power. Triabl factions with a wider economic and culutural impact as celtic culture was like english back then. Something to really capture the flow and time in recorded history, presented as stepping stones for the indepth mechanics a player can utilize to make the game enjoyable, easy, or challenging. Rome 1 was so inspiring to me i even constructed my own total war system. Mainly roma surrectum fr

I want to have a challenge me setting with AI.

I'm sticking to OG Rome partly because of the system requirements that my laptop can't meet. I just hope the modding community for the OG doesn't die

Never, EVER, pre order a game.

So much for "Our rules have changed"

Thats like a world famous author writing a book with the last chapter blank so the reader can make their own decisions on how it should end

Sad how the much older games have way better AI. Only valid reason I can think of is more competent programmers. Anything else sounds like an excuse!

Bad AI is one of my major pet-peeves with modern strategy games. All that ludicrous processing-power and they _cannot_ make it any better (often times: actually worse!) than some 20 year old predecessors? (Not just TW!) I usually chalk it up to greed/window dressing: putting all your assets (working-hours, elite talent, effort, salaries... all-in-all: money!) into one basket (graphics & other outside qualities!). That and expecting a more broad, casual, dumb drmographic. Decades ago, programming always involved some level if passion by the developer, to potentially make *the game of their dreams;* nowadays it is just a business. Greedy suits with expense-calculations and most-common-denominator bias. Treating both customers and programmers as a resource to be exploited for maximizing stock prices and bonus pay-outs... Really: those people remind me of certain wasps...

Hyenas looked like fucking garbage anyways. Just a shitty clone of The Finals.