Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 231: Odi et... odi.

Recommended Posts

Everything changes in this Very Special 2-hour Three Moves Ahead event. Rob, Rowan Kaiser, and Fraser Brown gather to talk about Rome and destroy a grave threat to the Total War series. But then the next morning they realize they've gone too far and they're all like, "What have we done?" But nothing will ever be the same again, they've been marked forever.

 

Listen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rome II has a lot of flaws, both from an implementation and design perspective. While I appreciated very much podcasts like #229, this one was a bit hard on the ears. Listening to people trying to come forward with the most - in their opinion - funny remark or pun about Rome II shortcomings, obscured what could have been an stimulating discussion about what they got wrong, and what got right. To be fair, Rob tried to keep the discussion on track, but I was left with the lingering sensation that there quite a few of the members of the panel contributions can be summarized into phrases like "it's f*cking stupid" as a surrogate for an explanation that was "too complex", or just because "it's f*cking stupid" (which is a quite circular line of reasoning). Or the remarks about the "French accent" thing. C'mon guys, not talking about the graphics - not the art direction, which I particularly like in its realism and grittiness - is fine (even if positive), yet it's not Okay to gloss over a mostly irrelevant aspect for an strategy game such as the voice acting.

 

This was too much of a rant. Going beyond the rant, I do indeed agree with most of the issues being pointed out: the meaningless of the political game (for the Roman faction) is perhaps the worst thing and the shallow connection between the different systems in place (economy - military - political - diplomacy). Even if the the latter - in Ancient times - weren't by any measure sophisticated affairs like the Spanish Succession War of 1701-14 or the preamble to First World War. 

 

I'll just point out one thing they got right and yet Paradox hasn't: limiting the number of field armies the player can control, putting into place stronger garrisons (which can be buffed by further development) and allowing to recruit outside of the "cities". Getting rid of that micro-management is perhaps one of the best things of Rome II (and it's sad that there are so few good things to note about it, than this relatively minor and subtle change). 

 

Micro-management aside, this makes a lot of historical sense. Let's remind that Republican Rome never fielded more than 2 armies before the Second Punic War: one for each of the consuls. And that way of waging war (a few field armies seeking enemy field armies to do battle or lay siege to enemy cities and fortresses, many mostly static detachments guarding cities and fortresses) goes all the way from the Romans to the Seven Years War in the 18th century. Not even AGEOD, with its very well researched orders of battle, unit ratings and battle resolution mechanics in their exquisite wargames, has got this right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just point out one thing they got right and yet Paradox hasn't: limiting the number of field armies the player can control, putting into place stronger garrisons (which can be buffed by further development) and allowing to recruit outside of the "cities". Getting rid of that micro-management is perhaps one of the best things of Rome II (and it's sad that there are so few good things to note about it, than this relatively minor and subtle change). 

 

Micro-management aside, this makes a lot of historical sense. Let's remind that Republican Rome never fielded more than 2 armies before the Second Punic War: one for each of the consuls. And that way of waging war (a few field armies seeking enemy field armies to do battle or lay siege to enemy cities and fortresses, many mostly static detachments guarding cities and fortresses) goes all the way from the Romans to the Seven Years War in the 18th century. Not even AGEOD, with its very well researched orders of battle, unit ratings and battle resolution mechanics in their exquisite wargames, has got this right.

 

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I agree vehemently here. In fact, I feel like Creative Assembly didn't go far enough. As Macedon, I was able to field nine armies and six navies after uniting Greece and Asia Minor. I only had the money to field four of each, which was more than enough thanks to the passive AI, so it felt as though the limit didn't really matter past the first few turns of the game.

 

I'm sure the AI issues that have plagued the series would keep them from ever doing this, but I'd like to see a Rome-type game where you only have two armies and have to ask yourself carefully about where to deploy each one every year. As it stands, with the power curve of Total War: Rome II being what it is, the question does get asked, but at the wrong time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi rob and everyone, heard you say you dont read comments on the podcast, but i hope you maybe sometimes do. it sucks sure when internet guys want to bag on you for low scores. but if its any condolence, you and the idel thumbs guys are well regarded amongst ppl that want the truth about badgames that get 9/10 solid everywhere like bioshock infinite and rome 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much looking forward to listening to this episode. CA for too long has had crap strategic level gameplay. This is the first Total War game I have completely disregarded buying at release and from what I have seen on the real reviewers I am justified.

 

Not happy CA.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good podcast!

First I was more defensive toward the game, but now I am not that sure, still my opinion match much of Fraser Brown but there was point which agreed with Rob. I have played all of CA games loved a lot of them, and even Empire, which I played around 121 hours, even in the early days of the launch. But now Rome II I am not sure, maybe because I already watched that movie, or so to say.  I am thinking in put it to aside for a while at least.

1) The main problem I believe was scale vs implementation vs time: Empire issue was a combination of the large scale against the whole new mechanics, and this in a slight different way(Empire was more unstable, had longer loading times, AI forget to use transport ships), happens in Rome II - too many factions, too large map, many new ideas caused the whole thing to went off rails. Shogun 1 was a smaller game, therefore it was easier to expand and improved it without adding extra weight or lose focus, Rome I was a large game, they felt they need to make even bigger and that when all problems came in.

 

Now, while it´s clear that maybe a smaller more focused game was a better way, it´s very hard to do that when dealing with a franchise and direct sequel to make such cuts: like have less factions or map size that the original, special case for a game dealing with Rome, which almost (but not all ways, sure there is smaller games based on Rome) appear to require everything to be large.

I know that now I will use a strange comparison but, it´s almost like what happened between Heroes of Might and Magic III and Heroes of Might and Magic IV. HOMM III raised the bar for the series, making it huge popular, but HOMM IV tried to change a lot of features and introduce new mechanics. However, due lot of development problems (many caused by 3DO), HOMM IV end begin quite disaster, lot of new ideas didn´t not work, they changed things that people didn´t believe it was necessary and so on.

2) CA love for fire: I never will understand how or why velites could throw flaming pilums... still is almost better that the flaming pigs in Rome I (did anyone remember that?). Also I could not avoid to think one thing: CA now have the license for Warhammer Fantasy, and that means: Bright Wizards! Inquisition and Demons too... just imagine all the fire...

3) Tactical Battles: I don´t know if just me, but I fell that battle maps where much larger and previous games and for not much reason at all. I mean, in Empire/Napoleon/Fall of the Samurai, large maps make sense because cannonsand to avoid camping (specially in naval battles, in Fall of the Samurai ship cannon range was so large that they could fire direct in to the enemy starting zone, this it was very annoying in multiplayer battles). But now, not only the increased speed make the size meaningless, but also add another step in the battle: before that, you start the battle, arrange you forces in formation and them moved toward the enemy. Now my impression is that you need first to order all troops to run toward the middle map and them deploy them in formation and so on, or just wait the enemy runs toward you.


4) Visuals: While I like the increased detail in units, I do have to agree with Rob, that often feel a bit lifeless. The concept of animated portraits was a great idea, one game that used this in fantastic ways was Warhammer: Dark Omen, where seeing the animated portraits of you commanders of each unit screaming orders or asking for help (while very wounded) add a lot to the game. But in Rome II feel a bit strange and again, lifeless.

In battle units also stay too close to each other, and since almost all of them carry shields this not only cause clipping issues, but make hard to see animations. In Shogun 2, CA managed to pull animations to the really next level, watch you soldiers fighting was cool and match the game theme and inspiration on samurai movies. Even the Blood Pack DLC, was over the top but amazing because not only add blood but along side new animations it clear make feel like truly Japanese samurai movie (with all violence, blood and epic, but managed to don´t  feel forced or out of place).

One of my found memories of Shogun 2 was playing a multiplayer battle, 3v3 players and in the end there was one unit in each side, my monk warriors, with only 7 still alive and around 9 Yari Samurai in the other side and there was this last showdown where the animations could be clearly seen, it was fantastic.

Another thing I have to agree - interface is just terrible, that weird cards making everything too abstract, missing text description in battle is bad too.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, having now listened to the podcast, I only have one thing to add, since I agree with just about everything else.

 

Rob, how could you possibly think that there would be a "quick reference" pack-in for the boxed copy of Total War: Rome II? I have it in my hands right now and am the proud owner of a four-page manual that lists keybinds and advertises the tie-in novel. Nothing else remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listened to the cast, yeah CA what have you done?

 

I think there was a quote somewhere in the cast about a mish-mash of idea's masquerading as game design, great summery.

 

I remember playing Medieval TW (the first iteration) and they had this great system where spears and pikes got bonuses if they remained in formation. This was great because you would be skimming around the battlefield glancing at your spears/pikes and if they were ordered you knew they were ok, if they were starting to look a jumble then you knew things were going bad and if they had enemy swords amongst them you knew they were stuffed. It was simple and worked visually really well. Then with Rome TW and Medieval 2 TW this was gone and I thought "this is a real step backwards". For me this marked the start of the simplification while increasing complexity (but not necessarily game design) on the strategic map.

 

Oh CA! What have you done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry double post but....

 

Had to post this. In reply to the Wargame: AB cast I showed these two from the Good Game TV show, and held them up as what happens when non-strategy gamers review strategy games. Well now they have reviewed Total 2: Rome War (or whatever it calls itself) :)

 

In short, they would have me purchasing this game in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a little off topic, while we're talking TW games, is there a stand-out mod that I should install if I want to play Empire? I'm still several CA titles behind current releases and I figure I might as well play them in order, as it gives the modders longer to improve on the base game! Earlier this year, I played the Road to Independance Campaign for Emp:TW and will try and play the Grand Campaign by the end of the year, (then next year I can move into Nap:TW).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I know 3ma is all about strategy games, but this thread title had me hoping it was an in depth discussion of Hate Plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Et tu, 3MA.

 

While I know, you don't have to be a cook, to say a soup has too much salt, I encourage everyone talking about video games to learn programming and make better games. You are all welcome.

 

Vale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just point out one thing they got right and yet Paradox hasn't: limiting the number of field armies the player can control, putting into place stronger garrisons (which can be buffed by further development) and allowing to recruit outside of the "cities". Getting rid of that micro-management is perhaps one of the best things of Rome II (and it's sad that there are so few good things to note about it, than this relatively minor and subtle change). 

 

I have to agree with that. Looking back, in previous titles, you almost don´t had much reason to use newer units due the problem which they where only avaliable at your most populate provinces, which often where way behind the front lines, taking to much time to move them there (remember the one move per turn and per province?) only to they got on a battle, suffer some casualities and then you have to to move them back to retrain them (which had to be done in one by one unit or three at most by several turns).

 

The classic exemple was in Medieval 2, for most part, you will only use Feudal Knights, even when you start to get some Chivalric Knight, Feudal Knights still more avaliable everywhere, easier to retrain that move one Chivalric Knights unit back and forth after each battle. In my Milan campaign I remember that mostly I was allways using the same Italian Spearman and Crossbows every single battle. In another game, while defending Jerusalem from the Timurids, I often used only militia units over and over again, since moving feudal units from France to the Holy Land take so much time and since Timurid attacked over and over again, that by time the arrive, this new units would face battle and then have to go back to Paris again to retrain.

 

Medieval 1 had the problem too, you end unlocking some units which could be only recruited in a single province, often to far way to be of any use or worth the trouble of going back and forth again. While this was meant to be realistic, often just became busy work.

 

Empire was CA initial step to improve this, you still had to think carefully about casualities after each battle but now using your units was much easier since the whole busy work was gone. Napoleon and Shogun improved over this, you will use much more that newer unit that before, but battles still had some serious impact.

 

 

a little off topic, while we're talking TW games, is there a stand-out mod that I should install if I want to play Empire? I'm still several CA titles behind current releases and I figure I might as well play them in order, as it gives the modders longer to improve on the base game! Earlier this year, I played the Road to Independance Campaign for Emp:TW and will try and play the Grand Campaign by the end of the year, (then next year I can move into Nap:TW).

 

I wonder that too, since I was thinking about replay some of the old games. For Empire for most time I used Darthmod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Et tu, 3MA.

 

While I know, you don't have to be a cook, to say a soup has too much salt, I encourage everyone talking about video games to learn programming and make better games. You are all welcome.

 

Vale.

This would be a valid, if self-righteous and passive-aggressive, observation if our complaints overwhelmingly focused on AI and PC performance. But they don't.

 

So thanks, but no thanks for your condescension. And until everyone playing games is required by law to know how to code and to have shipped a game, I could not possibly care less how hard it is to make a game. Somehow, lots of developers manage to make great ones that don't get beaten up on this show. Creative Assembly didn't.

 

If you want to listen to people who "deserve" to have opinions about games, I highly recommend Jon Shafer's Game Design Round Table. Jon and Dirk might meet your expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a valid, if self-righteous and passive-aggressive, observation if our complaints overwhelmingly focused on AI and PC performance. But they don't.

 

So thanks, but no thanks for your condescension. And until everyone playing games is required by law to know how to code and to have shipped a game, I could not possibly care less how hard it is to make a game. Somehow, lots of developers manage to make great ones that don't get beaten up on this show. Creative Assembly didn't.

 

If you want to listen to people who "deserve" to have opinions about games, I highly recommend Jon Shafer's Game Design Round Table. Jon and Dirk might meet your expectations.

 

Veni, vidi, vici ipsum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely gotta go with Rob on this. I've been teaching myself how to write code, but I don't see how that makes Rome 2 a better game than others in the Total War series. Or maybe I should just start disbelieving my lying eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely gotta go with Rob on this. I've been teaching myself how to write code, but I don't see how that makes Rome 2 a better game than others in the Total War series. Or maybe I should just start disbelieving my lying eyes.

 

I tried typing out some HTML, but my version of Rome II didn't become any more fun. I wonder if I'm doing it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried typing out some HTML, but my version of Rome II didn't become any more fun. I wonder if I'm doing it wrong?

 

You still scored 80% on metacritic with Rome 2: HTML War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo

 

I have a few points.

 

I think the interface is absolute crap. Everything requires a billion clicks, and there is no information. There are no shortcuts, if you havent researched a technology you need to click 5 buttons to get to the actual choosing a tech.. And the skill progression of any unit / army / agent is really difficult to understand, trying to build a good unit (ala Shogun 2) with and end goal of perks in sight is impossible. Any perk / benefits (eg civilisation wide perks) have no information. Its basically a shot in the dark what you choose with eg, pirates, characters... The tech tree is hard to use too.

 

The agents are worthless. In Shogun 2, a good ninja + some cash was worth an army, and could, dependent on chances, hold your flank. that was awesome.. Here, an good assassin cant make an assassination.

 

On higher difficulty you get to the point FAR TOO EARLY where there is no real challenge any more. Mopping up the map is mindless and i'd rather start again. Even playing as carthage (the Rome 1 INCREDIBLY HARD MODE), i landed an army on the italian peninsular in about turn 20.

 

Oh and the client state bullshit is so poorly worked as well that i ended up assembling 1 army for each region, taking MY client state in 1 turn so i could have the fucking province. An you can walk into enemy territory without having to be at war, then go to war with your armies right at their gates. Utterly stupid.

 

Battles, you've covered. Generals, you've covered (the old retinues...). Good units, armies, you've covered. Specifically i'd in battle say that cavalry and elephants and phalanxes are amazingly weak; while archers and Roman infantry are brutally overpowered.

Autoresolution is far too tempting 99% of the time.

 

tldr, Yes. Shogun 2 Rome would have been amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a valid, if self-righteous and passive-aggressive, observation if our complaints overwhelmingly focused on AI and PC performance. But they don't.

 

So thanks, but no thanks for your condescension. And until everyone playing games is required by law to know how to code and to have shipped a game, I could not possibly care less how hard it is to make a game. Somehow, lots of developers manage to make great ones that don't get beaten up on this show. Creative Assembly didn't.

 

If you want to listen to people who "deserve" to have opinions about games, I highly recommend Jon Shafer's Game Design Round Table. Jon and Dirk might meet your expectations.

 

Golf clap.  Well done sir.  Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder that too, since I was thinking about replay some of the old games. For Empire for most time I used Darthmod.

 

 

Darthmod it is then. unless this is a bad way to initially approach the grand campaign? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darthmod it is then. unless this is a bad way to initially approach the grand campaign? 

From what I remember, it´s fine for the grand campaign, mostly because Darthmod don´t change or introduce too much new mechanics like other mods - for most part, its balance AI (in battle and in the strategy mode), increase the size of units and add some new effects. It does came with some  helpful setup tool so you can adjust some options.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only played the first Shogun and the first Rome, so I do not have a comprehensive understanding of the Total War series. I felt that something was already missing between Rome and Shogun.  In Shogun, resources were tight, armies were precious, and it was difficult to expand from one province to many.  I remember the morale system being absolutely critical and fascinating.  If your peasant spearmen didn't have people on their flanks and rear, they would start wavering very quickly.  The result was that the battles were difficult, and they meant something.  In Rome, the battles were rarely as interesting.  The legions were all-purpose super-units, which made them very powerful, but also made them very boring.  I'd much rather have to struggle with an army of archers and peasant spearmen than steamroll with a legion.  

 

Listening to this podcast, it sounds like things haven't gotten any better.  My question: is Shogun 2 as good as Shogun 1? 

 

I enjoyed the podcast.  I respect that you guys are willing to give an honest and nuanced discussion of a large game from a large developer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'd much rather have to struggle with an army of archers and peasant spearmen than steamroll with a legion.  

 

Listening to this podcast, it sounds like things haven't gotten any better.  My question: is Shogun 2 as good as Shogun 1? 

 

The short answer is: Yes. 

 

The lack of (western pop culture) knowledge of the subject area means that cinematic ideas take a back seat to game design; which produces cinematic instances naturally. 

 

"In Shogun, resources were tight, armies were precious, and it was difficult to expand from one province to many" Its much the same in shogun 2. You can't really afford more than 1 army for a long while. You can and will be challenged by multiple enemies.. Shogun 1's AI worked because it was chess-like, Shogun 2 makes AI decisions easier through the design of the campaign map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is: Yes. 

 

The lack of (western pop culture) knowledge of the subject area means that cinematic ideas take a back seat to game design; which produces cinematic instances naturally. 

 

"In Shogun, resources were tight, armies were precious, and it was difficult to expand from one province to many" Its much the same in shogun 2. You can't really afford more than 1 army for a long while. You can and will be challenged by multiple enemies.. Shogun 1's AI worked because it was chess-like, Shogun 2 makes AI decisions easier through the design of the campaign map.

Actually, Shogun 2 appear to take much inspiration from japanese samurai movies, like Heaven and Earth (Ten to chi to)  (by the way, its a great movie) or even Last Samurai, but this cinematic inspiration does not clash with design (it does with accuracy) but still combines somehow with the samurai movies aesthetics.

 

Shogun 2 is really worth, aside from what gorilla pop, said, I can only add the very good expansions, agents work great (maybe except monk, never used much them). It was the Total War game which I played most (around 271 hours) even the multiplayer avatar campaign is fun (but very unbalanced).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this