Total War: Rome II New Expansions - Empire Divided + Rise of the Republic

[A horse of course]

 

[A horse of course]

Played about an hour of the new DLC as Syracuse. Gameplay is pretty much the same so far, but the visual updates look really nice.

 

[Ovg]

Divide et Impera is already updated to work with it. That's all I care about.

 

[Fedora Master]

The vanilla siege AI is still dumb as a rock but the graphics improvements are nice and the RotR campaign seems well made so far.

 

[A horse of course]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

 

[Fedora Master]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

The bloated victory conditions were always a problem in R2. They got rid of that shit in WaWa (Look at Bretonnia: Get 1000 Chivalry, win an Errantry War, bam done!) for the most part but somehow didn't think to fix them for RotR even now.

 

[A horse of course]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

The bloated victory conditions were always a problem in R2. They got rid of that shit in WaWa (Look at Bretonnia: Get 1000 Chivalry, win an Errantry War, bam done!) for the most part but somehow didn't think to fix them for RotR even now.

Well they actually added shorter victory conditions in Attila, and continued this tradition in the DLC and Warhammer (even Warhammer 1's victory conditions could be a bit long depending on the faction - I remember the first time I played as the Empire I got both the Short and Long victories simultaneously). Thrones of Britannia also had multiple victory conditions, with a special challenge as a "reward" to incentivize reaching the long victory. What's strange is that I'm fairly certain CA themselves have admitted multiple times that according to their stats, most people don't finish campaigns, so why they went back to the absurd Rome 2 objectives I don't know.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/total-war-rome-ii/total-war-rome-2-rise-of-the-republic-pc-review

Total War: Rome 2 – Rise of the Republic PC review
Can a new epic campaign and factions give 2013's Total War: Rome II a new lease of life among the strategy game crowd?

The Rise of the Republic expansion takes us back 127 years before Total War: Rome II’s original campaign to the founding of the Republic, when Rome was just another bullshit town. Compared to the original’s sprawling map, Rise of the Republic’s zoomed-in mostly-Italian arena seems positively cramped – capturing the cheek by jowl living of Italian city states. There’s still the typical number of cities as in most Total War games, but they’re less spaced out, so you don’t spend three turns sending Triremes across the Mediterranean before you can smash those Carthaginian bastards.

Adding to the pressure is the fact that all eight factions seem to hate each other, and they especially hate Rome, which is located right smack dab in the middle of the map. It’s an interesting period of history and leads directly into the Grand Campaign of the original game. With its tighter map and aggressive AI, the Rise of the Republic campaign gets down to business quickly, which makes sense considering the continual threats Rome faced during this historical period. It’s much more fun than the drawn out campaigns of the original.

As the hero of Rise of the Republic, Marcus Furius Camillus (a real person whose name already sounds like a videogame character), once said, “not with gold, but with iron, will the fatherland be regained.” And thus will you be spending a lot of time in battle mode tossing phalanxes at your enemies and wishing someone would hurry up and figure out how to train legionnaires.

Unlike the more recent MOBA-influenced Total War: Warhammer II, Rome II still has the grindy battles of earlier games in the series. Though a lot of people like the slower, more strategic RTS play, it left me hovering over the auto-resolve button more often than not. Additionally – as though this needs to be said – the AI is still troublesome, making some clearly boneheaded decisions. Ever seen a line of horsemen commit suicide by running into a spear wall? I have.



But you also get some of Warhammer II’s asymmetry, especially on the strategic layer. The expansion’s eight playable factions include a Sardinian tribe, an Etruscan state, a couple of Gauls teams, two Italic tribes, and two Greek city-states in addition to our fledgling titular Republic. As per usual in Total War games, each side has its own unit list, starting conditions, and bonuses, but Rise adds a few new wrinkles. There are regional and faction-specific events, objectives and dilemmas to handle that are way more interesting than the base game’s Roman revolts, and they can strike out of the blue.

ROME II IS NOW ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLEX TOTAL WARS

Factions also have unique buildings, like Rome’s Capitoline Hill, which mimics history by making conquering Rome a two-stage process. The expansion also adds Government Actions as a replacement for changing your government, letting each faction have its own special talent. While the Romans can appoint a dictator in times of need, the Samnites can invoke the Ver Sacrum rite to instantly raise an army, and the Gauls can consult with druids. These mechanical differences make your choice of faction worth considering way more as it’s no longer a case of comparing a dull stat bonuses. Did I mention the Greeks can build ballistas? Kaboom!



If you avoided Rome II at launch due to middling reviews and reports of bugs, the most important takeaway from this latest release is that Creative Assembly has been tirelessly expanding on the game since it was released in the dark ages of 2013. Rome II is now not only one of the most popular Total War games, but also one of the largest and most complex. You may not want to dive headlong into a brand new campaign, but why not give the base game a second look? Likewise, if you lost interest in the base game a few years ago, Rise of the Republic is a great reason to reinstall it.

Total War: Rome 2 - Rise of the Republic PC review
Total War: Rome 2 is five years old but Rise of the Republic acts as an anti-ageing cream, bolstering it with a new campaign and features that means it can keep up with Total War: Warhammer 2.

 

[A horse of course]

Much better review from Darren

 

[Tacgnol]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

The bloated victory conditions were always a problem in R2. They got rid of that shit in WaWa (Look at Bretonnia: Get 1000 Chivalry, win an Errantry War, bam done!) for the most part but somehow didn't think to fix them for RotR even now.

Well they actually added shorter victory conditions in Attila, and continued this tradition in the DLC and Warhammer (even Warhammer 1's victory conditions could be a bit long depending on the faction - I remember the first time I played as the Empire I got both the Short and Long victories simultaneously). Thrones of Britannia also had multiple victory conditions, with a special challenge as a "reward" to incentivize reaching the long victory. What's strange is that I'm fairly certain CA themselves have admitted multiple times that according to their stats, most people don't finish campaigns, so why they went back to the absurd Rome 2 objectives I don't know.

I always found the Medieval 2 long victory conditions to be a good balance.

Generally hold between 50-60 regions and wipe out 2-3 factions. If you wiped out the required factions you would generally be pretty close to the region requirement.

 

[A horse of course]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

The bloated victory conditions were always a problem in R2. They got rid of that shit in WaWa (Look at Bretonnia: Get 1000 Chivalry, win an Errantry War, bam done!) for the most part but somehow didn't think to fix them for RotR even now.

Well they actually added shorter victory conditions in Attila, and continued this tradition in the DLC and Warhammer (even Warhammer 1's victory conditions could be a bit long depending on the faction - I remember the first time I played as the Empire I got both the Short and Long victories simultaneously). Thrones of Britannia also had multiple victory conditions, with a special challenge as a "reward" to incentivize reaching the long victory. What's strange is that I'm fairly certain CA themselves have admitted multiple times that according to their stats, most people don't finish campaigns, so why they went back to the absurd Rome 2 objectives I don't know.

I always found the Medieval 2 long victory conditions to be a good balance.

Generally hold between 50-60 regions and wipe out 2-3 factions. If you wiped out the required factions you would generally be pretty close to the region requirement.

I think Med 2 short victory conditions were a bit lower, like 30-45 settlements or something. Basically all of Western and Central Europe IIRC.

 

[Tacgnol]

Finally finished the Syracuck campaign. I was gonna tell you guys what I thought but then I had to spend two days grinding out those stupid victory conditions and forgot everything that happened.

The bloated victory conditions were always a problem in R2. They got rid of that shit in WaWa (Look at Bretonnia: Get 1000 Chivalry, win an Errantry War, bam done!) for the most part but somehow didn't think to fix them for RotR even now.

Well they actually added shorter victory conditions in Attila, and continued this tradition in the DLC and Warhammer (even Warhammer 1's victory conditions could be a bit long depending on the faction - I remember the first time I played as the Empire I got both the Short and Long victories simultaneously). Thrones of Britannia also had multiple victory conditions, with a special challenge as a "reward" to incentivize reaching the long victory. What's strange is that I'm fairly certain CA themselves have admitted multiple times that according to their stats, most people don't finish campaigns, so why they went back to the absurd Rome 2 objectives I don't know.

I always found the Medieval 2 long victory conditions to be a good balance.

Generally hold between 50-60 regions and wipe out 2-3 factions. If you wiped out the required factions you would generally be pretty close to the region requirement.

I think Med 2 short victory conditions were a bit lower, like 30-45 settlements or something. Basically all of Western and Central Europe IIRC.

Yeah short was like 30 I think, you still had to wipe out certain factions though. So you often ended up with close to the long victory requirement depending on which factions you had to target.

 

[Ovg]

Both Divide et Impera (good for Europa Barbarorum fans) and Radious Total War (good for popamolers... also those who like to play other campaigns, as it doesn't use a script to implement reforms) are ready and released. That being said, you better do the paradox thing and wait for a patch or two for the base game, as the new campaign has some bad bugs. It's like mid-patched paradox game. You can play it, but it will get better if CA get's it together and slaps that shit with some duct tape.

I also suggest looking over at TWC forums here for DEI Submods and here for a graphics pack, that, while for radious, also SHOULD work with Divide et Impera.

Also if you want better campaign AI, I personally use Minos' AI mod.

 

[Space Satan]

MARVELLOUS

 

[Rahdulan]

I don't think she knows what authentic means. Also, scummy move forcing this in free update you cannot opt out of.

 

[Fedora Master]

Brits gonna brit.

 

[tabacila]

For more context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIB5ByyXvHU&t=5s

It seems it has more to do with idiot community management going the way of 'this game is not for you shitlords', rather than the actual issue which is apparently kinda hard to get.

 

[flyingjohn]

Are there even any noticeable women figures when it comes to warfare of that era?
Minus Boadicea,which failed miserably once actually engaged with the legions.

 

[Keshik]

Doubt this game is historically accurate in the first place, seems like a whole lot of nothing to get excited about.

 

[A horse of course]

Are there even any noticeable women figures when it comes to warfare of that era?

Marc Antony

 

[Commissar Draco]

You want historical authenticity try the total converstion mods done for RTW and MTW2 like Europa Barbarorum or Invasio Barbarorum instead Comrade; about this game is this playable and fun to play in Tactical battle mode yet? Commssisar was tempted to buy the game for Sol Invictus Restitutor Orbus August Caesar Aurelian, and Austurias campaigns but wont spend 100 Euro Sheckels for something which still plays worse than RTW did.

 

[Rahdulan]

In a move no one could've seen coming Creative Assembly has doubled down.

 

[tabacila]

Well to be fair most of the retardation comes from the 'mod it or don't play it' party line.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I don't think she knows what authentic means. Also, scummy move forcing this in free update you cannot opt out of.

I don't think people understand what she is saying. In her mind, women are just as capable as men at being generals, and they just weren't allowed because of the patriarchy. So while not historically accurate, it is consonant with reality as people like her see it.

People of course will keep yammering about historical accuracy while missing the point entirely.

 

[Commissar Draco]

I don't think she knows what authentic means. Also, scummy move forcing this in free update you cannot opt out of.

I don't think people understand what she is saying. In her mind, women are just as capable as men at being generals, and they just weren't allowed because of the patriarchy. So while not historically accurate, it is consonant with reality as people like her see it.

People of course will keep yammering about historical accuracy while missing the point entirely.

You are not longer allowed to say that wombyn can't onto fighting nor leading armies on the field anymore in the European United Soviet Republics Comrade nor in brake away Islamic Realm of Bongostastan unless you are Sunni cleric of course so people are using the only form of dissent which is (still ) allowed. Its funny cause during soviet times if you wanted to study History you could pick Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece or Rome to avoid Marxism-Leninism cause even Communist Party was not Jacobin and enough to rewrite ancient history. Unlike western ''free and demoncratic'' states it seems.