I only run 5-10 mods on WH2 depending on what faction I am playing or whatnot. Silly, I know, but fun. In ROME 2 if you run it with no mods your game will play as this: Egypt dominates middle east, Green barbarians take over Gaul, Iberia and ITALY. And that hideous politics system that replaced the family trees we all loved so much? The latter was built with all the experience gained from the first, but delivers such a flat and controlled experience.In Rome 1, you can buff trash troops so significantly that horse archers are practically throwing grenades. characters, and the distinctive likeness thereof, are either ® or ™, and/or © Games Its diplomacy is also superior, allies hold alliances though Rome 1 allowed unrestricted region trading and Rome 2 does not.In conclusion, in my experience, I would liken Rome 1 to a open world and Rome 2 as more linear.They're two different games with two different design philosophies, despite what the names suggest.Rome 1 is more feature heavy, and allows for a greater depth of play, especially on the campaign side of things. It's usually the same thing, CA was changing the gameplay so it's not quite so easy to exploit, and perhaps that's a good thing. Medieval 2 Medievall II diplomacy is the worst ever seen in any TW games, including empire. "Moshpit until better stats win" Sure, and then get hit by any semi-decent spell and lose all your superior stats across your entire army with a debuff spell or just lose the units outright with a good damage spell. Difficulty. AT least make the damn Macedon AI take over Greece but frikin Athens? Barring differences in setting, in which case some like historical, a lot more care for fantasy(i liked empire total war because of the setting, so i dont judge), it comes down to which part of the game you care more about/enjoy more. In Rome 2, even maximum upgrades won't change their purpose, just make them slightly better.In Rome 1, you can make an army of assassins and spies and totally dick with the computer if you don't have a stack in the area. The big AI diference I find is that the TW AI is far more aggressive. I hope CA gets a good look at this thread. medieval 2 looks better but lots of ppl say that rome total war is better. TW R2 was, is and will remain to be a boring insult to the average strategy gamers' intelligence. In Rome 2, there's a hard limit on your agents.In Rome 1, every square of the campaign map produced a unique battle map. How to control your armies in battle. I highly recommend EU IV for everyone, even for full price. I briefly played EU3 and didn't like the hundreds of popups. SpwnMoar, you realize that game along with gamesl ike civ and crusader kings are similar to historical, but not at all intended to be accurate to real events. For example, any general can become a 10 star, dreaded Caesar, it just requires battles.

Miss to take controll over the battle field, if that was in, it had been the best game. Total War: Shogun 2 … Rome ! Not asked for and no reason to implement. It actually had a population, not just some +/- number. ATHENS, ♥♥♥♥ in Athens, I cant get over thi ssh it. I could have spent more time with it but didn't find the real-time, however slow, aspect of the campaign game appealing. Rome 2 over unmodded Rome 1 now overall. That said, Total War can REALLY used extra strategy. Learn how to effectively control an army when in battle in Total War: ROME II.

Want a good RTS? Really different games. It's a masterpiece, despite being 7 years old. I understand absolutely when people say Rome 1 seemed better, but that was back then you know. ROME II BLOG. In the latter case, the AI world will be a complete mess not unlike what we see in Rome 2. Discussions, strategies, stories, crude cave-drawings, and more for Medieval 2, Empire, Shogun 2, Rome 2, Attila, Thrones of Britannia, Warhammer, Three Kingdoms and others.Press J to jump to the feed. As far as I'm concerned, all you have to do is look at the gorgeous list of factions that Rome 2 offers and compare it to the painfully bland and straight-up false list of factions Rome 1 offers. Basically the Historical Hardcore crowd didn't like Rome 1 Total War so they made huge changed with Rome 2. In Rome 1 the traits and ancillary system made it so you didn't always have very good generals after 5 battles, and you actually had to deal with incompetent shitrags because they were just inherently bad people, in Rome 2 a new general may have a few negative traits, but they never affect his development, and become very minor negatives, in Rome 1 they could manifest themselves until you were left with a crazed, incest, hateful moron in control of your Empire.Then there is the mod scene.

The guy claiming the battles are more in depth is only talking about hero abilities/spells. That said, Total War can REALLY used extra strategy.Honestly we want both - tactics and strategy, and for this reason we are never truly satisfied Even went so far as using the Game of Thrones mod to try and liven it up a bit.

In Rome 2, it's every region (much larger).There are many more examples. Really just starting territories. How to control your armies in battle. To be honest, the AI in EU4 is as abusable as the one in Rome 2, but in the EU4 it gets better scripted help. Athen will wipe out Macedon and Pyrus then proceed to head up north and take out the brown guys and become a superpower. I still play Rome 1 (with the Total Realism Europa Universalis (as well as Crusader Kings for that matter) are the opposite of that - very basic tactics but tons of strategy. All trademarks are property of their respective owners in the US and other countries. Learn how to dominate the ancient world by using the campaign UI in Total War: ROME II with this handy guide. Assembly logo, Total War and the Total War logo are either registered trade marks or Academy. Get that.I have 350 hours in Rome 2 and 400 in Rome 1, and Rome 2 is too restrictive compared to Rome 1.This generates a very different meta to Rome 1, since apart from the sandbox open map the games share very little in common.