more political infighting ( looks like I will get it)

Ah, yes. I was going to make a thread on that.

Naming legions and units- they can do it in Empire Total War, they can do it here. A little tracker that can keep track of how many battles, men killed, casualties etc would also be cool.

It looks like they will have that tracker too, at least for the Legions. The Legions will be able to acquire traits like characters can, so if they consistently win overwhelmingly, they can get good traits for that. They lose lots of battles, trait for that as well. Again, for Legions. I would expect this would transfer over to other armies too, but all we can do is hope. I mean we do have a year and a half(ish) before the game is released.

I have said something like this before I know, but I think the idea of raiding seems cool. You would be able to send in a couple units to a rival's territory, and smash and grab all you can before their army can get you, as a way of gaining money. While this wouldn't be an act of war per se, it would, at least in Rome 1, give you a transgression notice. This would be especially useful if you have a poorer area (e.g. Germania or Scythia) where it was historically accurate anyway.

It would be cool to have the tracker and the ability to name legions would be cool, it would also be nice to be able to create legions and then deform them and have the ability to reform in a few turns, so it won't take years to make a traditional legion.

I'd like to see some improvement in naval battles. I don't know about Shogun2, but in Napoleon you can't ram a ship. I hope that ramming is included in naval battles, as it was the way naval battles were fought. Imagine using the corvus...

[This message has been edited by Alex_the_bold (edited 07-05-2012 @ 05:00 PM).]

Imagine using the corvus...

If the corvus is added to Roman naval units I propose one every 2-4 turns, 80% of units that have it sink if they are not in harbor

Seriously, while it gave Rome the edge in the First Punic War, it unbalanced their ships, making them top heavy and decreasing their stability in the violent Mediterranean storms. The Roman census recorded a drop in population because of their Naval losses for the most part.

Maybe, they will have it, and there will most definatly be ramming.

Ramming would certainly be there. No other option.

I like Scenter's and EoJ's ideas. I would add playable factions. I've noted this on the Empire forum, but I think having ALL factions as playable increases re-playability. I don't care how dire the situation is, or how crappy the faction is, I want the ability to play as them.

I don't want to have to choose to play between 8-12 factions. Gimme dozens!

If the corvus is added to Roman naval units I propose one every 2-4 turns, 80% of units that have it sink if they are not in harbor

Seriously, while it gave Rome the edge in the First Punic War, it unbalanced their ships, making them top heavy and decreasing their stability in the violent Mediterranean storms. The Roman census recorded a drop in population because of their Naval losses for the most part.

The Romans sure did suffer some appalling losses at sea. Although I still remember that Roman naval commander (think his name was Claudius) at Drepana who chucked a bunch of chickens into the sea because they didn't give him favorable omens. He still lost the battle though.

An "Advance in Formation" button. That's all I want. They could re-release the original RtW with an "Advance in Formation" button and I would gladly pay $60.

Curiously, I take it you have not played Shogun 2 Cordyceps? There is both a 'Move Forwards' and 'Move Backwards' option these days alongside the rotation, 'Increase Rank', and 'Increase File' options in the UI (and also hotkeyed). It basically does as it says, it moves your selected units forwards or backwards in formation by the distance specified by you.

Creative Assembly would be stupid not to keep that function in Rome II, in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Scipii (edited 07-06-2012 @ 11:50 AM).]

Sort of copying the comments from the 'next TW thread' but I'd rather not have a set research tree - pay 1,000 and wait 5 turns and you will discover calculus giving you blah, then another 4,000 and 50 turns and you will have nuclear fusion (the Romans had nukes didn't they?) etc. It's fine to tweak an existing / nearly finished idea with budgets and timelines but broad areas could go nicely with a high, medium, low, no funding option changing the likelihood of an advance and so on. Rather than 'research testudo formation' completing and bang all legions in the field can creep around being sitting ducks, it could be made so that legions can have training levels - work them hard and (whatever the outcome is, e.g. more cost but better discipline, more likely to revolt if their favourite general does etc) or let them be lazy, not learn the formations but get groovy traits about being lazy hairy thugs.

Making a more complex economy could be interesting but maybe might mess things up - e.g. kill a huge number of Romans in the forests and you get more metal for weapons (or cheaper weapons for a while) etc.

Could levy troops work, raised for a short time hitting local economies but then disbanding themselves if they're not doing much / harvest is coming? Might again just be annoying

I don't know what I want, but I want something different from the last few, different from RTW but not too different from RTW.

They could throw in a risk style map mode as an easter egg

One of the guys that went to Rezzed (where they demoed the Carthaginian siege shown in released screenshots) said that the most shocking thing was watching the disciplined way the Roman soldiers fought. The first line would hold their shields down and the second line would stab with swords and the ranks would shift out to get fresh men to the front every few minutes!

The thing I look forward to most is what Shogun 2 failed to deliver: unit diversity. Not the unit diversity that Empire or Napoleon delivered, I mean unit diversity that requires warfare change between factions!

For example, playing as Greek faction was so pleasantly different due to the phalanx and the pros and cons that brought. You were much less mobile, but your infantry line was strong as iron. Romans used disciplined infantry, Gauls and Germans used fanatic shock troops to inspire fear, the Eastern faction had mediocre infantry but quick horse archers and cavalry. Not only did that make each faction unique to play as, but also to play against them required different tactics as the Romans.

A nice big campaign map will suit me. That and many different factions to play as. Unlike with RTW they arent limited to 20 factions now, so i am eager to see some diversity in the gameplay and many small nations

Thinking more about it - good hillforts are something I'd like to see, and lots of political options - if you could give warnings / ask for assistance in a detailed way (e.g. those Gauls want your land, if you invade them first I'll back you up) it could be interesting.

Not so much a game feature - but I really hope we see the engine being used either for a new Time Commander series or for history programmes. Heck, the RTWH forumers could probably do some quite good reenactments if there's a cinematic editor thrown in. That type of thing would show off the game and would be a good way to get graphics into history things (rather than two chaps trying to redo a whole battle with a wobbly camera).

Well at least it would be good if it had a screen capture option, so you no longer require costly external tools like fraps.

Apparently the campaign AI and diplomacy AI are being merged, and even flushed out to help make it more predictable. One example given in an article is say you want trade rights with someone, and they refuse. No longer will it be a mystery, but it will tell you (or you'd have to spy, no idea which just yet) the reason, in this case they want some of your land, or they know you broke an alliance with another faction, making you untrustworthy.

They also said that the factions will have different temperaments. Some will be economic focused (Carthage, looking at you), others war (Barbarians most likely, Rome too), amongst others.

Really pleased by this, though I do hope they make diplomatic proposals binding. If you promise to not attack someone, you shouldn't be allowed to attack them in any form.

Giving reasons why factions refuse or accept alliances or trade deals or peace treaties would be an excellent feature.

Bring back the trait system. After M2TW It's like the trait system disappeared entirely. I also agree that units should also gain traits for their feats and flaws. With Swampy, I don't care much for tech trees(although they were fitting for ETW and NTW). I don't think tech trees would fit the Roman era. The Legions changed over time anyway, not by saying "Hmm, lets research Lorica Segmentata". Legion should also change regionally as others have said. cloaks in the north, lighter armor in the east, stuff like that. Also it would be cool, upon becoming emperor, you have the choice of forming the Praetorian gaurd, which would give you the unit, enchance the faction leader's bodygaurd, but have negative effects. Possibly a chance to be assassinated by your own gaurd or loss of popularity.

It would also be great if some troops were presented as they truly were, e.g. Ptolemaic units, phalanxes and barbarian units... Some cities should also have multiple series of walls, as in M2TW. Permanent forts would also be good, as would some historical people, such as leaders, generals, even scientists and writers who could be used as agents.

In addition, especially among militias and the barbarians, there should be a difference in the appearence and weaponry among individuals, as in M2TW...

Here's hoping for a deeper RPG-like character skill tree, the one they use in Shogun II is alright but it has room for improvements. I always did find it funny that I could make my generals experts in ambushing via skill unlocks without them even having participated in a single ambush. Though I guess you could say a General's improvements are down to a better understanding of the strategic and tactical theory behind laying ambushes.

What would be an interesting feature would be the ability to loosely control the gear used by each Legion. So you could equip Legions in the desert with lighter armour, so they don't tire as fast, or equip Legions fighting in Dacia with leg and arm guards to help protect against the Flax. I think someone may have raised that already, but it needed raising again. That's just a rough idea, I have it more thoroughly figured out up here (in my brain).

It would be a nice addition to the game if the units could shout while they fought. For example as seen in Shogun II:Total War,whenever I did a naval battle I could hear (by zooming onto the ships) the crew singing/warcrying/shouting to the enemy/etc.If they could also implement this to Rome II it would be awesome. Personally whenever I zoomed onto my troops I could only hear crying and death screams like Aghhhhh! etc... I don't know that might be a stupid idea,guys you decide!
*PS* Sorry for double edit but it seems none answered/replied that's why.
I also have another idea which could really turn things out...Units!
I mean take e.g. of the hoplites,many guys didn't like spartan hoplites because they looked so boring! Well we could have a feature where we could pay 100 denars and change their armour. Also have different armoured units on each location. When you recruit a armoured hoplite in Thessalonica(Macedonia) he will have black armor with a Gold Star(Bergina).Whenever you recruit a unit in Larissa he will wear a green-blue-pink-whatever armor that is supposed to be wearing. Also please please PLEASE RTW2 can become EVEN MOAR REALISTICKzzz by upgrading your unit's armor. Whenever you build a blacksmith,you have to retrain your unit (as all we know) and in the next turn he has a +1 armor/attack/etc. So if your unit had a bronze spear,WHY NOT (with the blacksmith of course) make it IRON and paint it on the unit's card? It will change your unit looks and stuff. Same thing with horses too! Oh and by the way another thing that would be really AWESOME is to put even MOAR SHIPZ to the game! And buildings and stuff,you know...With a few words,whenever you recruit the same unit on different locations,he will look different(depends on location) AND you can change unit's card and armor look by paying 100 denars(press button ORDER ARMOR) and also when building blacksmith and stuff that increases attack/defence/nuclear power make it look on the upgraded UNIT. That's it!

[This message has been edited by GreekMayjyor (edited 07-20-2012 @ 10:46 AM).]

The generals could build walls (like the wall of the Emperor Hadrian), chains strongholds, most camps fortified with ditches and ramparts.

A company with several families, including marriages and mergers. The emperors ruling family or having to make alliances and maintain happiness among families patricias or suffer attacks.

The emperor could extort money from the bourgeois, but risk of causing discontent and rebellion and murder.

In battles, more variety of troops, to recruit units typical local (auxiliary) but only after the population to stay loyal and be more versatile auxiliary (auxiliaries in the history of the Empire wore bow, sling, spear and sword, so that the proposed beginning of the battle we could choose what function each unit, always with the sword for melee combat).

The army of greece need light infantry and the great army of Cartago (Carthage) more mercenaries and the regular troops better quality, or the armys of Carthage receive twice the benefices of experience, and the regions of South and East of Spain.

In the history, the experience of the Hannibal's army put them at the same level of the Roman's army. But in the previously game, the Cartaginians were very weak, and the Magnificent Anibal, Grace of Baal, that men who stant in the Italica Peninsula for 16 years, WAS NEVER BORN!!!!!

In my opinion heach nations should have special advantages, like the romans the recruitment of auxiliars and the cities more advanced, the cartaginian more mercenaries, quik spawn and trade bonus, the barbarian less defence, attack and moral in their armys, but large numbers, the diference should be 2 barbarian to 1 roman, the egipcian farm bonus.

The wonders should be more powerfull.

In the gladiator's fights and races are scheduled, pay for them exist and the effects will disappear gradually, in 5 or 6 turns.

Sorry for the bad English, my mother tongue is the magnificent and magnanime Portuguese :s

Please coment, or send me a private message or email.

Would it interfere with people doing AARs if they were to put together some sort of auto-history report?
There's potential for something either nice and factual summarising the main events from your faction's point of view; or similar for a legion; or to go for a (more realistic) biased view

A couple of cool ideas. If you're one of the Roman factions you can only move in your zone of authority. So when the Senate sends you to fight in gaul, you cant invade spain or go to greece. If you want the nice rich provinces you have to wheel and deal in rome by investing in elections or building buildings. Also you are limited to the generals in your family or that you adopt. (if you're a non-roman faction you get this automatically)

I think it would make the senate politics more interesting. Also at some point you have to make the decision to break the senates decisions and march into another province or cross the rubicon. Once you are the emperor or consul you have control over all generals.

Another idea for tech could be that it also be organic with new tech coming as a result of provinces required, buildings built etc over time. Are you warlike, do support commerce, navies, your culture.

Another Idea would be in defections. You could link the legions to a general who oversees them kind of like the city religion in shogun 2. If a legion has been under the command of general maximumus and they like him but then maximus defects they are more likely to defect even if they are now under a new general (loyalty to a general would depend on victories gained and time under him and general traits or politics) Also the legions would gain traits like loyal, monarchists, republican, populist, sneaky (if have done ambushes before) If you have a bad general leading a legion against a vastly superior army they will defect etc...

This would work with non-roman factions as well as loyalty to kings, princes or generals in general would still be in effect.

Anyway long post just really excited I loved rome.

There is one thing I have wanted since Empire, faster turn times. It may seem like a minor thing, but it has been hard for me to get into the newer titles because of that. So if it could be like 5 seconds I will be happy.

I definitely agree that this needs to be reiterated.
Legions should change according to where they fight.

with that said I also would like to see more internal politics. members of families jostling to become faction leader. more interaction (if rome is divided by prominent families like in rtw 1) between members of different families. The faction leader should be more of a determinant on faction stability. That's something that was kind of implemented in later games but not to any crucial extent. I would like to see more role-playing in the family members, perhaps more control on their traits but not to the degree of choosing them from a tree. A trait tree kind of kills the effect of characters living in the world.

Technology growth should really be tied to city growth. once again choosing off of a tree just seems artificial and little to much like civilization. Getting tech from conquered cultures would be really interesting. Cultures have adapted and grown based on absorbing other cultures.

Would it interfere with people doing AARs if they were to put together some sort of auto-history report?

I've always wanted something like that in total war. I don't think it will really interfere because people aren't always writing AAR's. AAR's are in depth and their sometimes tailored to add a story. an auto-history should be concise and reflect significant events like historical battle, famous leader or general, capture capital and or destroyed X faction.

Also, a scoreboard. I've always felt said after completing a campaign in rtw and not being to reflect on my achievements afterwards.

[This message has been edited by SongsOfBeitar (edited 08-20-2012 @ 02:08 PM).]

I'd like more abstraction. To me, it seems that unit size selection should be divorced from city population reduction: I think of my 80-man RTW units as cohorts, around 400-500 men; if I choose huge size units, the actual cohort people per game man would be different, but the unit is still the same size and has minimal impact on cities, which could have a real population. So say Rome has 300,000 population, you recruit a cohort, the pop is reduced by 480 regardless of unit size selected.

I'd like to see the game evolve closer to actual Roman history. I want the Gauls to hang around till 50 BC or so, and not get quickly wiped out by the Julii & Brits as happens so often in RTW. I want the Marius reforms to happen around when they did. Something has to slow the pace of the game down, perhaps adamelshalakany's zone of authority suggestion.

I'd like huge historical battles, perhaps even in mini-campaign settings. I want to play Alesia.

I'd like blood. Lots of blood. I'd like to see limbs and heads being hacked off. I'd like phalangites killing elephants by poking them in the eye. I want to see the dying elephants poop themselves. I want waterfalls of blood and guts gushing down stone walls. Instead of every man cheering after a win, I want some to drop to their knees and vomit profusely.

The Following Features.

Government and politics tasks (mission,quest), with tracking statistics, like keeping track of variety of things, whether it's [killing, traits,power and etc... ].

[This message has been edited by Cyrus Da Great (edited 10-18-2012 @ 09:26 PM).]

I'd like to see some more powerful tools for diplomacy, more internal politics, and more diversity in formations and tactics. Better AI (goes without saying?) in all aspects: unit AI, battlefield AI, battle map AI, etc.

I would also like a more realistic organization for the Republic. I think that there shouldn't really be individual roman families with land what is essentially a free charter to expand. What they could do is have families in Rome almost like sub-factions, with an emphasis on gaining power through being elected to office and expanding the republic. Then your family member gets almost like a commission to conquer an area. They get troops and free reign to do anything they need to do to succeed in the objectives. Eventually, u'll get a family member who conquers a bunch of land, gains the loyalty of their troops, and can challenge Rome.

I really want to see an open campaign like in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 where you can do as you please to get the job done.

In Napoleon, to play as the French, you had to follow the rules of "Get this region in this amount of time". Really didnt like that.

Also, i hope they have re-emerging factions like in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2.

I do believe we'll have reemarging factions. They were in three of the last titles, and have no doubt they'll be in the next one. Wouldn't make sense to cut out a feature they've used successfully, and especially one that was as wanted as it was from Rome 1 fans.

I don't think we'll have a Napoleon-type campaign, seeing as how Rome 2 isn't focused on a particular individual, but a growing state. There might be campaigns where you can play as a Caesar/Pompey/Sulla/Hannibal/ect but I do foresee a campaign where you don't need to follow specific guidelines except control X regions, including Y,Z, and A by turn B.

I would look forward to a Realm Divide feature for factions such as the Barbarians or Greeks, factions who's whole culture of individualism could be unified if one grew great enough. Perhaps even a Realm Divide for the Successor factions? I would find it awesome if they did it so that in order to get the other states to join yours, you would have to capture (not kill) the other Successor Kings in battle, and when you've captured the king of Macedonia and Egypt (if you are the Seleucids), you can force them to join your empire. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

I would look forward to a Realm Divide feature for factions such as the Barbarians or Greeks, factions who's whole culture of individualism could be unified if one grew great enough. Perhaps even a Realm Divide for the Successor factions? I would find it awesome if they did it so that in order to get the other states to join yours, you would have to capture (not kill) the other Successor Kings in battle, and when you've captured the king of Macedonia and Egypt (if you are the Seleucids), you can force them to join your empire. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

Or a 'united realm,' where if a major faction invades a certain cultural area (greece or barbarians for example), they will have the option of uniting to repel the invaders

Will there be a bunch of Greek poleis (pl polis) in the game, or are they going to have one faction representing them all?

Different factions. Just think of how many factions were in Shogun 2, or (to a lesser extent) Empire and Napoleon (or did Empire have more...?). I just want to know how they are going to go about filling the empty spaces of Germania/the Steppes. Generic rebels? Make them unconquerable?

A few things; Bigger map, more factions, more historical battles, customizable multiplayer maps.
Another idea; Some sort of 'new man' campaign. You would start off as a captain/general of a small army and play a few battles in some theater of war. You get the chance to repel some raiders, defeat some rebels blah blah. Should you win these battles you might get some land/money (ability to replenish units) or more units, get bigger missions, until the senate decides to you need to own a whole province. Then you jump into a grand/main campaign situation with your general as the faction leader/head of the family/etc.

Quoted from Punic:

I just want to know how they are going to go about filling the empty spaces of Germania/the Steppes.

Possibly something similar to the North America of EmpireTW?

Quoted from Junya:

Or a 'united realm,' where if a major faction invades a certain cultural area (greece or barbarians for example), they will have the option of uniting to repel the invaders

This sounds interesting and feasible. Almost like a Jihad before anything is actually conquered? Different city-states/barbarian factions (depending on the locale) could join an army to face off the stronger invaders.

I think that having multi turn battles would be neat. You would start the battle and then either win or lose the "day" and be given an option to withdraw or maintain position. You would fortify a camp and such. And could send in reinforcements. Of course the AI could do the same. And to keep down on a lot of long battles have a troop number limit.

Mount and Blade battles are similar. It's often in several phases and you can chose to withdraw, surrender, whatever

A sort of tech tree I guess. Hastati turning into Princeples and then Trariri would be cool :P

Upgrading obsolete units into newer versions would be nice.

I'd also like to see a more balanced gameplay, where super-factions such as Egypt and Rome would be nerfed. In addition, more historical units than the previous game and perhaps stronger diplomatic ties...

I hope it retains most of the gameplay in fighting though. Total Economy : Rome II will be terrible. Along with Total Politics : Rome II or Total Religon : Rome II.

Quoted from Scenter:

I think that having multi turn battles would be neat.

That's especially true for siege battles, they've mentioned multiple capture points in cities but what would be best I think is the ability to capture areas of large cities and end the phase of battle rather than needing to take call of Carthage in one go. If the defender couldn't recapture the area before the time ran out then then next battle would start with that as a deployment area / with any makeshift defences that would be appropriate - between battles you could potentially have the defender besieging the attackers, damage inflicted on the city/population, diplomacy and the option for the rest of the city to surrender.

The option in NTW to surrender cities was a nice thought but only makes sense really if it's in the hands of the people (or they might rebel if they think you'll lose, don't have a governor they respect - but if they do like the governor they'd be more galvanised) and/or you get to pull troops out.

I would like the use of engineers,writers and important people as diplomats,for example,Sophocles talking to a Roman leader,in diplomatic proposals,if you know about TATW,it shows what they think of the offers you make,the phalanxes better at their stuff, the roman units not that good,the ability to use Archimedes ideas in the siege of Syracuse when playing as Greeks to help and naval battles with balista

What i want to know is if they are going to redo BI as well...

Or if they build it in to the game to make it an epic, multi-era-spanning game of ultimate conquest and fall...

MOAR STUFF FROM EMPIRE.

I loved Empire but hated guns and line battles. Amusing as they are I don't see much tactics. But I loved having plantations/Government/Diplomacy/Armies with names.

Its the little perks that I like. Things like sites of great battles and armies with names. I find them interesting to look at while not being in a bloody moshpit of death.

Personally, Napoleon's game engine and mechanics were my favorite. Being able to liberate a region, thus making it a buffer state between you and a faction you don't have the means nor will to mess with you. The fact that a general could be wounded and not necessarily killed was also a plus when it came to my favorite generals. Napoleon Total War's downfall, much like Shogun 2, was lack of scope. Get too focused, and the game lacks variety. Japan is too homogeneous, and Napoleon too focused. I think Rome 2 will be a nice break from all this.

I agree with the last two comments from Average Citizen and Punic Hoplite. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that thinks Shogun 2 was weak when compared to the previous games.

it would be neat to havespys that could bribe units, while under siege, so you can get a seen like that in Bravehearts rendition of the battle of Falkirk. Or with carthage in the 1st punic war.

Custom troops would be nice, you could customize things to give certain bonuses, like larger shields would result in less chance of arrows hitting, but a slower speed.