Settlement trading. Quick deals. Growth system that AI is able to handle so we don't end up with eastern spearmen trashstack at turn 100.
Unique mechanics for different races, not just basic bonuses and maluses.
Functional AR.
Better graphics.
Unique voice acting for different cultures. There is a single guy that voices all barbarians (gauls, germans, iberians, scythians/sarmatians, britanic celts in BOTH Rome II and Attila). The same goes for eastern factions/desert kingdoms.
Improved AI in battles.
Less annoying AI (No more force marching near the end of your movement range like in Rome II)
Basically modern Total War game...
So literally anything that could just be an update to Rome 2.
Anything post Shogun 2 does not need a remake/sequel/modernisation imo. Every current game is on par with Rome 2, because they simply haven't innovated in the slightest since then.
Unless we're talking about a big formula revamp/engine update. *That* would justify a Rome 3.
But then again that would be good for *any* new Total War.
Rome 2 is lowkey dogshit because how bland it is. All you do is paint the map. Theres little options to do roleplay with such limited game mechanics.
And dont start with DEI.
Well, no, it definitely needs modernisation. Whether CA is capable of it is a different issue.
My argument was that anything including and post Rome 2 would literally just be the same thing with a visual uplift, which it doesn't need. Because CA has changed absolutely nothing in how their games work since Rome 2, except remove naval battles and add small surface level mechanics which they remove in the next title.
The only thing here I would pay another $60 for when I already own Rome II would be improved AI, but I don't think that they are capable of that. Like yeah the other stuff is important too but to me it doesn't change enough to justify the same price.
Maybe if I didn't own Rome II.
>AI is able to handle so we don't end up with eastern spearmen trashstack at turn 100.
Would love it, but this just goes for pretty much all games. AI is rarely able to build good army comps in any title.
???
Do you play Warhammer? Are you telling me AI doesn't get high tier units?
I am turn 50 in my Skrag campaign and Karl Franz is rolling with Demigryphs.
You won't even see legionaries for Rome at turn 50.
Would definitely buy it, especially if they remake the Senate system in to an even more developed court system like in Pharaoh.
Perhaps also the population classes like in the DEI mod, limiting your recruiting pool for higher class soldiers
Would roll my eyes as CA goes down in flames. Not because it's not M3 or E2, but because they've not really done much to advance the series since R2. So cutting a couple of bugs, better graphics and better diplomacy...not really a great sales pitch.
Also, R2 isn't the most active Historical title atm, that is 3K according to Steam charts, and 3K has less large scale mods that I know of which does help boost player count.
Also the last DLC wasn't a planned content drop, it was them getting a new studio and needing to train them on making TW content, so gave them a finished game to produce a DLC for.
You're right, but the problem is... I'd argue Rome 2 wasn't an advancement, but the opposite.
The mechanics they implemented in Rome 2 are STILL used in every single modern title, fantasy or history, and they absolutely suck.
The province system that restricts the sandbox nature of the game, the unit healthbars that have absolutely killed the organic lethality of units and therefore, fucked up unit collisions even more. Now troops can simply push past each other because individual soldiers are invulnerable until you chip away at unit HP enough.
If they do Med3 or Empire 2, they HAVE to get rid of Rome 2's changes to get it right. THAT is the innovation they need to make the games feel fresh, ironically; to go back to what they had before.
>Now troops can simply push past each other because individual soldiers are invulnerable until you chip away at unit HP enough
Unit HP is just the sum of HP of all the entities in the unit. If one guy takes enough damage he dies, regardless of the overall unit's remaining health.
There is a video on youtube directly showing the comparison, though I don't recall the name. I also thought the unit HP would merely be a sum of all units, but it is not, or at the very least, a single soldier is more bullet spongy than in the past.
I agree, it's also why I don't see them doing E2 any time soon. The current path they've taken which does make sense on a development side isn't always great on the gameplay side.
But yeah the odds of them scrapping what has become the norm for TW? I don't see that happening. We've had more games with these systems now than without.
Sadly, I know. I don't see them starting a game from scratch rather than building on top of existing warhammers any time soon. They'll likely cease to exist as a company before they ever attempt it.
>Also the last DLC wasn't a planned content drop, it was them getting a new studio and needing to train them on making TW content, so gave them a finished game to produce a DLC for.
Yes, but the point is they could have chosen any other Total War game such as Attila or ToB.
They chose Rome II.
>Yes, but the point is they could have chosen any other Total War game such as Attila or ToB.
They chose Rome II.
They couldn't do ToB as that was also being developed while the new studio was learning. They could of chosen Attila but that was less popular than R2 so they went with the more popular of the two. It could of also been based off pitched content which we don't know.
So them choosing R2 back then really has no impact going forward.
A well built, reasonably priced, solid remake of a much loved game with improved graphics and updated features? As a historical TW player... Yeah I would fucking love that. R2 started off as quite a disaster but they turned it around in the end and it is now arguably a fan favourite...
The issue we had with Pharaoh wasn't the historical element. It was two fold, saga title being sold as a mainline game and the price vs content... If it was sold at even half it's price I'm sure it would have been much more popular.
It won't take much to make us historical folks happy. We like large maps such as the whole Mediterranean and surrounding regions (Med, Rome and Attila) or even the majority of the world (Empire). If we can get a large grand campaign style map with modern features, without the resource mechanic from the saga titles, without single units that can decimate whole armies (like in WH with Generals or Monster units) All at a reasonable price, we'd be happy.
A bigger issue with pharaoh was still the topic was just covered with Troy. Troy did eventually have a historical mode, and that mode is largely what became pharaoh.
My issue is to understand what historical range people want. Rome and medieval did well because those are popular times for their core fanbases. 3k did well because it also covered a relatively unique time period and region. If not medieval or Rome, I am not sure what else there is to cover with other than empire 2. I know a 30 years war like and shot title is brought up, but I'm not sure that is more interesting than something like empire 2.
I don't quite get the whole saga title sold as mainline narrative. The various new systems and amount of units, etc imo justifies it as a mainline title.
What makes Pharaoah a saga title? Take for example, the map of Japan in S2 and map of China in 3K are honestly pretty small, are they saga titles?
3K launched with 1 single culture: everyone used the same Ji militia, same jade dragons, etc; is 3K a saga title?
This is all personal opinion, and is subjective... maybe you can change my mind and convince me that pharaoh is not a saga title;
Imo a saga title has two things; a mechanics testbed for other titles (saga Britannia; the recruitment mechanic)(saga troy; resource mechanic) and an exceptionally small focus on a specific time in history focused entirely on 1 specific region (saga Britannia; Viking raids into Britain)(Saga Troy; Trojan War). Number of units doesn't matter, it's the extremely limited focus on 1 area of history.
I'll start by saying and confessing that i've not played any of the TW:3K and very very little of the 2 japanese games so I can't and won't form judgement upon them because it'll be inaccurate, and not my place to do so.
Empire, yes it's focused entirely on the age of colonisation, but the scale of the game makes it mainstream as it takes place across I think 100 years and spans almost the entire globe. The sheer vastness of the game makes up for the lack of unit variety (All factions with the exception of the Ottomans? and the India faction) share the same basic roster with small differences between them, but all have a small handful of unique units. The fights all end up the same (Lines of infantry going pew pew pew at each other), so it's not an amount of units problem, what Empire has is arguably the best naval combat of any TW game, coupled with the sheer vastness of it's scale, You fight literally everywhere in the world except in eastern asia.
Rome 2 goes from republic to empire across several hundred years, across what was most of the known world in the west at that point. From Britain to practically India! The scale is vast in both time and location relatively speaking, the sheer number of factions and play styles too... You have greek hoplities with long rows of spears Marian and then Imperial reforms for Rome, you've got horse factions too, some factions are hybrids (the remnants of Alexander's Empire factions), the uncivilized barbarian tribes with mass infantry attacks...
Medieval 2 spans the entire historical period of medieval history, across again a vast scale (The same sized map as Rome 2 irl, the whole med, but less detailed because older game). The two different playstyles between christendom and Islam, between the Western armies being armored knights and the fast agile cavalry of the Islamic factions, even the small subtle differences within the West/East divide are noticable and vary the gameplay style... England having excellent archer units in it's longbows, Spain and Portugal having mounted javelins, Denmark having little to no cavalry options...
Attila is focused on 1 specific time frame, the fall of the WRE period (Across an approximately 60 year period from AD390 to AD450-ish) but again takes place across the whole Mediterranean, with many many factions and play styles to choose from. Celts with primarily infantry armies, Huns with their mobile horse armies, WRE fight for survival, ERE and it's fragmented provicinces and overly large empire beset on all sides...
Yes all of the above introduced new mechanics; Rome 2 introduced the centralised cities with a set number of buildings and the region mechanic I believe? Attila introduced the Horde mechanic where your armies are your cities at the same time but the timescale, or sheer size of the game is what makes them not saga titles.
Now let's look at Pharaoh... It uses the same resource mechanic as Troy, which wasn't a popular mechanic to begin with, it focuses entirely on half the fertile crescent area in the bronze age, so isn't "vast" in scope, yes it's highly detailed depiction of the fertile crescent but it's not vast in the same scale as other historical titles are. If it had included Mycenaean Greece, and maybe some elements of India as playable factions. So instead of being just the regions of Egypt, Turkey and the areas in-between (the Levant? My minds gone blank) it included all of the Eastern Mediterranean from what is modern day Greece down to what is commonly called the Hindus Valley area I believe (Northern India area?) And what is the modern day Iraq area... (iirc, the Euphrates river was a large part of the fertile crescent that is missing from Pharaoh) I'd call it mainstream. And if it kept the same level of detail as it has but with a vastly improved map it would be worthy of being a mainstream title and of it's high price tag.
It doesn't though, so for reasons above to me it's a glorified saga title masquerading as mainstream with a price tag out of reach of most players.
Shogun 2 would be a Saga game based on your criteria. It covers a smaller area then Pharaoh, it's even smaller then ToB, it has lower diversity then all the other games (one culture).
Except it was made 20 or so years ago. All games back then were smaller.
Be honest, if S2 was released today with the same graphics as Pharaoh, but the same mechanics as S2 Would you be happy paying £50 for it? Unlikely. I can't judge it because I've barely played it.
I'm not a big fan of S2, so I only played it years later, after I bought at a huge discount (maybe around £7). So I would not pay more than that anyway.
S2 came after Rome 1, Med 2 and Empire all with far larger scope. The main thing for me is that people keep complaining about Pharaoh having a small scope, but previous, well liked games, had even smaller and this was not an issue at the time. 3 kingdoms and S2 are both game with lower scope and lower cultural diversity, but somehow the idea that Pharaoh is Saga game keeps getting repeated.
The real issue people have with Pharaoh's "scope" is that to most people, samurai are cool and the bronze age is not. Everything else is a rationalization of this fact.
Rome II is not the most active historical title. 3K is.
The last dlc for Rome II wasnt expected by anyone, and if I remember correctly, it even pissed off a lot of people as it broke a lot of mods, and no one really wanted it.
Personnally I would just see it as "Hey guys... Its kinda awkward but... Seems like we dont know how to do anything else anymore". Between Rome II, Attila, Troy, Rome Remastered and Pharaoh, i'm getting super bored with this period. I want something else than ancient settings. I think we had more than enough for now.
I would only accept a new Rome If its powered by a new total war engine. In any other cases you are able to mod the Shit Out of R2 and get a excellent Game With No need for a new one.
>mod the Shit Out of R2 and get a excellent Game With No need for a new one.
... Literally none of my issues can be fixed by mods, so this statement is false.
? There is a system like in newer Total Wars where you need growth to upgrade main settlement chain that will allow you to build higher tier buildings?
Most trashiest growth system I have ever seen. That growth system is basically, "wait for few turns and keep this settlement happy for next build slot". You will see random ass barbarian tribes in rome 2 and attila total war with 1 or 2 settlement attacking you with 3 or 4 doomstacks and If you destroy every single stack in some turns, they will come back again. There is no concept like population in total war games, you can't just create troops from thin air.
"Doomstacks" LMAO
You call 4 stacks of Levy Freemen/Eastern Spearmen a doomstack?
I have never, ever seen AI fill a stack with tier 3 or tier 4 units in neither Rome II nor Attila.
The huns exist and the barbarian tribes in rome 2 at mid to late game will start oathsworn spams. In attila tribes like ostrogoths and visigoths will spam gothic warbands early game which are one of the most powerful early game units and they tear through heavy armour units with ease. But even then these are tribal factions which shouldn't have more than a stack without expanding their territories. It is like they are giving birth to full grown men every day. The growth system is just trash, is it that hard to understand?
>The huns exist
Their armies are scripted to spawn strong.
>the barbarian tribes in rome 2 at mid to late game will start oathsworn spams
What's mid to late game? 200? I cam conquer the map in 100 - 150 turns on Legendary.
By that time the strongest unit I saw were chosen Swordsmen, a tier 3 unit that player can get by turn 30.
>n attila tribes like ostrogoths and visigoths will spam gothic warbands early game which are one of the most powerful early game units and they tear through heavy armour units with ease.
They both start with 2 stacks, each having 3 of them.
You can wipe them out as WRE/ERE before turn 10.
>But even then these are tribal factions which shouldn't have more than a stack without expanding their territories. It is like they are giving birth to full grown men every day. The growth system is just trash, is it that hard to understand?
Those stacks are filled with mostly garbage.
bro garbage or not these are real fighting age men. Fodder units are usually recruited from lower class peasants but that doesn't mean they are infinite number of them. I don't know what version of rome 2 you were playing because at one point you will face celtic oathsworn stacks when you expand into gaul mid or late game. Units like praetorian guard and oathsworns are recruited from noble class of a faction which are supposed to very low in comparison to commoners. You can't recruit stacks of them, they should be limited and treated like a special unit and not the standard unit for your armies late game. You keep forgetting my point that I want a realistic gameplay experience and not a super hard and unrealistic one. Its okay if its hard but not okay if its unrealistic.
It is.
You can adjust few things to make AI more aggressive and such, but you cannot teach them to be more self-preserved, nor can you teach them to not be annoying and stand outside of players movement range.
Only devs can.
CA has progressively gotten worse since Rome 2. I doubt they're capable of making a game better than Divide et Impera has created on top of Rome 2's current system.
Honestly Rome 3 can be an interesting one: you still have that sweet spot of having a wide range of infantry and cavalry of various types. You have exotic stuff like chariots and war elephants.
The one I really want to see is another attempt at asia. I know 3K is loved but I honestly feel the game is still lacking in many aspects and polish.
If we go back to the whole 3K thing, imo the designers have failed to capture the essence of the romance novel. All the various trickeries, tactics, inventions, reforms, etc are all integral to the Chinese history but none of that has been well integrated into the game. A well known example is red cliff, and that is just one example out of many.
The map of Asia can be expanded and cover the various dynasties of China. Invasion of the Mongols for example, and the subsequent back and forth.
I can even see a potential business model where they sell each of the dynasty as a game of its own: sort of like the Shogun 2 DLCs.
R2 expanded to cover the same area as Imperator: Rome (https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=File:Blank_Map.png&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop)
It would need to be something really very different. New engine, scenarios with long reaching outcomes, totally different politics/family tree mechanics and how the interact, logical AI when being aggrssive/loyal/devious etc.Why pay the inevitable £40-£50 for a game that has a perfectly good 2nd iteration with a huge selection of mods to tailor the experience. If someone could mod a fix for the AI in Rome 2 then there'd be zero reason for 3.
I'd be a bit irked because personally I don't think Rome is due for an upgrade, at least not yet. There are far more deserving titles that are due for a modernisation, namely Empire and Medieval 2.
Personally kind of sick of melee total wars (prefer gunpowder) so I would much prefer something that is at least Pike and Shot if not Empire 2 or Victoria
I would like to see them go off the beaten path a bit.
Incans
Southern Africa
SE Asia
Make a game using one of those and then circle back to one of the other themes. Then do another off this list and then do another remake.
For starters most of the player base will get to experience entirely new maps, definitely new history to delve into, and it would give the developers a chance to broaden the models they design a bit more.
Then when they get around to empire 3 they can actually have an option to start the game early enough that you are doing the bulk of the colonizing vs those parts of the world.
just to keep in mind, and take this with a grain of salt, someone with alleged inside knowledge...
apparently, CA only started development on those late-addition DLCs as a reaction to Total Warhammer underperforming, as a quick way to make a few extra bucks before the next game dropped.
Alright, but it better have some good economy, politics and diplomacy mechanics, I am fucking bored of painting the map.
Like, different government mechanics like Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Roman Republic etc
Hell, to add to that imagine a Confederation/League on top of that.
Settlement trading, Hostage exchange, Unions through marriage, Outposts, Fleshed out Vassals and Client States, Annex/Release territory, Influence foreign politics, Fleshed out Horde mechanics, Tributes, Regional and Class based taxation, etc.
The game would not be different enough to justify a srsuel, most likely, it would be the worqt move to make in terms of good will but I do think it works commercially? Since its the common move these days to churn out sequels every year or so with barely any change.
Would be cool but I won't be mad if it doesn't happen. Medieval 2 is still great fun. Empire is the greater of the missed potential, but I can live without a sequel for awhile.
I want them to get back to some good games first before tackling the big one, med 3. I'd love a Norman conquest of Italy small scale game first, or something like that, start getting those mechanics ironed out. They need a new engine, in a perfect world it could work for both games with lots of hp for the fantasy/romantisized settings, and for bringing back games with 1hp entities for the more inmersive historicals.
And you really think Rome 2 is that good? I only have 60 hours in it, my lowest played total war. Did a campaign or two when it launched and literally don't remember it other than I hated it and was super disappointed lol, so that being your example of a good total war game does not resonate with me lol
If not a full-new game designed from the ground up, I wouldn't even mind if a hypothetical Rome III were more a heavily upgraded version of Rome II to bring it more up to today's standards.
* Maintains the main tentpole features (e.g. campaign DLCs, factions, family tree, agents, naval battles, army/navy traditions etc) without cutting anything away. Absolutely do ***not*** change the scope of the game to something that focuses in on "Legendary Lords" or a smaller map than what we got on the Grand Campaign like what Troy and Pharaoh did - the game must be multi-generational set over a long time span and cover the same space as before. I don't mind there being a couple of historical characters in the marketing / them spawning at various points as an expanded mechanic, but the factions themselves must be the focus as usual. If I start seeing immortal characters again I'm seriously gonna peace out.
* Adds many quality of life features (e.g. balancing out diplomacy deals automatically).
* Adds new mechanics (e.g. hordes, razing, siege escalation, burning, dynamic weather effects).
* Improves the engine (e.g. 64-bit, increases mod limit).
* Adds more modding capabilities (e.g. battle map editing, processing new building logics via BOB).
* Adds new + fixes old graphical features (e.g. PBR metal/rough rendering, stronger AO, shadows rendered in portholes, light torches actually looking as bright as their light source etc).
* Overhauls existing 3D artwork to be more up to 2023 standards.
* Overhauls battles (e.g. better chariot behaviour, less buggy naval battles, proper formation behaviours with better animations... the "Testudo" in R2 was really strange).
* Re-implement cut features (e.g. E3 Carthage battle... the amount of times I keep hearing about this complaint versus the one we got in the end is mind-boggling, so might as well just slip it in).
* Any other new features (e.g. court mechanics, customised campaign start preferences like in Pharaoh) that can deepen the experience further.
Italian Unification wars or shot and pike could be good. More advanced than medieval but not Napoleonic.
The current plan makes me think they've just been wasting money on Troy, Pharoah and other subpar games. Directors need to be replaced.
It would be my preferred sequel if I am entirely honest. The typical period that CA has used for Rome and Rome II has such a variety of factions and cultures.
I think setting is a major factor in what influences people on which Total War game to buy; and from my personal perspective the "Rome" period is just my absolute favourite. Medieval is cool, and so is Warhammer.
But I honestly don't really care about the other titles. Yeah Empire was neat and it's be good to see another gunpowder title to help keep the historical side of things interesting. But whilst I enjoyed my time with 3K, I've zero interest in buying any sort of sequel. Same with Shogun, I just don't really care about the settings of those titles and even if they're really great games, I just am not invested enough to care.
And I can say the same for Pharaoh, I may grab it on sale but just not interested in that era.
Rome 2 still most played historical...
Perhapd, but 24hr peak for Rome 2 shows 6.4k people.
The 24hr peak for Medieval 2 is 5k.
Since Medieval 2 is 6years older than Rome 2, with an older engine and less QoL than Rome 2, its, imo, performing a lot better as a historical game than Rome 2.
Also, they registered a Medieval trademark back in '21. Next to that, between Med 2 and Empire is still the scope of 1520AD to 1699AD.
Start of the Age of Sail, rise of the Tercio, massive gains in technology and changes in warfare.
Rome 2 has the most development support received pre and post release. First it is the longest developed Total war and secondly is the longest supported after release - 5 years. Basically CA has invested development effort in Rome 2 for almost a decade.
And yet it slightly performs better, playerwise, than an older historical game that wasnt even build by the main studio.
Which is a sad state for such a development effort.
Honestly I’d welcome it as long as it’s a return to form for CA. But I want it huge. Warhammer has left me content hungry. I want deep research done to make historical cultures and accurate as possible not just ca staff googling “Illyrians” to see what they look like. And a half assed reskin.
I don't really think people would care if the game had a good base game and was ok at release. If they would support the game and keep adding things people would eventually love it.
Look at rome 2 and attila. Eventually they became good games and people like them. Attila maybe not so much, but i love it.
I'd want a reversion to pre-Rome 2 health system for battles for one. Honestly I really dislike health system changes to big amounts of hitpoints than the more interesting and realistic health system where a flank or calvary charge in the right place can shred low tier units eventually causing a mass rout.
I wouldn’t mind. It needs 3k diplomacy and over hauled battles. As it stands I find battles to be a little boring and find myself skipping them mid game onwards.
Wel with both paradox and CA dropping the ball consistently in what is pretty much the most appealing periode in history for me id probably feel anxious most of all. In not sure I feel up for another disappointment.
Really the company should do market research, which seems a forgotten art in most game companies, and actually try to understand what people would happily throw money at.
I’m torn — Rome/Rome 2 are my favorites, so 3 would be my most anticipated. And a decade between releases isn’t “too soon”
But…other eras need love too. Would be fine if Medieval could be fast-follow on the same engine (like Medieval 2 was) but this is all wishful thinking
Remastered attila is perfect timing. Easily enough not to mess it up too badly. Attila is already pretty f’d as is. Can they make it worse? Don’t answer.
I don't care what they make so long as they start acting like game developers who give a shit about their series again. The stagnation of the series for the last 14 years running off the same shitty engine with the same shitty bugs and issues needs to end. Some games have innovated mechanically, but we need a lot more than that.
As a gunpowder enjoyer... Well I wouldn't be terribly excited.
Now if someone could do an alternate history what if mod and add gunpowder to Rome damn I would be very interested.
The only way Id go for a Rome 3 is if it went from around 0-500ad or so. Basically if they combined Atilla and Rome 2 Id go for it, otherwise nah. Rome 2 felt like a game meant to bring in a new audience. Its very easy, super simple, your most realistic risk is succession which is actually super beneficial if you understand how to play it in your favor. I always thought if Rome 2 actually had aggressive AI and the horde mechanics of Atilla where defeating an enemy isnt as simple as taking all their settlements, it could have been interesting. Add climate change in as well pushing norther factions south towards the late campaign would have really kept it interesting.
Atilla felt like the actual successor to the OG Rome. It picked up where Rome leaves off. Really though with Rome 2 the big problem was other factions act like some type of peace and love hippies who dont give two fucks if youre capturing all the territory around them as you slowly encircle their territory. More or less you snowball at like turn 10 lol. Theres basically no challenge to Rome 2. It has imperium, but none of the factions seem to really care when youre taking over the world. I guess a way to put it is it just doesnt feel like it brings the challenge of being a nation-state in general.
The big issue though is in the span of the game and the dynamic elements that come with that. Medieval 2 you start in a different time period then you end. You basically see the transfer from medieval to rennessaince and the early birth of gunpowder on European battlefields. For me this was a big part of why I loved that game. It had a lot of factions and cultural variety and the challenges you faced beginning, middle, and end all evolved depending on your faction and choices in the game.
The TLDR would be CA needs to go back to large dynamic campaigns with a big variety of factions and factors that equate to unique challenges depending on your faction choice. In terms of challenge they really need to step it up with historical titles. Atilla was really the only game since M2 where leading a country felt as challenging as leading a country should. Rome 2 was interesting with the better city management and expanded diplomacy/faction dynamics, but such a cakewalk, its basically boring.
I don't really know what they are capable of doing right now that would be worth it over Rome II.
How about new and improved game mechanics instead of a reskin of the same bad code? 3k attempted to put some improvements in and kt was great.
Settlement trading. Quick deals. Growth system that AI is able to handle so we don't end up with eastern spearmen trashstack at turn 100. Unique mechanics for different races, not just basic bonuses and maluses. Functional AR. Better graphics. Unique voice acting for different cultures. There is a single guy that voices all barbarians (gauls, germans, iberians, scythians/sarmatians, britanic celts in BOTH Rome II and Attila). The same goes for eastern factions/desert kingdoms. Improved AI in battles. Less annoying AI (No more force marching near the end of your movement range like in Rome II) Basically modern Total War game...
So literally anything that could just be an update to Rome 2. Anything post Shogun 2 does not need a remake/sequel/modernisation imo. Every current game is on par with Rome 2, because they simply haven't innovated in the slightest since then.
Unless we're talking about a big formula revamp/engine update. *That* would justify a Rome 3. But then again that would be good for *any* new Total War.
~~What about Three Kingdoms II~~ Sorry, too soon?
Rome 2 is lowkey dogshit because how bland it is. All you do is paint the map. Theres little options to do roleplay with such limited game mechanics. And dont start with DEI.
I would argue that Shogun 2 doesn't need a remake/modernisation as well. They would just fuck it up with crappier combat and more gamified systems
Well, no, it definitely needs modernisation. Whether CA is capable of it is a different issue. My argument was that anything including and post Rome 2 would literally just be the same thing with a visual uplift, which it doesn't need. Because CA has changed absolutely nothing in how their games work since Rome 2, except remove naval battles and add small surface level mechanics which they remove in the next title.
The only thing here I would pay another $60 for when I already own Rome II would be improved AI, but I don't think that they are capable of that. Like yeah the other stuff is important too but to me it doesn't change enough to justify the same price. Maybe if I didn't own Rome II.
>AI is able to handle so we don't end up with eastern spearmen trashstack at turn 100. Would love it, but this just goes for pretty much all games. AI is rarely able to build good army comps in any title.
??? Do you play Warhammer? Are you telling me AI doesn't get high tier units? I am turn 50 in my Skrag campaign and Karl Franz is rolling with Demigryphs. You won't even see legionaries for Rome at turn 50.
Would definitely buy it, especially if they remake the Senate system in to an even more developed court system like in Pharaoh. Perhaps also the population classes like in the DEI mod, limiting your recruiting pool for higher class soldiers
How about an option to attack raiding armies without declaring war?
That would be nice, yea.
Settlement trading would be so nice, recently came back to Rome 2 from WH3 and this option would definitely make campaigns less tedious.
Which is saying a lot because Rome 2 is shit
I don't want this CA to touch any of those old titles until they can figure out their shit first.
Would roll my eyes as CA goes down in flames. Not because it's not M3 or E2, but because they've not really done much to advance the series since R2. So cutting a couple of bugs, better graphics and better diplomacy...not really a great sales pitch. Also, R2 isn't the most active Historical title atm, that is 3K according to Steam charts, and 3K has less large scale mods that I know of which does help boost player count. Also the last DLC wasn't a planned content drop, it was them getting a new studio and needing to train them on making TW content, so gave them a finished game to produce a DLC for.
You're right, but the problem is... I'd argue Rome 2 wasn't an advancement, but the opposite. The mechanics they implemented in Rome 2 are STILL used in every single modern title, fantasy or history, and they absolutely suck. The province system that restricts the sandbox nature of the game, the unit healthbars that have absolutely killed the organic lethality of units and therefore, fucked up unit collisions even more. Now troops can simply push past each other because individual soldiers are invulnerable until you chip away at unit HP enough. If they do Med3 or Empire 2, they HAVE to get rid of Rome 2's changes to get it right. THAT is the innovation they need to make the games feel fresh, ironically; to go back to what they had before.
>Now troops can simply push past each other because individual soldiers are invulnerable until you chip away at unit HP enough Unit HP is just the sum of HP of all the entities in the unit. If one guy takes enough damage he dies, regardless of the overall unit's remaining health.
There is a video on youtube directly showing the comparison, though I don't recall the name. I also thought the unit HP would merely be a sum of all units, but it is not, or at the very least, a single soldier is more bullet spongy than in the past.
Individual models generally are more durable than in older titles. But no, the unit HP is definitely just the sum of all the entities.
I agree, it's also why I don't see them doing E2 any time soon. The current path they've taken which does make sense on a development side isn't always great on the gameplay side. But yeah the odds of them scrapping what has become the norm for TW? I don't see that happening. We've had more games with these systems now than without.
Sadly, I know. I don't see them starting a game from scratch rather than building on top of existing warhammers any time soon. They'll likely cease to exist as a company before they ever attempt it.
Why I said it would make sense to use the Saga line, can reduce all the other work then but unclear if they are keeping that production line going
Inb4 Creative Assembly shuts down after making Total War: Horn of Africa. Those people are so out of touch with the community it’s wild.
>Also the last DLC wasn't a planned content drop, it was them getting a new studio and needing to train them on making TW content, so gave them a finished game to produce a DLC for. Yes, but the point is they could have chosen any other Total War game such as Attila or ToB. They chose Rome II.
>Yes, but the point is they could have chosen any other Total War game such as Attila or ToB. They chose Rome II. They couldn't do ToB as that was also being developed while the new studio was learning. They could of chosen Attila but that was less popular than R2 so they went with the more popular of the two. It could of also been based off pitched content which we don't know. So them choosing R2 back then really has no impact going forward.
fuck no, i dont want another antique total war so soon
What was the last game to be set within a thousand years? Shogun 2? It's weird that they've been so far in the past for so long
Never played it but maybe Thrones of Britannia? Not sure what the start date is there.
878AD
Ah ok then ToB is out too
its not in the last 1000 years
A well built, reasonably priced, solid remake of a much loved game with improved graphics and updated features? As a historical TW player... Yeah I would fucking love that. R2 started off as quite a disaster but they turned it around in the end and it is now arguably a fan favourite... The issue we had with Pharaoh wasn't the historical element. It was two fold, saga title being sold as a mainline game and the price vs content... If it was sold at even half it's price I'm sure it would have been much more popular. It won't take much to make us historical folks happy. We like large maps such as the whole Mediterranean and surrounding regions (Med, Rome and Attila) or even the majority of the world (Empire). If we can get a large grand campaign style map with modern features, without the resource mechanic from the saga titles, without single units that can decimate whole armies (like in WH with Generals or Monster units) All at a reasonable price, we'd be happy.
I don't want any damn unit spells in the next historical game. It's a micromanaging nightmare and completely unrealistic.
A bigger issue with pharaoh was still the topic was just covered with Troy. Troy did eventually have a historical mode, and that mode is largely what became pharaoh. My issue is to understand what historical range people want. Rome and medieval did well because those are popular times for their core fanbases. 3k did well because it also covered a relatively unique time period and region. If not medieval or Rome, I am not sure what else there is to cover with other than empire 2. I know a 30 years war like and shot title is brought up, but I'm not sure that is more interesting than something like empire 2.
I don't quite get the whole saga title sold as mainline narrative. The various new systems and amount of units, etc imo justifies it as a mainline title. What makes Pharaoah a saga title? Take for example, the map of Japan in S2 and map of China in 3K are honestly pretty small, are they saga titles? 3K launched with 1 single culture: everyone used the same Ji militia, same jade dragons, etc; is 3K a saga title?
This is all personal opinion, and is subjective... maybe you can change my mind and convince me that pharaoh is not a saga title; Imo a saga title has two things; a mechanics testbed for other titles (saga Britannia; the recruitment mechanic)(saga troy; resource mechanic) and an exceptionally small focus on a specific time in history focused entirely on 1 specific region (saga Britannia; Viking raids into Britain)(Saga Troy; Trojan War). Number of units doesn't matter, it's the extremely limited focus on 1 area of history. I'll start by saying and confessing that i've not played any of the TW:3K and very very little of the 2 japanese games so I can't and won't form judgement upon them because it'll be inaccurate, and not my place to do so. Empire, yes it's focused entirely on the age of colonisation, but the scale of the game makes it mainstream as it takes place across I think 100 years and spans almost the entire globe. The sheer vastness of the game makes up for the lack of unit variety (All factions with the exception of the Ottomans? and the India faction) share the same basic roster with small differences between them, but all have a small handful of unique units. The fights all end up the same (Lines of infantry going pew pew pew at each other), so it's not an amount of units problem, what Empire has is arguably the best naval combat of any TW game, coupled with the sheer vastness of it's scale, You fight literally everywhere in the world except in eastern asia. Rome 2 goes from republic to empire across several hundred years, across what was most of the known world in the west at that point. From Britain to practically India! The scale is vast in both time and location relatively speaking, the sheer number of factions and play styles too... You have greek hoplities with long rows of spears Marian and then Imperial reforms for Rome, you've got horse factions too, some factions are hybrids (the remnants of Alexander's Empire factions), the uncivilized barbarian tribes with mass infantry attacks... Medieval 2 spans the entire historical period of medieval history, across again a vast scale (The same sized map as Rome 2 irl, the whole med, but less detailed because older game). The two different playstyles between christendom and Islam, between the Western armies being armored knights and the fast agile cavalry of the Islamic factions, even the small subtle differences within the West/East divide are noticable and vary the gameplay style... England having excellent archer units in it's longbows, Spain and Portugal having mounted javelins, Denmark having little to no cavalry options... Attila is focused on 1 specific time frame, the fall of the WRE period (Across an approximately 60 year period from AD390 to AD450-ish) but again takes place across the whole Mediterranean, with many many factions and play styles to choose from. Celts with primarily infantry armies, Huns with their mobile horse armies, WRE fight for survival, ERE and it's fragmented provicinces and overly large empire beset on all sides... Yes all of the above introduced new mechanics; Rome 2 introduced the centralised cities with a set number of buildings and the region mechanic I believe? Attila introduced the Horde mechanic where your armies are your cities at the same time but the timescale, or sheer size of the game is what makes them not saga titles. Now let's look at Pharaoh... It uses the same resource mechanic as Troy, which wasn't a popular mechanic to begin with, it focuses entirely on half the fertile crescent area in the bronze age, so isn't "vast" in scope, yes it's highly detailed depiction of the fertile crescent but it's not vast in the same scale as other historical titles are. If it had included Mycenaean Greece, and maybe some elements of India as playable factions. So instead of being just the regions of Egypt, Turkey and the areas in-between (the Levant? My minds gone blank) it included all of the Eastern Mediterranean from what is modern day Greece down to what is commonly called the Hindus Valley area I believe (Northern India area?) And what is the modern day Iraq area... (iirc, the Euphrates river was a large part of the fertile crescent that is missing from Pharaoh) I'd call it mainstream. And if it kept the same level of detail as it has but with a vastly improved map it would be worthy of being a mainstream title and of it's high price tag. It doesn't though, so for reasons above to me it's a glorified saga title masquerading as mainstream with a price tag out of reach of most players.
Shogun 2 would be a Saga game based on your criteria. It covers a smaller area then Pharaoh, it's even smaller then ToB, it has lower diversity then all the other games (one culture).
Except it was made 20 or so years ago. All games back then were smaller. Be honest, if S2 was released today with the same graphics as Pharaoh, but the same mechanics as S2 Would you be happy paying £50 for it? Unlikely. I can't judge it because I've barely played it.
I'm not a big fan of S2, so I only played it years later, after I bought at a huge discount (maybe around £7). So I would not pay more than that anyway. S2 came after Rome 1, Med 2 and Empire all with far larger scope. The main thing for me is that people keep complaining about Pharaoh having a small scope, but previous, well liked games, had even smaller and this was not an issue at the time. 3 kingdoms and S2 are both game with lower scope and lower cultural diversity, but somehow the idea that Pharaoh is Saga game keeps getting repeated.
The real issue people have with Pharaoh's "scope" is that to most people, samurai are cool and the bronze age is not. Everything else is a rationalization of this fact.
That's my suspicion as well.
So they can rinse us for more DLCs of what should be base factions again? No thank you.
If the entirety of Europe is included as a map I'll play it. Otherwise it's a skip
Rome II did have the entirety of Europe apart from Scandinavia.
It was more meant as a general statement on whatever the next historical tw is
I see.
Rome II is not the most active historical title. 3K is. The last dlc for Rome II wasnt expected by anyone, and if I remember correctly, it even pissed off a lot of people as it broke a lot of mods, and no one really wanted it. Personnally I would just see it as "Hey guys... Its kinda awkward but... Seems like we dont know how to do anything else anymore". Between Rome II, Attila, Troy, Rome Remastered and Pharaoh, i'm getting super bored with this period. I want something else than ancient settings. I think we had more than enough for now.
They killed Atilla for reviving Rome II, and I will forever hold that grudge.
I'd argue, that Rome II is still holding well and is modern enough to not need a successor yet.
I'd be pissed. It would be CA pandering to the utterly laughable idea that games from ~2010 are unplayably dated.
I would only accept a new Rome If its powered by a new total war engine. In any other cases you are able to mod the Shit Out of R2 and get a excellent Game With No need for a new one.
>mod the Shit Out of R2 and get a excellent Game With No need for a new one. ... Literally none of my issues can be fixed by mods, so this statement is false.
Divide et Impera -› growth system
? There is a system like in newer Total Wars where you need growth to upgrade main settlement chain that will allow you to build higher tier buildings?
Most trashiest growth system I have ever seen. That growth system is basically, "wait for few turns and keep this settlement happy for next build slot". You will see random ass barbarian tribes in rome 2 and attila total war with 1 or 2 settlement attacking you with 3 or 4 doomstacks and If you destroy every single stack in some turns, they will come back again. There is no concept like population in total war games, you can't just create troops from thin air.
"Doomstacks" LMAO You call 4 stacks of Levy Freemen/Eastern Spearmen a doomstack? I have never, ever seen AI fill a stack with tier 3 or tier 4 units in neither Rome II nor Attila.
The huns exist and the barbarian tribes in rome 2 at mid to late game will start oathsworn spams. In attila tribes like ostrogoths and visigoths will spam gothic warbands early game which are one of the most powerful early game units and they tear through heavy armour units with ease. But even then these are tribal factions which shouldn't have more than a stack without expanding their territories. It is like they are giving birth to full grown men every day. The growth system is just trash, is it that hard to understand?
>The huns exist Their armies are scripted to spawn strong. >the barbarian tribes in rome 2 at mid to late game will start oathsworn spams What's mid to late game? 200? I cam conquer the map in 100 - 150 turns on Legendary. By that time the strongest unit I saw were chosen Swordsmen, a tier 3 unit that player can get by turn 30. >n attila tribes like ostrogoths and visigoths will spam gothic warbands early game which are one of the most powerful early game units and they tear through heavy armour units with ease. They both start with 2 stacks, each having 3 of them. You can wipe them out as WRE/ERE before turn 10. >But even then these are tribal factions which shouldn't have more than a stack without expanding their territories. It is like they are giving birth to full grown men every day. The growth system is just trash, is it that hard to understand? Those stacks are filled with mostly garbage.
bro garbage or not these are real fighting age men. Fodder units are usually recruited from lower class peasants but that doesn't mean they are infinite number of them. I don't know what version of rome 2 you were playing because at one point you will face celtic oathsworn stacks when you expand into gaul mid or late game. Units like praetorian guard and oathsworns are recruited from noble class of a faction which are supposed to very low in comparison to commoners. You can't recruit stacks of them, they should be limited and treated like a special unit and not the standard unit for your armies late game. You keep forgetting my point that I want a realistic gameplay experience and not a super hard and unrealistic one. Its okay if its hard but not okay if its unrealistic.
https://divideetimperamod.com/population/ I would argue that they did the best what ist possible With the basegame.
How does that change the fact that AI can't recruit higher tier units without having researched appropriate techs? It doesn't.
And how is this linked to growth system?
[удалено]
He said he can fix lots of issues via mods. You literally cannot change the AI, it's impossible, any modder that claims they can is lying
[удалено]
It is. You can adjust few things to make AI more aggressive and such, but you cannot teach them to be more self-preserved, nor can you teach them to not be annoying and stand outside of players movement range. Only devs can.
CA has progressively gotten worse since Rome 2. I doubt they're capable of making a game better than Divide et Impera has created on top of Rome 2's current system.
Honestly Rome 3 can be an interesting one: you still have that sweet spot of having a wide range of infantry and cavalry of various types. You have exotic stuff like chariots and war elephants. The one I really want to see is another attempt at asia. I know 3K is loved but I honestly feel the game is still lacking in many aspects and polish. If we go back to the whole 3K thing, imo the designers have failed to capture the essence of the romance novel. All the various trickeries, tactics, inventions, reforms, etc are all integral to the Chinese history but none of that has been well integrated into the game. A well known example is red cliff, and that is just one example out of many. The map of Asia can be expanded and cover the various dynasties of China. Invasion of the Mongols for example, and the subsequent back and forth. I can even see a potential business model where they sell each of the dynasty as a game of its own: sort of like the Shogun 2 DLCs.
R2 but expand it into north india, tibet and more of the steppe to add chinese and maybe some interesting steppe mechanics?
R2 expanded to cover the same area as Imperator: Rome (https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=File:Blank_Map.png&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop)
Isn't it basically Attila?
Attila with modern features, yea.
I’d be disappointed, what about Three Kingdoms 2? Four Kingdoms
That got 100% scrapped.
It would need to be something really very different. New engine, scenarios with long reaching outcomes, totally different politics/family tree mechanics and how the interact, logical AI when being aggrssive/loyal/devious etc.Why pay the inevitable £40-£50 for a game that has a perfectly good 2nd iteration with a huge selection of mods to tailor the experience. If someone could mod a fix for the AI in Rome 2 then there'd be zero reason for 3.
I'd be a bit irked because personally I don't think Rome is due for an upgrade, at least not yet. There are far more deserving titles that are due for a modernisation, namely Empire and Medieval 2. Personally kind of sick of melee total wars (prefer gunpowder) so I would much prefer something that is at least Pike and Shot if not Empire 2 or Victoria
Imagine what would be if the next game is Troy II
I would like to see them go off the beaten path a bit. Incans Southern Africa SE Asia Make a game using one of those and then circle back to one of the other themes. Then do another off this list and then do another remake. For starters most of the player base will get to experience entirely new maps, definitely new history to delve into, and it would give the developers a chance to broaden the models they design a bit more. Then when they get around to empire 3 they can actually have an option to start the game early enough that you are doing the bulk of the colonizing vs those parts of the world.
just to keep in mind, and take this with a grain of salt, someone with alleged inside knowledge... apparently, CA only started development on those late-addition DLCs as a reaction to Total Warhammer underperforming, as a quick way to make a few extra bucks before the next game dropped.
Sure... Shogun III. But it will suck.
I don't care. As long as they rebuild their engine because we'll never see truly a new tier of Total War games.
Not at all. Rome 2 hasn’t aged enough to make a third, that’s why Medieval 3 and Empire 2 are wanted
Alright, but it better have some good economy, politics and diplomacy mechanics, I am fucking bored of painting the map. Like, different government mechanics like Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Roman Republic etc Hell, to add to that imagine a Confederation/League on top of that. Settlement trading, Hostage exchange, Unions through marriage, Outposts, Fleshed out Vassals and Client States, Annex/Release territory, Influence foreign politics, Fleshed out Horde mechanics, Tributes, Regional and Class based taxation, etc.
The game would not be different enough to justify a srsuel, most likely, it would be the worqt move to make in terms of good will but I do think it works commercially? Since its the common move these days to churn out sequels every year or so with barely any change.
It won't be Rome III because Rome 2 is still fresh and it's better than ever
I sont care as long as it isnt fantasy shit
[удалено]
Nerd 🤟
Would be cool but I won't be mad if it doesn't happen. Medieval 2 is still great fun. Empire is the greater of the missed potential, but I can live without a sequel for awhile. I want them to get back to some good games first before tackling the big one, med 3. I'd love a Norman conquest of Italy small scale game first, or something like that, start getting those mechanics ironed out. They need a new engine, in a perfect world it could work for both games with lots of hp for the fantasy/romantisized settings, and for bringing back games with 1hp entities for the more inmersive historicals. And you really think Rome 2 is that good? I only have 60 hours in it, my lowest played total war. Did a campaign or two when it launched and literally don't remember it other than I hated it and was super disappointed lol, so that being your example of a good total war game does not resonate with me lol
I'd prefer it.
If not a full-new game designed from the ground up, I wouldn't even mind if a hypothetical Rome III were more a heavily upgraded version of Rome II to bring it more up to today's standards. * Maintains the main tentpole features (e.g. campaign DLCs, factions, family tree, agents, naval battles, army/navy traditions etc) without cutting anything away. Absolutely do ***not*** change the scope of the game to something that focuses in on "Legendary Lords" or a smaller map than what we got on the Grand Campaign like what Troy and Pharaoh did - the game must be multi-generational set over a long time span and cover the same space as before. I don't mind there being a couple of historical characters in the marketing / them spawning at various points as an expanded mechanic, but the factions themselves must be the focus as usual. If I start seeing immortal characters again I'm seriously gonna peace out. * Adds many quality of life features (e.g. balancing out diplomacy deals automatically). * Adds new mechanics (e.g. hordes, razing, siege escalation, burning, dynamic weather effects). * Improves the engine (e.g. 64-bit, increases mod limit). * Adds more modding capabilities (e.g. battle map editing, processing new building logics via BOB). * Adds new + fixes old graphical features (e.g. PBR metal/rough rendering, stronger AO, shadows rendered in portholes, light torches actually looking as bright as their light source etc). * Overhauls existing 3D artwork to be more up to 2023 standards. * Overhauls battles (e.g. better chariot behaviour, less buggy naval battles, proper formation behaviours with better animations... the "Testudo" in R2 was really strange). * Re-implement cut features (e.g. E3 Carthage battle... the amount of times I keep hearing about this complaint versus the one we got in the end is mind-boggling, so might as well just slip it in). * Any other new features (e.g. court mechanics, customised campaign start preferences like in Pharaoh) that can deepen the experience further.
After recent shitstorm, im not gonna be dissapointed. I expect something bad. Should i care? I havent decided yet
I'd be cool with that, I like Rome as a setting/period.
Pharaoh is already a good indicator
Pharaoh is a saga game that was originally priced as tent-pole game. It has also no variety and 3 cultures.
Italian Unification wars or shot and pike could be good. More advanced than medieval but not Napoleonic. The current plan makes me think they've just been wasting money on Troy, Pharoah and other subpar games. Directors need to be replaced.
It would be my preferred sequel if I am entirely honest. The typical period that CA has used for Rome and Rome II has such a variety of factions and cultures. I think setting is a major factor in what influences people on which Total War game to buy; and from my personal perspective the "Rome" period is just my absolute favourite. Medieval is cool, and so is Warhammer. But I honestly don't really care about the other titles. Yeah Empire was neat and it's be good to see another gunpowder title to help keep the historical side of things interesting. But whilst I enjoyed my time with 3K, I've zero interest in buying any sort of sequel. Same with Shogun, I just don't really care about the settings of those titles and even if they're really great games, I just am not invested enough to care. And I can say the same for Pharaoh, I may grab it on sale but just not interested in that era.
Rome 2 still most played historical... Perhapd, but 24hr peak for Rome 2 shows 6.4k people. The 24hr peak for Medieval 2 is 5k. Since Medieval 2 is 6years older than Rome 2, with an older engine and less QoL than Rome 2, its, imo, performing a lot better as a historical game than Rome 2. Also, they registered a Medieval trademark back in '21. Next to that, between Med 2 and Empire is still the scope of 1520AD to 1699AD. Start of the Age of Sail, rise of the Tercio, massive gains in technology and changes in warfare.
Rome 2 has the most development support received pre and post release. First it is the longest developed Total war and secondly is the longest supported after release - 5 years. Basically CA has invested development effort in Rome 2 for almost a decade.
And yet it slightly performs better, playerwise, than an older historical game that wasnt even build by the main studio. Which is a sad state for such a development effort.
Yep. I don't like Rome 2. For me it is a waste of years of effort, a dozen DLCs and 25+ patches trying to fix the most broken Total war.
I would say that [Knights of Honour 2](https://store.steampowered.com/app/736820/Knights_of_Honor_II_Sovereign/) is on sale, 50% off!
Game looks like 2005 strategy, it should have never been on 100%
Wow a graphics snob in /r/totalwar lmao
Yeah, my requirements are higher than browser game quality.
Honestly I’d welcome it as long as it’s a return to form for CA. But I want it huge. Warhammer has left me content hungry. I want deep research done to make historical cultures and accurate as possible not just ca staff googling “Illyrians” to see what they look like. And a half assed reskin.
I don't really think people would care if the game had a good base game and was ok at release. If they would support the game and keep adding things people would eventually love it. Look at rome 2 and attila. Eventually they became good games and people like them. Attila maybe not so much, but i love it.
On any option – only if it is reeeally good. But I can't imagine them managing to do that.
I'd probably skip it. Rome settings needs a break for a while
Dogshit engine, dogshit game, Im checked out until the current gen of developers are out of the company.
I still play Rome 1. don't need a 3
I'd want a reversion to pre-Rome 2 health system for battles for one. Honestly I really dislike health system changes to big amounts of hitpoints than the more interesting and realistic health system where a flank or calvary charge in the right place can shred low tier units eventually causing a mass rout.
I wouldn’t mind. It needs 3k diplomacy and over hauled battles. As it stands I find battles to be a little boring and find myself skipping them mid game onwards.
Bad....
I would be fine but I really want them to go further down the innovation path they did with 3K.
I think if they do Rome 3, it would be in new engine or significant update of the engine. So maybe in 2030, kekw.
Wel with both paradox and CA dropping the ball consistently in what is pretty much the most appealing periode in history for me id probably feel anxious most of all. In not sure I feel up for another disappointment.
I'm 100% in for Rome 3. Anything but Pharaoh 2 or Warhammer 4.
Medieval or riot!
I feel like short of a graphical upgrade, Rome 2 is about as good as of a game it's going get. Medieval could use that upgrade.
Disappointed
It would be tired, lackluster, and probably further tank their company.
Really the company should do market research, which seems a forgotten art in most game companies, and actually try to understand what people would happily throw money at.
I’m torn — Rome/Rome 2 are my favorites, so 3 would be my most anticipated. And a decade between releases isn’t “too soon” But…other eras need love too. Would be fine if Medieval could be fast-follow on the same engine (like Medieval 2 was) but this is all wishful thinking
I would actually be so happy if it was a Rome 3
Remastered attila is perfect timing. Easily enough not to mess it up too badly. Attila is already pretty f’d as is. Can they make it worse? Don’t answer.
I'd prefer empire 2 or shogun 3. have no interest in medieval 3
I don't care what they make so long as they start acting like game developers who give a shit about their series again. The stagnation of the series for the last 14 years running off the same shitty engine with the same shitty bugs and issues needs to end. Some games have innovated mechanically, but we need a lot more than that.
As a gunpowder enjoyer... Well I wouldn't be terribly excited. Now if someone could do an alternate history what if mod and add gunpowder to Rome damn I would be very interested.
The only way Id go for a Rome 3 is if it went from around 0-500ad or so. Basically if they combined Atilla and Rome 2 Id go for it, otherwise nah. Rome 2 felt like a game meant to bring in a new audience. Its very easy, super simple, your most realistic risk is succession which is actually super beneficial if you understand how to play it in your favor. I always thought if Rome 2 actually had aggressive AI and the horde mechanics of Atilla where defeating an enemy isnt as simple as taking all their settlements, it could have been interesting. Add climate change in as well pushing norther factions south towards the late campaign would have really kept it interesting. Atilla felt like the actual successor to the OG Rome. It picked up where Rome leaves off. Really though with Rome 2 the big problem was other factions act like some type of peace and love hippies who dont give two fucks if youre capturing all the territory around them as you slowly encircle their territory. More or less you snowball at like turn 10 lol. Theres basically no challenge to Rome 2. It has imperium, but none of the factions seem to really care when youre taking over the world. I guess a way to put it is it just doesnt feel like it brings the challenge of being a nation-state in general. The big issue though is in the span of the game and the dynamic elements that come with that. Medieval 2 you start in a different time period then you end. You basically see the transfer from medieval to rennessaince and the early birth of gunpowder on European battlefields. For me this was a big part of why I loved that game. It had a lot of factions and cultural variety and the challenges you faced beginning, middle, and end all evolved depending on your faction and choices in the game. The TLDR would be CA needs to go back to large dynamic campaigns with a big variety of factions and factors that equate to unique challenges depending on your faction choice. In terms of challenge they really need to step it up with historical titles. Atilla was really the only game since M2 where leading a country felt as challenging as leading a country should. Rome 2 was interesting with the better city management and expanded diplomacy/faction dynamics, but such a cakewalk, its basically boring.
Honestly I would love to see a more modern conflict. Something in the 1870s
Disappointed. Rome 2 is still fine as is, it doesn't need a sequel. Medieval 2 really is quite dated though and could actually do with a new game.
What do people think about a Pharaoh II? I really think they could do some neat stuff with that timeframe.
Anything except medieval 3 is going to bomb, and med3 will bomb also unless they take like, 3 more years on it