Picked this up a few days ago in the Steam sale. I also bought the Greek Cities and pirate factions DLC, plus a couple campaign packs, Hannibal at the Gates and Rise of Rome. I've dropped twenty hours or so in to it and a few first impressions. Rome 2 was released nearly eight years ago, and most here have already played it long ago. I had been excited for it at release, but like most games I tend to hold off until the early returns are in. Those however were not good, so I held off, and kept doing so until I had moved past Rome 2 in to the later games. When I saw the Steam sale this week I had a look. Really, I came for Three Kingdoms and left with Rome 2.

So far I have dabbled in several factions. I started off with the tutorial campaign, which went well and gave me some of the basic foundations of the systems in Rome 2. In many respects Rome 2 is standard Total War fare, and long time players will pick it all up easily enough. But there are some differences too, with the political system standing out.

My first go at the campaign proper was as Athens. I played a number of turns and did OK, but also harbored some regrets, mainly over my choices for buildings. So I started again and had aborted starts as Rome (Junia), Massilia, Averni and now Baktria. The Rome run went quite a while, I had conquered most of the Med coast, and was really rolling. But I look at the campaign objectives and I'm like, good grief! You can get economic, culture or military victories, but they have lofty requirements, like hold 90 settlements. I must have missed the "short campaign" lol.

So I decided that if I am going to be in a game long enough to actually achieve victory I don't want to do so as the strongest faction in the game. I'd much rather that Rome is a potential rival than using them to steamroll everyone. I realize there are internal struggles with Rome, and things like Civil War could have thrown my run in to turmoil. I don't have a good grasp of the politics, but it seemed to me that if I could just keep my influence higher than anyone, while not also being higher than everyone, that things would remain stable. Not sure it works that way in the long run, but I seemed to have found the equilibrium mostly through trial.

I had no idea that choosing a faction to play would prove so challenging. Seriously, I spent a lot of time on the faction select screen, running the rule over the many choices, then alt-tabbing to google them and get a feel for strengths and weaknesses. I have an unreasonable dislike of chariot units, so that meant someone like Iceni was out (for now). I tend to prefer 'civilized' factions, not barbarians, but I will certainly play some before it's done. Many factions have difficult starts. Massilia for instance is right against it from the off.

One thing I tend to look for in these sorts of games is an edge faction. That is, one that has a secure flank due to its position along the map border. It removes the threat of being assailed from all directions. Like England in EU IV, who only need to fight in one direction. That's what led me to Baktria, one of the Hellenic Successor states who occupy the extreme eastern edge of the map. They begin with two two-settlement provinces. With no possible threat from the east they are in a relatively secure position, and I thought would be a good one to try. Being Hellenic among many factions who are not makes for a good campaign, as you aren't mostly fighting the same types of units all the time. This tends to lead to more specialization of your army composition, to be tailored to the foe. I like this. This is one of the things I like most about Warhammer.

So I am off to a good start as Baktria, but the world around me is in flames. It is very volatile around here straight from the off. Should be a fun run!

A few random observations....

It's interesting to go so far back in time. Everything is much more primitive than what I've been playing for years now. Of course I've played games set in this period before, including Rome 1, so it isn't a surprise to me, but it's still a noticable shift. The AI in this game is very opportunistic, which is great. If you move an army just far enough away from your city then the AI swoops in to attack. It's quite a shift too, from Civ6 that I was just playing where the AI is anything but aggressive. This problem does not exist in Rome 2 haha.

Not a huge fan of the UI. It works fine, but it's all too square. My cross to bear. The unit cards are period flavor, as always in Total War. But they are uninspiring in this form. I prefer a different style. But I get why they are done this way. I might look for UI mods and see if there are any alternatives available.

I love the map, the music is great and the campaign is too, it has a distinctly similar feel to how things work in Attila, which makes sense given they were released fairly close together.

One year per turn.... I wish it was four. I the end it doesn't matter a bit, it's just numbers. But from an immersion perspective it's askew, as it takes four years to sail from Rome to Naples lol. But it's like having 1000 centimeters or 10 yards of something. Same thing, way different numbers. But Rome 2 even goes so far as to roll through the seasons, but also advancing years every turn. It's disjointed, not to mention the effect this has on character longevity. If I get around to trying the DEI mod this will change. Not a big deal, but something that stands out to me.

I have more thoughts but I'll save them for another post as this one is way too long already. In the end I waited a very long time to play Rome 2, but as it always does this pays off by having the most complete, fleshed out, stable and feature filled version. It may have been a complete mess at launch, but it is not now, and so far I like it.

Great post DBond and I'm glad to see that you are enjoying it so far. I have about 3,200 hours in the game so I don't need to say much about whether or not I enjoyed it.

Yes, I was aware, though I thought you were closer to 2,000

I praise Attila's campaign, and this one feels very similar. There's still a lot for me to get a handle on, mostly build orders and maybe which techs I should rush and that sort of thing. But that's when these games are at their best, during this stage where you are not an optimal decision machine. Mistakes make for a better experience in many ways.

My Baktria run is going well, maybe too well. Honestly, it's been a bit too easy, for several reasons. The main one I reckon is I chose to play this one on normal. Hard is where I usually go, but for my first real go at finishing a campaign I thought I'd take the easier route, and now I sort of regret that. Another reason is autoresolve. I have a massive edge in these battles for whatever reason, much more slanted, it seems, than in any other TW game I have played.

I really should play through a campaign one day without autoresolving any battle. I've always intended to just this, but you know how it is

The faction is another reason, as they have an amazing ability. It sort of flies under the radar in the comments I read when deciding on which faction to play. It is Multiculturalism: -100% public order penalties due to presence of foreign cultures. This is insanely powerful for sweeping conquest, as you can take a settlement from any faction, wait a single turn for the occupation penalty to vanish, then move on. Public order is an afterthought. It's awesome, but at the same time it feels too powerful.

This may mean nothing unless you are familiar with the map, but after 90 turns I am at the shores of the Mediterranean having started at the far eastern edge of the map. I identified this as a key goal, in order to attain sea trade with all of the factions around the Med, but did not expect it to be reached so quickly.

Baktria has a pretty good roster, but lacking in decisive ranged options. Pikes are the key I have found. Phalanx is a game changer. I have decent cavalry options and elephants too, plus all the Greek siege stuff like ballistas. I really like how strategic resource bonuses work. I've taken a horse town and an iron town, both of which give bonuses factionwide, which in turn gives my troops a nice edge over others who do not have these things.

As mentioned earlier I really like the map in Rome 2, not just its aesthetic appeal, but in how bridges are so vital. Some TW games have too many ways to cross rivers -- bridges, fords or just ignoring the river altogether it seems. But Rome 2 feels like it did in Med 2, where these chokepoints are key defensive positions to be held or breached. Of course the AI doesn't attach the same sort of value to them, leaving them unguarded for the most part.

One year per turn is the thing I think that bugs me most about this game. Agents and generals come and go way too quickly for my taste. Even having been at war for virtually the entire game, it is rare that any general or agent gains more than a few traits or abilities before they are gone. Champions are key as I have only recently discovered, as they are very strong when embedded, accelerating the XP gain so that the general and units in that army level up very quickly. But they are few. I just hit imperium 5 I think, and while I can have ten field armies, I can only have three champions.

I was surprised to see that Rome 2 has no global recruiting. It's fine and I rarely use it anyway, but still it was a surprise to find they didn't include this in the game.

As well as I feel I am doing, I am still a long way from any of the victory types. I want to stick it out to see that through, and then I might give the DEI mod a go and see if it addresses any of the shortcomings I see.

I've only done it when there was an achievement to get which I believe Rome 2 does have. Outside of that, I see no valid reason to do a 3D battle where the odds are grossly in my favor or grossly in the AI's favor. As it is, I've probably already done several hundred 3D battles during my TW "career" so it's a case of I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I looked last night and I think it said I have fought around 80 battles and autoresolved 60 of them lol.

@DBond

If you like the type of unit cards shown below, go to the workshop and type this into the search:
"NordoPic: 3D unit cards" (leave the quotation marks off)
The choice should be on the page you get. Click on it, then subscribe. You should be good to go--even in mid-campaign. There are others but I've been pleased with these

Also, If you get tired of the same music then go to the workshop again and do a search for:
"Roman Music Mod" (drop the quotation marks)
It's got soundtrack music from Ben Hur, Gladiator, Centurion, and others



Cheers

Awesome F/O! Yes, that is just what I was looking for. Well, I hadn't actually looked, but if I had, this is what it would have been

Those cards look fantastic and you even posted my faction. I definitely prefer this style over the stock cards. Thanks very much, you nailed it. I'll install this tonight. So far I really like the music, so not looking to change, but thanks for the tip.

My Baktria run started becoming more challenging once I had a foothold in the levant. Throughout the early game, during the first 100 turns or so, I fought a series of wars against the eastern factions, the steppe hordes, who aren't really hordes in this game. Most were small, a few settlements at most. While this was going on, other factions were emerging as strong to the west. The biggest of these was Armenia, who had established a sprawling empire and became my biggest rival east of the Med. They had also formed a number of alliances with neighbors, such as Pergamon.

I found that by offering to join another nation's war against my chosen enemy I could bypass the target's alliances and end up at war with just the one. So it was Baktria was at war with Armenia, and after a bit they sued for peace, offering to become my satrapy. I was surprised because I had read a nation has to be down to their final province to agree to become a satrapy, but Armenia still had about six settlements. I decided to do it (after waiting one turn and taking one more settlement I wanted).

But then, a bunch of nations declared war on Armenia, they had all just been at war, which ended when I became Armenia's senior partner, and I suddenly found myself at war with six nations. I had the option to refuse these calls, but I assume that would have ended my satrapy. And anyway, that sounds like a lot of fun right? Total War, after all.

The AI is very opportunistic in this game, and I lost several settlements, as I couldn't be everywhere, but I could be close to everywhere, and these were taken back the following turns. This is good fun, having an aggressive AI that isn't afraid to take risks lol. The back and forth, cities changing hands sort of stuff. The terrain here is wide open, fewer choke points, and the AI is able to take advantage, and, being AI, seem to know just where to park themselves to remain just out of movement range of all my defending field armies

Anyway, it got a lot more interesting, and now I am a player in western Europe. The Greeks from the East have arrived, and in a foul mood lol.

As a general rule, I avoid acquiring satrapies/client states for two major reasons,

1. The satrapy will often stab you in the back and declare war on you if you leave your border with him undefended.

2. Other factions will often declare war on your satrapy in order to drag you into the war. If you don't enter the war and break the satrapy relationship, then your former satrapy will absolutely hate you and you'll eventually have to take him out anyway.


So I just conquer all territory and absorb it into my empire instead of going through the headache of creating satrapies.

From what I had read, folks were saying client states were likely to try and get out from under you, but they also said satrapies do not do this. Have you experienced this with an actual satrapy in one of your runs?

I chose to do it for a number of reasons. First, to see what it was all about to gain info for future runs. Two, they were pretty big, and it gives me a new angle to help them expand. See if I can get them to grow by helping them, but not actually taking cities on their border. Third, it's fun to have AI helping you, and in WH at least, I found the war target mechanic works really well, and if I can direct Armenia's efforts with any success it adds a new facet to the strategical play. Fourth it gives me control of more land without raising corruption, which is pretty valuable, as that is a killer for big empires, isn't it?

Whether I opt to do it again remains to be seen, but so far I am happy with the decision, it adds something to the game.

I have never played a campaign in any TW title where my client state either never declared war on me or where multiple other factions didn't declare war on my client state. Numerous times I was involved in a war against a major AI faction so my plate was already full to only then have my client state declared war on my numerous other AI factions. It's just not worth the risk to me.

But did you have satrapies? They can only be made by Eastern factions.

I can live with the AI declaring on my junior partner, that's cool and saves me the trouble (and presumably some diplo hit as the non-aggressor?). But if they are sure to rebel then it wouldn't be worth it really. Our relations are hostile, since I had beaten them up pretty bad in our war, but so far, after just a few turns, they are doing well, going after the targets I set for them. But then, they could attempt to get out from under me next turn I suppose.

The game mechanics of satrapies and client states are the same in the TW games. "Satrapy" is just the term that is commonly used for the Eastern empires.

Yes, but evidently there are some differences in how they behave. I'll keep an eye on it and report my findings

Oh, and fifth, I can recruit their units, which I should have a look at tonight.

Yeah, you were right PM. Armenia did break free. In this case I don't think it was as expected, but the result of them refusing a call to arms, which automatically puts us at war. The end result is the same, and they no longer exist due to their recalcitrance. Sucks for them, they could have had a bright future.

F/O, I installed that unit card mod and it's perfect, thanks for the heads up.

I really wish there were short campaign options in this one. Gaining an official victory is quite the marathon, isn't it?

Yup. Campaigns in the main Rome 2 game are very long. The campaign in some of the DLC's though like "Caesar in Gaul" are pretty short.

I picked up Hannibal at the Gates and Rise of Rome. I will give one of those a go next I think.

That one is not as short as Caesar in Gaul but it's not as long as the main campaign either. Having said that, Hannibal at the Gates is my favorite DLC campaign for Rome 2. I've played it as the Carthaginians but I've played it more often as Rome and enjoyed it more as Rome. Yes, I have my biases!

Which one? HatG?

I think I'll try that, on your recommendation and also because it is set a bit later than RoR. But RoR may be worth it FOR that reason, dunno.

We all have our biases, me too. Like the unreasonable objection to chariot units I have lol.

I'm mildly surprised by the achievement percentages by the player base. Folks who buy this game play it. The percentages are pretty high compared to many games I play. Good to see. The rarest one I have gotten so far is the one for winning a battle using one of every land unit class, at 12%. But most are 50% or higher, which on average exceeds what I usually see.

Yes.


"Rise of the Republic" is another great DLC campaign and it's actually quite difficult to play as Rome in that one. You only start off with 2 settlements and you are surrounded by unfriendly factions.

You got me curious about the achievements so I looked up the ones that I have. I have several achievements where only 0.1% of total players got them. They're mostly achievements specific to the Rise of the Republic DLC.