Total War Returns to Rome

| 2 Jul 2012 16:05

How far will you go for Rome?

With 2011's Total War: Shogun 2 out of the way (and superb), The Creative Assembly has turned its besequeled eye towards another one of its older titles. Today, it announced that Total War: Rome II would be hitting PCs in 2013.

The announcement was accompanied by a neat little live-action trailer portraying some of the more common types of political intrigue of the Roman days. A ruler is overthrown by an ambitious young successor, a female assassin seduces and kills her target, and a soldier is executed, for some reason. That part wasn't really clear. With all the backstabbing (and frontstabbing), though, the message is thus: How far will you go for Rome?

The Creative Assembly says that the sequel will have a bigger map than its highly-lauded 2004 predecessor, and will take the player further to the East. Precisely what that means is uncertain; it's possible that Rome II, like Rome, might have a campaign regarding the exploits of legendary conqueror Alexander the Great. Alternatively, there could be campaigns set in the heyday of the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium.

Beyond that, the official site promises an all-new engine for combat with "exotic ancient cities and colossal armies rendered in incredible detail." New camera angles will allow aspiring commanders to watch their legions fight from whatever direction they please. The Creative Assembly also promises that the game will be optimized for desktop PCs as well as laptops, so your desire to conquer for the glory of Rome won't be hampered by your hardware.

Sic Semper Tyrannis! Quid Pro Quo! E Pluribus Unum! Ecce, Romani! Ixnay onay ethay Igpay Atinlay!

Source: Total War: Rome II

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

I never understood why Rome is considered the best total war game, now granted I played medieval 2 before I played Rome, but honestly, I think medieval improved the total war game. And I find it a completely ridiculous statement, that some would consider rome, to be better than shogun 2, and its not because of the graphics, but the campaign is so much better, and the battles had way more diversity than either using 20 hoplites, or 20 legionnaires. I guess it is just nostalgia.
Regardless, I am still exited for this, like any other total war fan

I think we all knew they would do Rome II, I was kind of hoping they would explore a different era although I understand how risky that would be.

All the same....

Loving the announcement, liked the Shogun II layout and mechanics a lot, only really holding out for a couple things -;
Firstly, Post-reform Roman units been a touch OP I'm fine with, but pre-reform was just annoying, especially as I was one of those who liked playing a Greek faction + fighting an obscene meat-grinder to take Italy, and somehow outnumbering + outclassing someone 4 to 1 should not mean a crippling defeat >.<
Secondly, been able to play Greek factions (And not just the Eastern/Byzantine Empire) would be awesome, so much fun delving into that part of the world in Rome I

albino boo:

Hookah:

What and where is Byzantium, dear genius?

Its the eastern half roman empire. What is known in English as the Byzantine empire was called by itself the Roman empire. The name came about in west largely because of utterly spurious claims of the Holy Roman Empire claims to be the successor to to the classical roman empire. In the catholic west the Holy Roman Empire was the Roman empire and the eastern Christian Roman empire was a heretical state falsely using the title of Roman empire. If you want to continue medieval catholic bigotry by denying the eastern empire's true heritage thats up to you.

Indeed you are correct.

Hookah was just trying to be a smartass and ended up showing that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Well, you would assume. He just posted consecutive posts saying "you're wrong" and then mumbled something about "Byzantine".

I will definately give this a try when it is released. Shogun 2 was my first Total War game, and I absolutely LOVE it! Since I have never played the original Rome: Total War games, I may go a snag them on Steam if they are cheap enough.

I would also hope to see them go a little farther forward in time with a future release. The game mechanics in Fall of the Samurai look VERY interesting.

Hmph, the last good total war was empire. The last 2, napoleon and shogun 2, had no unit variety, arcade-ish gameplay, and limited scope. I hope Rome 2 will be more like medieval 1+2, Rome, and empire, but i'll be holding my breath.

Exocet:
I'm a bit disappointed...Rome was a great game, I'll never contest that, but I never felt it was the most exciting. In fact, I find every Total War game based on melee somewhat boring on the RTS battles. I just don't feel that sense of awe as I see entire rows of bullets, muzzle flashes and fog of war ( the real one, made 50% out of gun smoke, and 50% manliness), and the great booming sound of cannons firing.

I'm still expecting a very solid game, and very enjoyable, just not as enjoyable as Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai for me.

---------------------

They could also venture into fantasy. I know some people would murder me and my first-born for this, but it could be more fun then rehashing every previous settings over and over again.

First of all, you're a heretic. Total War works best when it's a medieval, armored guys with axes smashing into each other at great speed game.

That said, is it really wrong to want another iteration of the same setting if it means that:
A) You can get a better overall game than the previous one out of it;
B) It can, now, look ten times more awesome given the advances in technology?
Seriously, how awesome would actual city sieges (forget that Shogun climbing the walls crap) and some of the coolest civilizations bashing the shit out of each other look, what, 9 years later?

On the fantasy bit, I think they could, but I'd rather them keep improving the TW series until they die of old age, while someone else does fantasy. I heard the King Arthur Roleplaying Wargame, or whatever its damn name is, was pretty much that.

I'm a bit disappointed...Rome was a great game, I'll never contest that, but I never felt it was the most exciting. In fact, I find every Total War game based on melee somewhat boring on the RTS battles. I just don't feel that sense of awe as I see entire rows of bullets, muzzle flashes and fog of war ( the real one, made 50% out of gun smoke, and 50% manliness), and the great booming sound of cannons firing.

I'm still expecting a very solid game, and very enjoyable, just not as enjoyable as Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai for me.

As for other settings, let's assume everything past 1899 is off limits, as it changes way too many things.
That still leaves Caveman: Total War
You can use the mighty Urbduk clan with wooden armor, or the Opzegr clan with tamed saber-toothed kitties! I wonder how the publishers would react to the lead designer showing off that idea!

They could also venture into fantasy. I know some people would murder me and my first-born for this, but it could be more fun then rehashing every previous settings over and over again.

El Danny:

maninahat:
Oh for fuck sake. Rome still stands up even in this day and age. It doesn't need a remake.

I was looking forward to what new ideas they would come up with next. Does this mean they'll remake Medieval 2 after this one?

Medieval 3? I hope so.

It's time they did those eras justice, there were many constraints with the engine that they don't have now, like only 20/30 factions? This wasn't so bad with Rome, but Medieval 2? No Aragon? Or Sweden? Flaws like that kind of destroyed the vanilla campaigns for me, but they still turned out to be two of my favourite games of all time, I'm so excited to see how CA builds upon what they've already done.

I'm trying to think of what new eras they could do,
American Civil War? lolna need more than 2 factions...
Victorian? Wouldn't that just be Empire with slightly different units?
1914++? Would need a completely different engine and isn't really what Total War is about anyway.

Oh, I'm sure the remakes will improve upon the original game, it just chaps my ass to have to wait another year or two to find out if they'll have an original setting.

As for original settings, they could do:
* China/Indo-China (any Dynasty, really)
* Africa, around the colonial period
* Dark age Russia

And probably many more, if they just set the game in an unfamiliar continent. Then again, that is probably why they are reluctant to set them in "exotic" locales: there hasn't been a big recent movie about those eras for the marketing team to latch onto.

El Danny:

I'm trying to think of what new eras they could do,
American Civil War? lolna need more than 2 factions...
Victorian? Wouldn't that just be Empire with slightly different units?
1914++? Would need a completely different engine and isn't really what Total War is about anyway.

Well I thought they could do;

era of warring states china 470-221 BC.

Late bronze age middle east

Renaissance Italy

Dark age Europe, like they did with expansion for medieval 1

Well, on one hand, awesome, Rome was by far the best game in the series. On the other, doing two reboots one after another is a little disappointing. I'd rather see them do another timeline and get inevitably closer to doing a modern day Total War.

maninahat:
Oh for fuck sake. Rome still stands up even in this day and age. It doesn't need a remake.

I was looking forward to what new ideas they would come up with next. Does this mean they'll remake Medieval 2 after this one?

Medieval 3? I hope so.

It's time they did those eras justice, there were many constraints with the engine that they don't have now, like only 20/30 factions? This wasn't so bad with Rome, but Medieval 2? No Aragon? Or Sweden? Flaws like that kind of destroyed the vanilla campaigns for me, but they still turned out to be two of my favourite games of all time, I'm so excited to see how CA builds upon what they've already done.

I'm trying to think of what new eras they could do,
American Civil War? lolna need more than 2 factions...
Victorian? Wouldn't that just be Empire with slightly different units?
1914++? Would need a completely different engine and isn't really what Total War is about anyway.

senordesol:
Eghhh...I love Total War...I really do, but can we...you know...kick it up another era. Seriously is there going to be a Total World War?

How would that work? In the second world war, there were no large armies, and even though there sorta were in WW1, it was all trench fighting, which I must admit, does not sound that fun.

Who didn't see this coming. It only make sense as Rome is the only series without a sequel. And if you say Empire TW doesn't you are wrong. Its the only game to get a direct sequel, Napoleon TW. (Yes you don't get world conquest as in ETW but NTW plays the same as ETW)

So it was either they take the series into the Modern age, i.e WWI+ or Make Rome2.

Glad they are going back to Rome tho. I'd like to be able to attack a besieging army from behind my own walls. Kinda sucked that you couldn't do that in Shogun2.

ahhh dammit im gonna have to upgrade my comp either near the end of this year or the beginning of next damn you Rome Total war 2 and thief 4

Id rather they continue the trend of each game going 100 years into the future of history than remake thier old games. But i cant complain much as the new shogun was awesome (and i loved the original too). If you need shiny graphics to attract new audiences then fine, do it, ill play it. But id rather they create more.

YES YES YES YES!!!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY DENARII!!!!!!!!

NOW!!!!!!!!

But for the moment excuse me while I re-install the first one

Oh My God yes please yes I still play ROME:Total War every now and again because of how good it was It could even be a day one buy for me.

albino boo:

Bill Nye the Zombie:

Quazimofo:

i feel this is inappropriate for total war because of 2 things. 1, the combat would have to be completely different, except for ww1 maybe, but that was a big stalemate so it wouldnt be that fun.

For about a month there were huge battles between armies not in trenches across France, Prussia and Austria that set up the trench warfare. So they could replicate that.

Also YESSSS! Rome was the third TW game I played (I played Empire and Medieval II first) and the only one that I still remember a lot of my battles, like the one that came down to my archers against a greek phalanx (I won).

The big problem even with the non trench battles is the power and range of indirect fire artillery. The guns firing would 5-10 miles away from the frontline, making the current total wars setup with a tactical and strategic map impossible to use. Even in the 1914 battles armies tried to form long continuous fronts of up to 200 hundred miles, again making the current TW tactical/strategic map unworkable.

True, true, but they could work artillary like they did navies offshore in Fall of the Samuri, let you put artillary in a seperate tab in the army and then let you call it in when you needed it. The second one, well, you got me there. They would think of something. I really dont care where they go after Rome 2, as long as it's not WW2 or after.

Continue reading 71 comments on the forums.
Recommended Games
Asda 2
categories: fantasy