However, the remaster is good, it updates the graphics and adds quality of life features while not ruining anything from the original. So the original rome is good, but that doesn't mean the remaster is. While it may not be nearly as polished as shogun 2, it has way more faction variety. rome also has advantages over other classic total war titles.
and All of this strategy and planning is almost entirely skipped in rome 2, where an army just has to be in friendly territory to replenishment and recruitment. These factors make battles more impactful as losing troops means returning to a settlement that can replace them. You have to think about when to return your army to a settlement, often one far away, as leaving to soon leaves your border settlements open to your neighbors but leaving to late leaves your army unable to protect your settlements or themselves. In rome 1, you have to plan your conquest as over expanding can leave your armies far away from recruitment buildings and make it take too long for reinforcements to arrive.
With automatic replenishment and recruitment in armies you never need to return your armies to friendly settlements making the entire campaign less strategic and engaging. While these mechanics probably wouldn't work for the warhammer series, they are major reasons the newer historical titles (at least rome 2, I never bothered with the other ones) are worst than the classics.
Total war rome 2 images manual#
Newer historical titles may have much more advanced campaign mechanics than rome, but rome has manual replenishment and recruitment in settlements. Many aspects are dated and some are just out right bad, but there is a reason many long time fans of total war are disappointed with new titles. The original rome total war is a great game even to this day. STAR WARS: The Old Republic, 4,149, 8,152, 34,210, +.