I want to love this game. In a way, I do love this game. But not as much as I could, or would like to. It doesn't have that Rome 1 magic. Maybe because I'm not a child anymore that didn't know any better, and was awestruck by the scale and size of Rome 1. But in many facets, this game is a downgrade from its predecessor. It does not have a heart or a soul. The battles are tedious and unchallenging. The A.I. cannot mount a fight worth its salt. Due to the way the engine is coded, the engagements are anti-climactic, and charges do not have the same impact as the one from its predecessor. It has giant cities to defend, clearly meant for epic clashes and gradual captures of cities, but battles are decided on the walls. In tedious slogs of throwing manpower and heavy troops through an outpouring of siege engines. The A.I. is incapable of mounting a challenging attack and will nigh always rush you. It is also incapable of mountaing a challenging defence, and will never outflank you or adapt its tactics. It is not creative. It is less than barebones. It is incapable of strategy, or even putting together an army worth fighting.

Furthermore, restrictions in the shape of armies only being allowed to be lead by a general keeps combat very gated. Especially when you have to 'earn' more generals through progressing, when in the title previous to this one, you were allowed to make armies without generals at all. You could pump out units to build up a garrison, where now you are forced to simply leave a general behind if you want to make sure you can fend off attacks on the homefront. If they ever occured. A general which you could be using to strategically outmaneuver, if the A.I. posed a challenge at all. Ultimately, the decision kind of works, but only due to the fact that you are almost never really in dire need of all your generals. They are a luxury. Not at a necessity. Because the A.I. does not put up a fight or poses a threat at all.

In my 335 hours, I have fought a naval battle only once, out of curiousity. It was an even more tedious affair than taking command of storming the walls. I understand its inclusion, and its historically accurate, but much like the naval battles in Shogun 2, it doesn't particularly hold my interest, and I find it boring to command if anything.

I wanted to make this short and sweet but unfortunately I seem to be unable to. If I'm allowed to make the brief allegory, this should have been channeling a peak in Roman history. Like the exploits of Scipio Africanus, Sulla, or Augustus. Instead it channels Nero, Caracalla, Commodus, and so on. It might wear the purple, but it is by no means Emperor.

It is, at its best moments, a poor man's Lucius Verus. And at worst, it is Caligula.

I want to love this game. In a way, I do love this game. But not as much as I could, or would like to. It doesn't have that Rome 1 magic. Maybe because I'm not a child anymore that didn't know any better, and was awestruck by the scale and size of Rome 1. But in many facets, this game is a downgrade from its predecessor. It does not have a heart or a soul. The battles are tedious and unchallenging. The A.I. cannot mount a fight worth its salt. Due to the way the engine is coded, the engagements are anti-climactic, and charges do not have the same impact as the one from its predecessor. It has giant cities to defend, clearly meant for epic clashes and gradual captures of cities, but battles are decided on the walls. In tedious slogs of throwing manpower and heavy troops through an outpouring of siege engines. The A.I. is incapable of mounting a challenging attack and will nigh always rush you. It is also incapable of mountaing a challenging defence, and will never outflank you or adapt its tactics. It is not creative. It is less than barebones. It is incapable of strategy, or even putting together an army worth fighting. Furthermore, restrictions in the shape of armies only being allowed to be lead by a general keeps combat very gated. Especially when you have to 'earn' more generals through progressing, when in the title previous to this one, you were allowed to make armies without generals at all. You could pump out units to build up a garrison, where now you are forced to simply leave a general behind if you want to make sure you can fend off attacks on the homefront. If they ever occured. A general which you could be using to strategically outmaneuver, if the A.I. posed a challenge at all. Ultimately, the decision kind of works, but only due to the fact that you are almost never really in dire need of all your generals. They are a luxury. Not at a necessity. Because the A.I. does not put up a fight or poses a threat at all. In my 335 hours, I have fought a naval battle only once, out of curiousity. It was an even more tedious affair than taking command of storming the walls. I understand its inclusion, and its historically accurate, but much like the naval battles in Shogun 2, it doesn't particularly hold my interest, and I find it boring to command if anything. I wanted to make this short and sweet but unfortunately I seem to be unable to. If I'm allowed to make the brief allegory, this should have been channeling a peak in Roman history. Like the exploits of Scipio Africanus, Sulla, or Augustus. Instead it channels Nero, Caracalla, Commodus, and so on. It might wear the purple, but it is by no means Emperor. It is, at its best moments, a poor man's Lucius Verus. And at worst, it is Caligula.