I'll break it down as to why I think it is more fun, and more importantly I will highlight my main issues with Shogun 2.Maccaveli wrote:Each to their own but naaaaaaah. Diplomats, troop retraining, merchants, retarded AI and rebel factions are just impossibly frustrating to me after the improvements of Empire and Shogun 2. I'm currently playing an Oda campaign on hard in S2 and it's a blast.hugh wrote:replaying Rome Total War in anticipation of Rome 2!
Have to say, despite being a little bit dated in terms of some of the mechanics and options, the campaign is a lot more fun than Shogun 2 and I am really enjoying it playing as the Brutii at the moment
Firstly, Shogun 2 uses a small, fairly linear map (japan is long and thin, it doesn't make for a diverse campaign) whereas other Total War games have a much bigger scape. The whole game feels more epic. This is true for Medieval, Rome and Empire. This results in my biggest problem with Shogun;
Playing the game properly will almost never result in open pitched battles but rather siege after siege after siege
This is simply because the map is quite small, the timescale is too long for the size of the map, which in turn means armies can cross huge areas in little time. Almost any offensive battle, unless you actually go out of your way to find yourself a proper challenge, will result in you sieging your enemy. It's repetitive basically. This compounds with other really poor issues - the first is religion and the resulting rebellions. It is far too easy to make a an enemy/neutral settlement revolt by the use of religious agents. The Fall of the Samurai has the exact same problem in that you can use the Shogun/Imperial agents to inspire revolts. It just means that if you are playing the game properly and as well as possible, you will just send an army of agents into coveted territory and replace all the standing factions there with Rebels. No wars are needed, no fuss is caused, you just silently become extremely powerful without any provocation.
A lot of the other issues I have are indeed just personal, but I would also say that the skirmishing in Shogun 2 is not as good. Archers are poor in that they need to fire within their arc in order to be able to shoot. Otherwise they have to turn. Rome Archers don't have this problem. They can fire on the spot, the units themselves just turn rather than the whole formation. In Shogun 2 you never have to deal with archers as long as you are intelligent in your approach to your enemy and have a couple of cavalry units. On the flipside, the damage archers themselves do in Shogun 2 is too much for me, I much prefer skirmishing in Rome. I also prefer the units diversity. In Rome we have javelin throwers, slingers, archers, phalanx, heavy and light infantry...Infantry with different stat spreads that can actually specialise a lot more in their roles. Babarians, chariots, elephants, cataphracts, and who could forget flaming pigs ?
I will agree that Rome has many problems, the diplomats are annoying but it's kind of a moot issue for me because diplomacy has always been a weak point of CA games and never REALLY been worth engaging in all that much. The lack of expandable recruitment slots is also a problem. Troop retraining has not been such an issue for me, I don't mind it. I think it's perfectly acceptable that you should only be able to retrain troops when they are actually in the settlement and in a province that actually has the required buildings. AI is just as retarded in Shogun 2 to be honest, full stacks of Samurai Bowmen says it all. I will grant you that Shogun 2's pathfinding in seige is a LOT better (though I believe they could never fix this issue which is why we went from proper cities in Rome/Medieval 2, where we had units running around weirdly and bugging out loads in both games inside cities to boring repetitive forts) but I will take the diversity in Romes cool cities, where each faction has a different style, over Shoguns samey forts any day.
Pathfinding in Rome is definitely buggy and annoying, however it's the only bug right now that's really annoying me. I like the way generals gain traits in a free-mannered way. I hate Shogun's refined and uninteresting upgrade path for Generals, I hate the way all Generals basically end up the same just with more or less battle stars, I hate the way every city has the same 4 buildings that looks the same. I really don't like the almost RPGish route they are trying to take a portion of the game down because it preaches choice but in reality offers a lot less.