Making decisions on the campaign map should be as fun and important as fighting tactical battles.
When a Total War game works, all of these components harmonize with one another.
Here you maneuver your lines into position and then exploit any advantages you have for victory. Battles, on the other hand, should be tense tactical affairs. The campaign is turn-based and used primarily to move armies across the utterly gorgeous map, recruit units, construct new buildings, and occasionally engage in diplomacy. There's a balance between a strategic campaign map with real-time battles. The basic premise is still the same as in previous Total War games. So why is it such a failure? The reasons are big, messy, and complicated, but to sum it up: Rome II takes everything that the Total War series does well and gets it just wrong enough to remove all the tension. Rome II should have been its crowning achievement. Like Rome itself, the Total War series could have been an empire that lasted for decades.
Was it overextension? Unclear succession? Christianity? Bad luck? Lead poisoning? History, of course, is big, messy, and complicated, so it's probably not any one of those things. Game Details Developer: The Creative assemblyįor centuries, historians have argued about the reasons the Roman Empire fell.
