So any game can’t be historically accurate, but we are aiming for it to be more historically authentic than ever. There are a lot of things we do which aren’t accurate because it is a game, battles lasting minutes not hours or days for example. It is more useful to talk in terms of historical authenticity than historical accuracy, which never survives past the player getting involved anyway. How historically accurate will Rome II be?Ī.
Hi all, new update based on more common questions from around the forums. Hope these answers have helped clear up some concerns people have had and answered many questions. Yes they are taken from the Siege of Carthage battle we showed to journalists.
It is going to be a grand campaign, we are aiming to work more story into the campaign that is different every time you play and based around what you do.Īgain, we will talk more about the campaign at a later date. Is it going to be heavily scripted with all this talk about characters or a more sandbox game? We will details this more closer to release and also talk about why we do DLC and why it is not cut content. We will talk about this in more details when we begin to preview the campaign in depth as time goes on. Campaign side we are putting more emphasis on armies and them having a history or legacy. Some of the previews have talked lots about armies, and you getting rid of individual units or controlling them?
We are also aiming to reduce late game micro-management so players can focus on the game and the new mechanics we are introducing to the campaign game. The campaign in Rome II will have more depth than ever before. What is all this talk about reducing micro-management in the campaign, and you dumbing it down? Lots of work is going into all the different cultures present in the game. The previews have focused lots on Rome, does this mean the other factions in the game are being neglected?
For the first update I thought it would be good to answer some of the common questions that have popped up over the past 24 hours.