Hey. I’ve written about Total War: Warhammer’s awful and pointlessly confusing campaign map on Rock, Paper, Shotgun. The link is here.
Imperator Augustus is a free additional campaign for Rome II which moves the timeline forward about 200 years. In 272 BC, when the grand campaign begins, Rome is a small city-state. In 42 BC, when Imperator Augustus begins, Rome has just been divided between the triumvirate of Octavian, Mark Antony and Lepidus. Its constituent parts are still the largest states in the Mediterranean. The change in setting solves some of the issues with Rome II I’ve already complained about and bolsters its strengths. It’s a fantastic campaign which I enthusiastically recommend over the standard grand campaign. Where the grand campaign is directionless even as Rome, Imperator Augustus offers you clearer structure, a more interesting and recognizable cast, and, critically, villains you can immediately identify. As well as improving Rome II’s strategic layer, Imperator Augustus makes battles better. Armies are larger and battles are more climactic. Rome II has always had the capacity to simulate vast battles, but Imperator Augustus takes full advantage of this fact from the start. Imperator Augustus is a clear improvement over the grand campaign of Rome II, and an excellent scenario worthy of your time and attention.
The worst of Total War: Rome II’s many problems is its failure to explain its mechanics clearly and especially how they interact. The internal politics of Rome – something critical to why the Rome: Total War was good – are a particularly badly represented mess: a variety of bars and numbers move around the politics screen without explaining themselves or what they mean in relation to the rest of the game. The food system, newly introduced in this iteration of Total War, is not necessarily the worst offender but it is the one I’ve had the best luck untangling and so it provides a good case study for why Rome II’s obscure, badly implemented mechanics utterly rob the campaign of its joy.
I’ve written already about how playing as Austria in Europa Universalis IV successfully addresses the recurring problem of the late game in strategy and grand strategy games. That is specifically the phase of the game where you have won and yet it goes on. In Civilization V, you might reach the year 1800, find you’re vastly ahead of the AI opponents and simultaneously realise it’ll take 100 more turns to finally finish that Conquest or Science victory. In Europa Universalis IV, you might beat France in a major war and realise that all it takes to gobble up the whole continent is a series of tedious, easy conflicts. In Total War games, where the objective is to conquer a quota of provinces, usually being merely half-way to this quota is enough to be larger and stronger than all your rivals. Rome: Total War is interested in solving this problem and while it’s not wholly successful, it does mitigate the tedium which suffuses so much of the late game in strategy and grand strategy. By dividing the game into two phases, one in which you expand for the glory of the Roman Republic and another which sets you against other Roman factions and the Senate itself in your quest to become emperor, Rome: Total War makes victory difficult. It forces you to recontextualise your conquests and think again about what territory is ‘safe.’ It forces you to zoom out from small-scale, distant wars to focus on a larger conflict. Rome: Total War’s late game challenges you, a phrase we can rarely use honestly about this phase in these games.