Take the 2-minute tour ×
Arqade is a question and answer site for passionate videogamers on all platforms. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I got Rome 2 today and am playing the prologue. So far I am quite satisfied by the game, but something seems to be bothering me or simply doesn't work. In older Total War games you could simply build units which you could manoeuvre around without a general (a "general" would be appointed to one of the units). Now you need to first build a general and then build an army. I can understand that, men need men to follow. But something doesn't seem to work properly.

Let's say I have a general with 3 units of hastati, the general, and 2 units of equites. I need to do a rescue mission to one of my cities so I select 2 units of hastati and one unit of equites and want to move them to the other city. I simply can't. Even though I only selected the units needed, the whole army is moved (with its general). The same happens when I try to join part of the army with a fleet.

I cannot create a new general, so that's not it. You simply can't split a unit from its general of whom it originated?

share|improve this question
    
Isn't it possible to make another general in the army itself? Because when my general died in combat, i had to pick a new general and voila he was there in that same army where the old one died. –  Lyrion Sep 4 '13 at 11:13

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Only way to "split" an army seems to be having two generals. When you order a general to march to another general, you get a possibility to change troops from on army to another.

Compared to other TW games this seems like a huge drawback to be, because you dont seem to be able to recruit troops to undefended city if there is no general present nor can you leave troops to defend a city when your army marches on. City garrisons are usually not enough to defend a city and you need to carefully place your armies.

It does have a certain point, because roman armies were strictly hierarchical and there had to be a general leading it. It leads some inconsistencies tho, like in case your general is killed, you will be able to recruit a new one to that spot immediately.

share|improve this answer
1  
I really wish that it let you assign a second in command to each army, who would replace the army if the first died and could split off into a seperate army if needed. Plus let you assign generals as captains of the guard of a city who can sally out only. Would solve pretty much all my complaints with the system. –  Lawton Sep 8 '13 at 2:01

You can exchange units between 2 generals at least. But as far as I know, all units must be in the company of a general or an admiral (except for agents ofc)

Also, the number of generals you can have at any given time is dependant on your "imperium". You recruit generals from city centers.

share|improve this answer

Would be good if not for the fact you can only recruit in or around 6 Generals.

When playing as Rome, it makes a war on 2 fronts nigh on impossible without leaving huge areas of your map open to invasion.

In the later stages of the game you stand the risk of pissing anyone off with troop movements to defend areas from incursions. In the last 10 turns of my current game i have had factions declare was on me and invade randomly whilst factions i have military aliances with have gone from nigh on worshiping the ground i walk on to being on the verge of terminating aliances and trade deals regardless of the fact i have backed them in every war they have declared and defended them against all army's encroaching there land.

One tip i would give is don't forget you can land naval forces in Rome Total War 2.

If you are worried you have a area that is undefended and it is on the coast recruit a admiral and get a fleet of spearmen. In the setup for the battle you can land the ships troops and as long as you have a castle it makes it slightly easier to defend...

share|improve this answer

No, I'm pretty sure you can't split units off from the general that originated them.

This is probably to try to fit the time period better. Romans generally moved in force, you would rarely have individual units running around, or troops spread out, instead there were a number of legions stationed throughout the provinces.

And secondly, for much of Roman history (particularly post-Republic), armies were generally more loyal to their general than to Rome itself. Hence Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon; his troops were loyal enough to him to be willing to march on Rome itself.

(Whether this actually makes the game better is debatable)

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Sep 24 '13 at 23:41

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.