From what I see everywhere, RTW2 seems to be pretty horrible.
I'll see for myself soon, but I'm pretty disappointed by some design decisions already.
From the game I most anticipated this year, this is a gut punch
I can't deny that the anticipation is what's left me quite as disappointed as I am - as a TW game it is, well, a TW game, and so perfectly serviceable albeit with dreadful AI. There are just better entries in the series, including its immediate predecessor.
It's also struck me just how much difference aesthetic choices make. This is the first TW game that doesn't have a period-appropriate aesthetic for its interface; the spartan (not in a thematically appropriate way) translucent black panels look borrowed from XCOM (where they're still ugly, but not so wildly out of place). TW games need a sense of place and character, and despite being in most technical respects fairly faithful to its predecessors, R2 just doesn't have that even before the odd decision to add unnecessary fantasy features like the "cavalry testudo" and explosive ballista bolts. Sure, TW audiences are used to anachronisms - staple abilities in the series include fire arrows that are more effective against soldiers than standard arrows, and a wedge formation (a medieval European heavy cavalry formation) in Roman times or in Sengoku Japan - but basic abilities for archer and cavalry units are needed to add variety in the way you use otherwise rather static unit types (for all that fire arrows have always been overpowered). I don't see any equivalent need for these new options, which are in any case not merely anachronistic or inappropriate against the types of target they're good against in TW, but are complete fabrications.
Even seemingly minor changes like showing public disorder as a numerical value without the associated population icons for the amount of discontent/happiness makes the whole seem more impersonal and, yes, "gamey" (and if you don't want to be reminded you're playing a game, you'll have to autoresolve every battle so as to avoid the loading screens with "Total War: Rome 2" emblazoned over literally half the screen. On the plus side, autoresolved battles actually seem to work - a first in TW history).
Then there's the lack of flavour touches. In S2 you could see in the trade screen the goods you were importing vs. exporting, and there was a full screen devoted to showing you the trade prices of different commodities. This screen had absolutely zero game effect (and the trade goods nothing the system can't do without), but it helped give a sense of a 'real' economy and - because it didn't do anything - didn't add any complexity. It was just for flavour. Anything like that has been ruthlessly purged from Rome 2 - everything has to be functional and minimalist. To some extent I can see why, since it was confusing for me when playing TW games for the first time that I had all these screens with trade information and the like that I couldn't figure out how to relate to gameplay, but I'm not sure there needed to be quite such a complete break with thematic touches.
EDIT: Looking elsewhere, a common target for criticism in this regard is the loss of the family tree diagram, found in most TW games (except perhaps Empire, which wasn't dynasty-based).
The advertising too sold the game on things that mostly haven't lived up to the hype:
- a politics system, we're told. I can't comment because I have no idea what "gravitas" etc. stats do, and there's no Senate screen or a place for one that can be unlocked. I was particularly looking forward to this since Shogun 2 was the first TW game I've played (never played the original Shogun) with no 'government' system akin to the MII Pope, Rome Senate or Empire, well, government (although the latter was extremely badly-implemented), and it seemed obvious to revisit the sort of Senate system R1 used. But no such thing appears to exist.
- Faction variety. Less than expected - rather than 12 factions with subfactions, we have 8, each of those having subfactions a la Rise/Fall of the Samurai (Macedon and Egypt, for example, are not two factions but two subfactions of the "Successor States" faction). The types of faction/subfaction bonus also seem very similar to those in FotS - so more varied in character than Shogun 2 vanilla, but not unique play experiences by any means. Can't yet comment on the differences in unit types since I've so far only played vs. Italian factions.
- Graphics. We should have been warned by all the emphasis on "wow, every soldier's an individual" - this may be the case but when playing no one zooms in that close so why care? Basic graphics seem worse than Shogun 2, but possibly I'm experiencing the reported low resolution bug. The scenery is pretty to be sure, but that's also true of S2.
- Multilayered siege battles. So far not seen any difference with R1 - you still have gatehouses etc. to capture, but taking them appears to have no meaningful game effect as you still only need the core central victory point. S2 almost got this right, but R2 feels a step back.
- Provinces. Maybe there's potential here, but in every respect except capturing cities all cities in a province act as a single city - all happiness, economic and unit recruitment effects act at the provincial scale. So you just basically get the Shogun 2 system only with more build slots. Culture (R2's religion mechanic, working very much like S2's but with less of a diplomatic impact) is worked out per city, but its only effects are on provincial happiness so that too is irrelevant. The only effect of having partial control of a province appears to be that you don't get to issue "provincial edicts", which seem to be province-scale versions of army stances. For this we lose the Empire/Shogun 2 system of farms and docks spread through the landscape, which is replaced by a generic army "raiding" stance (not even the R1/MII system where an army in enemy territory automatically raids). So this whole system as implemented is essentially wholly pointless, and I for one found the E/S2 system more characterful.
Just started my first proper campaign, and what I noticed right away is that you start the game absolutely swimming in cash. This was as the Junii, who like the other Roman factions claim an "easy" starting challenge and also have a boost to commerce income, but I have nothing I need that much money for except buildings that produce more cash. In Shogun 2 on the same difficulty (Hard), even with an "easy" faction like the Shimazu or Chosokabe, you have a familiar TW situation - not many units, not much cash to buy or support more, overall game strategy is basically "build your economy, buy units, go smash things, in that order".
In R2 you're given a pre-built economy, and seemingly incapable AI that isn't helped by the fact that the standard garrison buildings produce a poor selection of units (not enough archers, very low-quality units when higher-tech ones unlock for attackers far more quickly and cheaply than in S2) and walls come with a higher level of city. It's not just the AI; the system itself seems designed around the philosophy that the "go smash" phase is the totality of the gameplay experience.