OT RTR comments

[lars573]

{From the Assistant Mod Mod - split non-advice for RTR Roman Republic into new thread}

Best tip I can give is this. Stop playing RTR, it sucks.

[econ21]

Lars - not sure if that is a flame or a troll, probably both, but you should know better. ~:rolleyes:

[Catiline]

Moved to mods...

[lars573]

Lars - not sure if that is a flame or a troll, probably both, but you should know better. ~:rolleyes:
Neither it's advice based on opinion. RTR is a bad idea poorly executed.

[econ21]

Well, you are welcome to your opinion but I am not sure why you bother posting it without giving any arguments to justify it. And I am not sure why you want to denigrate the efforts of modders by using insulting language about their work.

For what it's worth, I think RTR is a splendid idea, brilliantly executed.

It is a splendid idea because RTW is a great engine but the historical accuracy could be improved (e.g. Egyptians, need I say more?), as could the gameplay (notably slowing down the battles and improving the challenge of the campaigns).

It's brilliantly executed because it raises the gameplay of both the battles and campaign to that of MTWs high standards. Also the units look gorgeous and the mod is as steady as a rock, with virtually no CTDs. It really is amazingly professional work that must have taken thousands of hours of hard work.

If you want to dispute this points or make some substantive ones of your own, I am happy to debate the issue with you. But simple "yes, it is" "not it isn't" posts are pointless and posts with insulting language are flames.

[lars573]

That in and of itself is not that bad. But RTR like all realisim mods fell into the realism before fun trap. In making the game more real they made it not fun. Using just the skins in the game and altering text files Egypt could be made more accurate. None of those shitte brown skins that are all through EB and RTR.

[econ21]

People have different views regarding what is fun, I guess. The main downside I can see is that RTR does make RTW campaigns even longer and slower than it is (creating extra provinces was a mistake, IMO). But then I've always found TW campaigns just too exhausting to want to finish many of them. I like the slower, more MTW type battles in RTR. They're more fun for me because I can use cerebral tactics more and enjoy the graphics more. And I like the skins - not sure which brown ones you object to. I tend to play the Romans and when I first saw the revamped RTR ones, I was smitten. The early EB Romans are not so pretty, but they do have some stunners (the cavalry and the Triarii).

[lars573]

People have different views regarding what is fun, I guess. The main downside I can see is that RTR does make RTW campaigns even longer and slower than it is (creating extra provinces was a mistake, IMO). But then I've always found TW campaigns just too exhausting to want to finish many of them. I like the slower, more MTW type battles in RTR. They're more fun for me because I can use cerebral tactics more and enjoy the graphics more. And I like the skins - not sure which brown ones you object to. I tend to play the Romans and when I first saw the revamped RTR ones, I was smitten. The early EB Romans are not so pretty, but they do have some stunners (the cavalry and the Triarii).
I don't want anything that resembles MTW in RTW. I hated the boring battles in MTW. And your right the max-out provinces is too tire some. All EB skins are unattactive. Vanilla RTW skins are just better looking. RTR are piss poor and banged out too quickly.

[econ21]

Sigh. You still want to denigrate modders work? ~:rolleyes:

Anyway, anyone interested can always checkout the RTR graphics themselves:

http://www.rometotalrealism.org/gallery/main.php

[Epistolary Richard]

OT posts split off. lars I have no problem with you expressing a preference or an opinion, but the tone and manner in which you're doing so are inappropriate for this forum.