East vs. West

[Zasz1234]

So here is the ultimate question. There are two real regions RTW: East and West. The question is where do you prefer to rule and why. Is the open spaces and cavalry heavy East? Or the Infantry loving hill and forest covered West that suits your conquering desires?

[Quintus.JC]

I prefer a combination of both, but if I must vote than East is East.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

Is the open spaces and cavalry heavy East? Or the Infantry loving hill and forest covered West that suits your conquering desires?

I like the East because of its many dusty deserts and mountains, and less forests, but i lways use heavy hoplites.You can only get them in southern and eastern factions anyway. also i love archers. Not so horse archers but regular, "city wall" archers and thy seem to be in high demand in the East. The east isnt only about calvary, in conclusion, but all much a mixture of them, hoplites, eastern infantry and archers.

[Quirinus]

I like both, but I guess I prefer the East more, if only because, battle-map wise, I hate tree cover and snow.

[Quintus.JC]

I like both, but I guess I prefer the East more, if only because, battle-map wise, I hate tree cover and snow.

I don't mind snow, but the trees really ruins the gameplay. During my Julii campaign so many easy battles was lost because I could not see where my units and enemies were in the Gallic woodlands. It's very annoying indeed.

[Zasz1234]

True, the forests are an extreme pain to deal with. As the Romans I lost several a family member to blind woods fighting. As a result I am more east now. I think the battles have more eb and flow to them with grand maneuvering over the blind slugfests of the western forests. However dealing with horse archers if you don't have them yourself are a complete pain :furious3:

[Emperor Mithdrates]

I hate those stupid barbarians compared to the profesional eastern troops. I also hate barbarian town on the campagn map. there round which i dont like compared to the square ones. also i can imagine a pontus, greek or selucia empire, but a gual one...its not natural!

[Darkvicer98]

I like the East of the Map. They have much more culture and a bigger selection of different troops. Take Thrace for example, they have both Hellanic and Barbarian Units instead of Gaul who just has the typical barbarian units.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

I like the East of the Map. They have much more culture and a bigger selection of different troops. Take Thrace for example, they have both Hellanic and Barbarian Units instead of Gaul who just has the typical barbarian units.

Yeah, and on the campaign map i dislike the asthetics of their towns. THE'RE ROUND! they look so umprofesional and un-empireish unlike those huge square monsters, which are cool!

[Spartan198]

I prefer the western regions. Hoplites, gotta love'em.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

I prefer the western regions. Hoplites, gotta love'em.


To me anything to the right of the imaginary line i picture going down the Adriatic is The East. So...

EAST:
Parthia
Armenia
Selucia
Egypt
Pontus
Scythia
Thrace
Macedonia
Greece
Dacia

WEST:
Brutii
Julii
Scipii
Carthage
Numidia
Gaul
Spain
Germania
Britain
SPQR

10 on each side. ~:wave:

[Caius]

The east has good HA. The west has good all the rest.

[Quintus.JC]

The east has good HA. The west has good all the rest.

All the best cavalry as well?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

In the case of battlemaps, I really have no preference, although I must admit that the giant pine trees in Germania can be problematic and should probably be a little smaller - if not for practicallity, for realism.

A general issue I have with all R:TW battlemaps is their fairly similar nature throughout the map. Every single area is a flat plain with an odd slope here and there. This contrasts with the maps of S:TW and M:TW on which each one contained at least one tactical terrain aspect, although often many, many more. This probably is due to M:TW having fewer battlemaps due to the classical campaign map - one for each castle type (seiges), two for every border between provinces (invasions) and one within the province itself (internal revolts).

Factionally, I must say that I prefer the East to the West, although this could be turned around if the barbarians were portrayed as a little less privative - they have fewer units than all other factions and henceforth less interest and tactical possibilities.

The east is also a little richer than the west, although this isn't really significant. The infinite ease of gaining money in R:TW after you've got over ten provinces makes the difference insignificant.

~:)

[Dafuge]

I prefer the forests of the west so my Germans can ambush everything.

[Shieldmaiden]

I prefer the forests of the west so my Germans can ambush everything.

I'm with ya :viking:

[Flavius Merobaudes]

Undecided. I like a mix of both. Fighting in the desert and then again in the dark germanic forests prevents the game from getting boring. As the Romans, there is a special aspect in the game bringing civilisation to the barbarians. That's one of Rome's great achievements, taming the wild west... Development of these initially poor regions is fun.

[Emperor of Graal]

I hate those stupid barbarians compared to the profesional eastern troops. I also hate barbarian town on the campagn map. there round which i dont like compared to the square ones. also i can imagine a pontus, greek or selucia empire, but a gual one...its not natural!
I like the east because its got loads of professional factions
in every roman campaign i destroy everyone because they have hardly any good units
its a shame you can't get large and huge cities for barbarians on Rome
(although in barb invasion you get large and huge even then you get hardly any
professional troops

[Abokasee]

As i'd usually say, aremenia, there balanced, there a jack of all trades, also the wide open desert means that your horse archers can run riot, and the mountains of aremenia and river crossings of eygpt mean your heavy spearmen and foot archers can have there fun.

[batemonkey]

i like conquering the east med as it is RICH RICH RICH and i need to keep my self in golden houses!

[ArtistofWarfare]

In RTW I always wanted to like the East more - but just have never been able to. Perhaps not enough experience.

The fact is that I'm just a much better commander in the West (far more experience as well). The woods that so many despise, fit my style of fighting. That said, I do recall using missile units in Eastern cities with a lot of success.

Answer though: West.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I used to prefer the west since the barbarians are so different, I liked how on the one hand you had the great bright Roman cities, then on the other there were the dense forests in Germania and the dull, misty climates of Britannia. Plus I was more used to the history of the area, I didn't know much about ancient Armenia, Seleucia etc.

But I've grown to love the east because for some reason it feels more epic fighting there, probably due to the wide spaces. Also not having those huge Germanic trees is a big bonus, they could really ruin battles. Which is realistic I suppose, but annoying nonetheless. Eastern armies also seem more diverse, you need to use a combination of horse archers, shock cavalry, and infantry archers to fight effectively, in the west it was infantry rule with some cavalry on the flanks.

One settlement I always find funny is that Galatian settlement in Turkey. Somehow the combination of barbarian huts and palm trees make it feel like Hawaii or something.

[professorspatula]

For me, as Jim Morrison once sang, 'The West is the Best'.

I prefer carving a way through the forests of Gaul and Germania and Iberia, as opposed to trawling miles in open desert. I'm not really a fan of the Eastern factions and all that horse archery stuff. Keep still upon your horse and let me shoot you safely from afar I say. It always ends up with Egypt running the east with their annoying chariots and 1000 year outdated hair-styles. At least in the west you can choose to ignore all that and pretend the Egyptians aren't winning and instead concentrate on a number of different regions. You can go into North Africa and chase strangely untanned men around the Sahara if need be; or go to Britannia and see if you can spot Big Ben in the distance from the south coast; or you can lead your barbarians or Legionaries against the Greeks and teach them why a wall of pointy long sticks does not make for great tactics in RTW's age, especially not when your heavy cav are going to be giving them a kick up the backside any second.

The only eastern faction I really like is the Seleucids, because they have a decent mix of troops and you know by playing them, at least the Eastern half of the map won't be all yellow. The area around Pergamum and towards Syria is the most interesting part of the Eastern map (not including the Greek peninsula). A good mix of mountains and open spaces and the odd tree to climb. Even so, after a while all that sand gets annoying. I like to play in simulation mode, and throw tufts of grass in my face as if I was charging through a grass field on my stallion, directly leading my men to victory. However, to achieve a similar level of realism in the east, I have buckets of sand blown into my eyes with a powerful fan. I can tell you after a half dozen battles, my eyes are bleeding and I become disillusioned with it all. It's bad enough having the smell of clumps of horse poo burning my nostrils, and the noise of flies buzzing around it like the flies that buzz around the corpses of my foes doing in my ears, without being blinded as well. No for the me, the east is one boundary too far that I don't like to cross.