View Full Version : Is anyone else bored?
lancelot
10-25-2004, 15:32
Further to my 'I miss GA mode' thread, last night I was playing away as the greeks when I had a rather sad revalation..I was bored.
I was conquering away like a good little warlord when I realised I was doing exactly the same things I did in STW and MTW and it didnt feel new or different..
Now before anyone posts 'this is a TOTAL WAR game, what did you expect' save yourself the bother, Im well aware of that fact, I just feel like there is 'something' (Im not sure what) missing. Anyone know what I mean?
The- smash army/seige town/rinse/repeat syndrome seems even more..'highlighted' shall we say, in this game than it did in MTW. And that was a 'simpler' game..? Yea, I dont really get it either...sigh..
I guess Im just expecting a bit more these days. Yes, the map/battlefield relationship devised for this game is great and I love the idea that you can blockade a pass etc etc
I think I have lost my love for this game, I want it back!! :help: :help:
solypsist
10-25-2004, 15:40
it's little use to compare rtw to mtw, so that's not a good place to start. i found myself referencing mtw, but this is a different game, and once i left mtw behind (campaign map part, anyway), rtw has increased in enjoyment.
the greeks are one of the easiest to use, try a different faction.
Lord Ovaat
10-25-2004, 16:02
I'm finding it a little discomforting that the Campaign Map is so small. Small? Well, it is a big map with lots of provinces, but when you consider there are four allied Roman factions gobbling up territory it limits your thrusts if you happen to be playing one of the those factions. My first campaign was probably the most interesting; I kept rather large stacks around my capitol because of concern for the other Roman factions. It has, however, become apparent, that they are NOT going to attack me without being told to by the Senate. The Senate seems to leave you alone until you are in position to win. So, they actually are allies. I used to wish for this with MTW, now I'm not all that sure it's the best policy. It would be nice if, on occasion, one of the other factions made a "play" for power. I no longer have the nagging "fear" that my current hundred-turn campaign could go up in smoke at any moment simply because several factions attack at once. I guess I do miss the suspense.
I always ends bored with any game I play, at least for a while (and I will replay it several monthes later).
RTW, so far, has shown a tremendous and incredibly resilience to boredom, which is something to praise ^^
I agree, though, that the lack of non-conquest goals is somehow lacking. After a while, you start to "see through the game" and feel more the mechanics and less the ambiance. Some lively and varied goals/objectives/creations would definitely help to flesh even more the game, and improve it overall.
a_ver_est
10-25-2004, 16:35
Imho more types off victory conditions will be a great improvement. Cultural victories, faction which has earned more development points, ...
Yep I now these is a Total War game and all it's about war ... but I think that the engine allows doing more thinks with a lite more development and it will avoid boring early.
Adrian II
10-25-2004, 16:43
The- smash army/seige town/rinse/repeat syndrome seems even more..'highlighted' shall we say, in this game than it did in MTW. And that was a 'simpler' game..?I feel your pain. I played RTW a couple of times on a friend's computer and I think it's not a great improvement over MTW. It's a speed game, really not much more than a shooter. The graphics are horrible (I can't stand those phants in funny pants or the pristine white city walls) and the absence of "real" diplomacy as well as on-screen naval battles and decent MP really clinched it. I'm not going to buy it. I think I'll wait and spend my 50 bucks on Pyro's upcoming game Imperial Glory which is scheduled for the first trimester of next year. It's just past the alpha stage and the first reviews are very promising. It has sophisticated on-screen naval battles, robust diplomacy and a war engine that handles soldiers individually, lets them hide behind buildings and trees, etcetera. Besides I like the way the Pyro developers interact with their (prospective) fans and buyers, it's a welcome change from the arrogance displayed by CA developers on this board. Now that they're no longer the only outfit with a good war engine, I guess they'll be learning the hard way. I think MP is the wave of the future anyway, particularly in view of the possibilities to integrate it with MMORPG's.
Bob the Insane
10-25-2004, 16:58
Imperial Glory which is scheduled for the first trimester of next year.
Had a look at the site and it seems fun...
But after the War and Peace thing I have learned to be cautious with games of that era and scope...
ChaosDrake
10-25-2004, 17:04
nope im not bored, nein ich bin nich gelangweilt.
im playing the brutii they are funny hehe
"Boredom is the desire for desires." - Tolstoy
Kommodus
10-25-2004, 18:12
What you are experiencing sounds quite natural to me. I wouldn't expect any video game to hold one's interest indefinitely. Don't be afraid of it; it simply means that there is more out there for you to accomplish and experience. All things change with time, and you are changing too. Maybe your next great interest won't even be a game.
I've been playing Star Wars: Battlefront, Painkiller, Doom3 and IL2 Sturmovik (can't go too long without some stick time). Rome gets time too but not all my game time. This reduces the chance that anything gets too repetitive or boring. It's also why I'm still on my first Scipii campaign. If you exclusively play any one game for a long time it will get old.
Sorry, should have explained Tolstoy there. Agreed with the last two posts -- any activity will become repetitive and "boring" if overplayed/overworked/etc. Even creative work becomes painfully dull if you don't take a break from it and do something else.
Burnout is the same thing, only that's the term for the same feeling when you're obliged to do something so constantly that it becomes dreadful.
So, take a walk (a long one, as in these (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/wildbritain/nature_near_you/) or anything here (http://gorp.away.com/index.html)) and everything will be better, even RTW ~:)
Adrian II
10-25-2004, 18:55
Had a look at the site and it seems fun...To be honest IG looks simply too good to be true, particularly for a navy buff like me. So I try not to hype myself up. That's one thing I learned from the RTW episode here. I'll see what gives, come spring, and my 50 bucks might just as well go toward some good books. Books never bore me.
Sin Qua Non
10-25-2004, 18:56
I usually combat the eventual boredom by having interest in a few games of differing eras at one time. I'm currently also into IL-2, as well as FS9 and EU2. Plus I think I'll look into The Sims 2. I'm not bored with RTW yet, or will I probably ever be 100% bored with it. But when my attention wavers, I'll just hop into a WW2 era dogfight. You can't take any more of a left turn than that!
it's little use to compare rtw to mtw, so that's not a good place to start. i found myself referencing mtw, but this is a different game, and once i left mtw behind (campaign map part, anyway), rtw has increased in enjoyment.
the greeks are one of the easiest to use, try a different faction.
Try playing as one of the explicitly weaker factions, say Gaul for instance (which many folks consider very weak).
Yea, I know what you mean. I had quit playing MP because of several issues. With RTW I eagerly came back. Now I am wondering why. Have found 3v3 to be very laggy and 2v2 to often be way too fast. And I get so damned tired of allies who wont talk and make plans. And the occassional Troll like last night who constantly cursed me. Since such behaviour doesnt affect me at all I can only guess that it gives them a cheap thrill. I feel sorry for him. I tried so hard to be optimistic about RTW but even tho it is awesome it doesnt fullfill what it could have been. I just hope some issues are adressed. As for me i`m off to learn Lightwave.
Dimeolas
The Wizard
10-25-2004, 19:40
I think so too - RTW seems to be missing something. Something.
It's frustrating to me not to be able to pinpoint what that 'something' is - but this game seems to be missing some of the suspense and challenge of the previous games.
However, I've only just started my first game on hard and I'll suspend my so-called 'final verdict' until I've played this game a good deal, but for some reason I have the feeling that the limited amount of playable factions, plus the fact that none of the playable factions seem to have a very challenging, weak starting position (think Aragon or late Byzantium, and yes, now I'm forced to compare), that I won't be playing the original game for all that long...
An example.
To my surprise, and this in a negative sense, I found that I was annoyed with my first game, with the Brutii, and subsequently I chose the Julii, and once again I was surprised, or rather, shocked, to find that I was once again bored and annoyed with the fact that what I was doing, seemed to turn from cool into tedious (almost), and I wanted to play another faction, so now I'm playing the Germans, and hoping dearly to get that experience I got with my first game in MTW, with the Byzantines, which was so fun that I actually finished it (hehe).
~Wiz
troymclure
10-25-2004, 19:56
i must admit i am getting bored of RTW but i think it's my own fault i got it just around uni holidays and i basically sequisterred myself from the world for about three weeks (the uni holidays weren't that long but i have my priorities:) ), i've played almost every faction now and i think i may have overdone it a little. :(
still i'm hoping that i'll get back into it when the next patch comes out. SHould be along enough break by then.
ps:- if you want a hard faction to play, ala aragorn byz late try the armenians, scythians, parthians; spanish; numidians or even the seleucids. In my opinion they have the hardest starting positions of any of the factions.
I'd probably say the armenians/numidians/spanish are the hardest with the other three a bit behind though all similar.
pps:- I don't think the game is as tough as MTW was though i'm not sure, once i got the hang of the new game i find that it's almost impossible to lose a campaign. I don't know if this is actually because it's now harder or because i've now been playing these games for years and my "battle experience" is really starting to climb. I honestly think i've fought more battles than probably any 5 of the greatest historical generals in history and it's really starting to show. I daresay this is a common occurrence and may be the reason so many of us on these boards find RTW easier than in previous TW games.
Colovion
10-25-2004, 20:07
I posted a thread almost exactly like this after a few months of Age of Mythology being out and being a part of that community. It was the same problem - the next game in a great Series was somewhat dumbed down and also sped up - and somehow I also lost my drive to play it.... which never happened with MTW or AoK. I don't think it's entirely due to the speed of the game, perhaps it's that the game seems much more related to doing things the fastest they can be done and not the most intelligently. Perhaps it's the fact that in RTW the Romans aren't going to get whiped out, no way - not unless you do it yourself. IN MTW there was a chance that any Civ would get knocked off. I think I'll get more into playing once more mods come out though.
I"m not totally bored of RTW - but my excitement to play it each time is definately flagging. I'm waiting for the patch and for the EB mod.
Orda Khan
10-25-2004, 20:07
Oddly enough, I found myself thinking 'Ho hum same old' after only a few days. The game has not progressed that far since STW IMO. It is about time CA had some serious competition otherwise they will spout the same old scenario in various guises.
My verdict is.....Could try harder
.....Orda
Red Harvest
10-25-2004, 21:07
I'll admit that the battles have bored me quite a bit and I can't bring myself to finish even a "short" campaign. I started playing recklessly on VH/VH last night to get some challenge to the battles. After 130 straight VH victories, I was ready for a few losses. Big battles that should be interesting rarely are because the AI is so inept. The sad thing is that in MTW, the AI fared better in battle, despite the fact that it carried around a lot more low tech units than the RTW AI carries around. Better AI armies should have resulted in tighter battles in VH, if the AI was as strong as MTW.
The strategic side still holds my interest. I've played the weaker factions on VH/VH and they are worth the challenge. Stronger factions are too easy to win with.
Still it is a bargain for what I paid. I also fully expect that CA will improve things considerably with a patch. There is obviously plenty that didn't get finished to their liking, so I expect things will be much better after a patch or two.
I'll admit that the battles have bored me quite a bit and I can't bring myself to finish even a "short" campaign. I started playing recklessly on VH/VH last night to get some challenge to the battles. After 130 straight VH victories, I was ready for a few losses. Big battles that should be interesting rarely are because the AI is so inept. The sad thing is that in MTW, the AI fared better in battle, despite the fact that it carried around a lot more low tech units than the RTW AI carries around. Better AI armies should have resulted in tighter battles in VH, if the AI was as strong as MTW.
The strategic side still holds my interest. I've played the weaker factions on VH/VH and they are worth the challenge. Stronger factions are too easy to win with.
Still it is a bargain for what I paid. I also fully expect that CA will improve things considerably with a patch. There is obviously plenty that didn't get finished to their liking, so I expect things will be much better after a patch or two.
Agreed. I'm about 3/4 of the way through a Julii long campaign, and I've taken to bribing the Brutii and Scipii stacks that come towards me and throwing them at the follow on stacks (I never bribe all of them, only a portion). I never know the real mix I'll be fighting with and it forces me to be creative. My 'standard butt-kicker' stacks are merely for mop-up. It guarantees that most of the fights are 2:1 to my disadvantage. Woohoo!
On the first week I got RTW I found myself playing from the moment I got home from work till the early hours of morning. When I couldn’t hold on any longer and had to get out of the game for the bathroom or grab something to eat, I’d notice the time (usually around 3-4am) and drag myself to bed, barely getting up to work in the morning, spending all day waiting to get home while planning strategies in my head for the next turns. My wife didn’t manage to speak to me the entire weekend and in the few sentences we did manage to exchange, I complained how the game is not even perfect and about all the things I think they could do better…
Anyway, I knew I’d burn out pretty fast that way and get sick of the game within few weeks so I took a break and haven’t played for over a week. I will start playing again soon but I hope I can manage to take it easy now.
I am a very slow player, I like to take my time and get “into” the game. Each turn takes me long minutes; sometimes I don’t make more than 2-3 turns in an hour, enjoying the atmosphere, roleplaying my generals and empire and taking notes of my progress. I can easily see myself playing this way for months without getting bored, then taking a break and keep coming back for more.
And that is with a game I think that is not as nearly as perfect as it could have been (hopefully but doubtfully will be after a patch and expansion or two).
- barvaz
Still it is a bargain for what I paid. I also fully expect that CA will improve things considerably with a patch. There is obviously plenty that didn't get finished to their liking, so I expect things will be much better after a patch or two.
Or after the inevitable expansion pack....
Sorry if I'm being too cynical, but it wouldn't suprise me at all if the patches for the most part only fix the bugs, and it takes an expansion pack to make the game more like what everyone would really like it to be.
But I'm hoping CA proves me wrong on that.
Colt.
The Wizard
10-25-2004, 22:23
On the first week I got RTW I found myself playing from the moment I got home from work till the early hours of morning. When I couldn’t hold on any longer and had to get out of the game for the bathroom or grab something to eat, I’d notice the time (usually around 3-4am) and drag myself to bed, barely getting up to work in the morning, spending all day waiting to get home while planning strategies in my head for the next turns. My wife didn’t manage to speak to me the entire weekend and in the few sentences we did manage to exchange, I complained how the game is not even perfect and about all the things I think they could do better…
Anyway, I knew I’d burn out pretty fast that way and get sick of the game within few weeks so I took a break and haven’t played for over a week. I will start playing again soon but I hope I can manage to take it easy now.
I am a very slow player, I like to take my time and get “into” the game. Each turn takes me long minutes; sometimes I don’t make more than 2-3 turns in an hour, enjoying the atmosphere, roleplaying my generals and empire and taking notes of my progress. I can easily see myself playing this way for months without getting bored, then taking a break and keep coming back for more.
And that is with a game I think that is not as nearly as perfect as it could have been (hopefully but doubtfully will be after a patch and expansion or two).
- barvaz
This is exactly the experience I had with MTW for months on end - it simply did not tire. I hope I'll get a blast from that past soon in my Julii game, since the Gauls recently killed my heir and annihalated a good army somewhere near Narbo Martius. A fluke on my side, but I hope it'll make my game more interesting.
~Wiz
Claudius the God
10-26-2004, 01:24
non-roman factions need glorious achievements, and a score comparison bar graph thing like MTW does, with great buildings built great temples, colusseum, control of trade in this area, controling specific (home and strategic) provinces, controling extra provinces as conquest points, that sort of thing.
Tophat1812
10-26-2004, 04:03
I'm not at all bored......I verymuch like the game.I don't use "bribe" at all....I feel that its an abuse of the AI. Also I don't believe in overloading my forces with cavalry,I try to keep my forces 60% inf,20% missile and 20% cavalry.
My exploration of the Roman factions isn't quite over yet...then on to Carthage or Pontus.
Red Harvest
10-26-2004, 04:34
I don't use "bribe" at all....I feel that its an abuse of the AI.
I felt the same way until I played as the Spanish and Numidians on VH/VH. For both, well placed bribes were essential just to survive, because I could not afford an early war as either, and my neighbors were quite aggressive. With other factions I don't bribe.
I bribe just to keep down the number of pointless combats. I mean, how many times can I have my city with 1000+ man armies sieged by 200+ units? It just gets absurd. Big armies I'll fight, but all the little ones running around I just bribe now, so I don't have to waste my time. Plus it cuts down on the number of stars my generals get for those pointless battles.
Bh
Sin Qua Non
10-26-2004, 05:54
Hmm.... my interest is waxing and waning now.... I'm about 60% ready to start a new campaign... it may be time to screw with some files. Some haphazard modding should spice things up!
Nestor II
10-26-2004, 06:53
Well, I believe I know why I'm not that excited:
I have to help the poor AI stand on its feet, I have to calculate my movements in such a way that I get strong opposition. In fact I feel that I'm playing for both my faction and the AI, at least on the strategy map.
Don't think you can have fun playing for both sides, you can't have surprises this way!
Don't misunderstand me, I think it's a great game but I believe it's targeted on new customers / players and not the old fans of the series.
If only I could teach the AI some things!!!
I bribe just to keep down the number of pointless combats. I mean, how many times can I have my city with 1000+ man armies sieged by 200+ units? It just gets absurd. Big armies I'll fight, but all the little ones running around I just bribe now, so I don't have to waste my time. Plus it cuts down on the number of stars my generals get for those pointless battles.
Bh
Sorry to go a little off topic but I agree. Also, I ALWAYS bribe german spearmen. When I saw them do a 360 turn against my infantry coming from behind almost instantly, I gave up.
They should add a place FEATURE WHERE you can design your own throne like in Civ1 or something like that more personal gratification ~:cheers: also they should of made governing citys easier and more Bandit army appear also they should of made the guals and britons un-united there too storng and I whant more realism.
Must admit the lack of a proper PBEM multiplayer option on TW games is beginning to show now.
These games ought to be the mainstay of a whole new breed of internet wargaming groups but that market is just toally excluded from using TW games because of the lack of a proper MP option.
CA really need to overcome this problem and find some way of allowing multiplayer involvement in the full campaign, even if they have to sacrifice some of the gimmicks to allow it.
I just feel that the AI and other features have been dumbed down too much. I could play MTW for months and not feel the time... Now I have tried 1 or 2 games of MP and am never going back. some people flame and cheat. I'm not much of an MP online person myself, prefering lan parties, but I've given up on this game in many ways. Oi'm bored. that and the fact the battlefield AI is stupid in the extreme.
Bob the Insane
10-26-2004, 10:46
Thinking about this issue... In MTW even after many, many, many campaigns... It was still possible to have my arse handed to me by the AI...
If you screwed up strategicly or tactically the AI (game) was capable of giving you a sound thrashing.... I am not getting this feeling from RTW..
In RTW if you screw up strategically or tactically you either have enough available cash to buy your way out, or you don't and you are doomed...
It is very binary.. Run out of cash and get beaten in battle and it is game over in the early part of the game. Get to the point where you have a positive cash flow and you can just about always buy your way out of trouble... And if you are play a VH campaign game you practically have to bribe as the other factions get such a cash boost they are building way more troops than is possible for you in way more advanced buildings... So you either face impossible battles where you are outnumbered by more advanced troops that might also be getting combat bouses too, or you start bribing these armies into non-existance and make the game really easy...
Maybe a game where I barred myself from bribing would be a better experience....
I have started a Hard (campaign) / Medium (Battle) game as an experiment to see if I get a more believable experience... (So the AI does not get a huge cash advantage or combat bonuses for it's troops)...
RTW is better than MTW and STW in all aspects. If there are some stepbacks, they are inevitable, because they had to be done in order for other aspects to get better.
There are many flaws that keeps the game from perfection, but that does not mean that those flaws make RTW worse than its prequels.
The major problems of STW and MTW were unexisting diplomacy and that from a time point and after factions got eliminated one by one from the 2 or 3 major factions of any given campaign. That ended in having the map divided to those 2-3 factions and tens of stacks in bordering regions.
In RTW diplomacy is a *lot better* (but it still can get *a lot better*) and you don't have the phenomenon of continiously eliminated factions.
The think that is missing is that some things are ahistorical. In history to have infinite money meant that you could support huge armies but it did not meant that you could train infinite armies. Thats the case of RTW. Human resources were limited especially for the civilized factions.
Any given faction was difficult to muster more than one or two huge "stacks" of armies and at the same time maintain "stacks" of armies as garissons in the cities.
Greeksare more than easy relating to history. I can invade Italy and do not worry if my army disapears into nothingness because I have 200000 D in my pockets and can create another army whenever I wish too. When I capture an Italian city I don't have to split my troops and post a garrison there, because I can create a new garisson from the italian citizens.
Proposition:
1. Make for every man taken from a city for training a unit, 1-4 other citizens (his family) grow unhappy as time passes and the man is not disbaned back to its city. Every unit can have an origin template in order the player knows were to disband it (eg Athenian Hoplites, Capuan Hastati).
2. Make factions unable to use military buildings of other cultures. Eg. I conquer Capua as Carthage. There is a Legion barracks there but I cannot use it to train Carthaginian units, because its a legion barracks. I should destroy it and build barracks of my own culture tree.
Bob the Insane
10-26-2004, 15:00
Continuing what I said and thinking about changes... Personally I think the game would work better if money was harder to come by and bribing was much harder....
If this was applied to the AI also it would produce a better experience overall... Individual armies would represent a great investiment for your people and the decision to bribe an enemy armies to leave you alone would be a difficult one that would impact your faction's development by the loss of cash...
Ktonos -
I love the idea of linking an army to the settlement it was rasied in but I can also see holes in the argument too... If you raised unit in Settlement A and then placed it as a garrision in Settlement B and left it there for 200 turns (100 years) it is unlikely that anyone in the unit now hails from settlement A.... Though a public order hit for recruiting from a settlement (especially retraining multiple depelted units) that lasted a few years could be an idea...
How about a modification of number 2, you can't train new units until you have you own culture barracks, but you can retrain your present units... It can feel a little odd when you capture a city that is much more advance than any of your own and can suddenly start producing your culture's advanced troop types away from your homelands...
But then again, what is a barracks but some living space, storerooms and a parade ground... So what if the archecture is a bit odd....I guess I am "undecided" on this one...
I guess that its not just the architecture but the facilities too. Sword excersising facilities in legion barracks, spear and shield in greek barracks etc.
But most of all barrack tech tree does not represent the space that armies had to train but rather the human manpower and human trainers and veteran experts that a city had to help its citizens train. Well, a campaigning army should have them as well, but my proposition is for getting the game better and simulate the willingness of locals to train and fight in your army as time passes by and the city is in your possesion (and you invest money to make them willing).
Any way to use money to train is ahistorical, as armies where conscripted and its soldier bought his gear and a state only paid its maintainess (if at all) - but its good for game mechanics.
Yes there are holes in my first proposition, but take this as a general proposition. Make it harder to be able to field infinite armies, and make it painfull when units are destroied. Maybe the unhappiness of a unit being away reaches its top after 15years and after that it wears out.
DisruptorX
10-26-2004, 15:30
I played the game for two weeks non-stop and I'm now bored to death with it. I feel i've done everything there is to do. contrast with MWT, which I still haven't played to death. I've been playing other games recently (f-zero X, mortal kombat: deception) and haven't touched Rome for about a week. When I get back into the strategy game mindset I'll be returning to MTW, not Rome.
What makes RTW even more dissapointing is that I bought MTW because I was anticipating Rome. I read a very early preview at the beginning of this year for RTW, and decided to pick up MTW to familiarize myself with the series. Fortunately, MTW turned out to be the best strategy game i've ever played, better than Civ2. Unfortunately, this means that RTW was a huge step down and the entire game was ruined for me. :sad3:
I still hold hope that a good mod will come out to take advantage of Rome's amazing graphic engine, though.
Lord Ovaat
10-26-2004, 16:17
To add again, I think multiplayer options are fine. I've never played TW mp, but I do play other games online, and belong to a team. That being said, this is not an mp game. This is a single player campaign game that happens to have an mp option. This game will sink or swim on the strength and character of its campaign playability, not it's mp. Some games, notibly first person shooters, are designed for mp, with sp usage very limited. What I'm seeing with RTW is that it is TOO similar to the past two offerings. What actually kept my interest in MTW for an additional six months or so, was Med Mod's concept of "homeland" provinces, whereby a faction could only recruit troops from it's original "homeland" provinces. In the case of the Romans, for instance, that would have to include at least all of Italy, but definately NOT Egypt. However, I believe this change could not be accomplished with a patch. It would have to be an expansion pack, such as VI. I don't know if Wes W. originated the gaming concept of homeland provinces, or even if such a concept could be infringed upon, but I do believe it would make the game immensily more realistic. BUT, the movement on the campaign map would have to become more realistic, also. There is no good reason why a ship can't sail from one end of the Med to the other in a single turn. Dude, that's six months! And it just doesn't take three years to walk across Europe, neither. And--this may sound heretical--the building improvement/tech trees are far too long, making it almost impossible to ever create and use some of the units. It's also odd to me that the max units for some factions happen to be chariot units, which by the time you can actually build them, were, in reality, obsolete. Don't get me wrong; I feel the game is worth every penny I spent for it. Let's be honest. It's about the price of a couple of movies with popcorn. When's the last time you watched a movie for over a month without stopping. Much.
It took me a long time to become bored with MTW, and longer still with the addition of Wes's Mod. I think this game is just too much like it's predecessors. Man, the tools are there. Let's fix it. If CA won't, or can't because of budget constraints, what about the modders? Those guys haven't even really started yet! So, cheer up. We know what "our" guys accomplished with the other engines and base games. I, personally, am really looking forward to some of the new mod options.
Orda Khan
10-26-2004, 16:32
The game is very predictable, which makes for boring play.
Where are the huge, epic battles?? It would be nice if there actually were a few battles containing large armies but then even these would be ruined by the speed with which they are concluded. It is a big let down and I feel we were all duped by this Time Commanders series. IMO CA have lost the plot and I certainly will not be falling for it again
.......Orda
Red Harvest
10-26-2004, 18:05
I disagree with Ktonos statement, "RTW is better than MTW and STW in all aspects." RTW isn't any where close to as good on the battlefield. That is half the game and it is a walkover. Depending on position/terrain in MTW, the AI could and did kick my butt at times on expert even though I had a "superior" army. That isn't happening in RTW. If the MTW AI had a high quality army I often had to fight attrition actions with arbalesters and the like so that my full army would not be crushed. Terrain was much more of a factor. The MTW AI did some dumb things at times and could be exploited, but it was more challenging on the battlefield. The siege AI of MTW and RTW are of similar strength except that MTW's seemed stronger on defense.
Bob the Insane nailed it. The strategic side is all about the money. If you figure out how to stay reasonably in the black, you are going to win because the AI can't beat you on the battlefield. The worst blows the RTW AI has dealt me are bribes to my armies or cities.
I had planned to play all the factions before modding the game...but this is appearing unlikely at the moment. I think it is about time to up everyone's defensive skill by a few notches, enlarge phalanx units, get rid of fire arrow ability, fix the desert axemen, reduce elephant unit size and hit points, and reduce the kill rate, etc.
The Wizard
10-26-2004, 18:28
Yes... now that I come to think of it, the dumber AI is the problem.
I'll give an example of what I expected as normal for a TW game after MTW.
My last game I played in MTW, which I stopped with a day before I bought RTW (!), was with the Ottomans, or rather the Turks in late, on very hard and in GA mode.
To win, I needed to be very aggressive (not my style early on in a game of TW) and I only had about a maximum of five turns to prepare. That meant that I would only have a couple of small armies to conquer a lot of territory from a lot of foes; everything would rise of fall on account of my tactical skills, for I couldn't afford to lose many men in each battle. I needed absolute, crushing victories.
I know; I made it hard on myself. But damn, it made this one of the best campaigns I'd ever played in MTW, and that's saying something. The AI was constantly creating a challenge and if I screwed up, it would punish me, both on a tactical and a stragetical level.
I'm giving this example just to make my point clear: the AI in Rome Total War, at least on Medium and Hard difficulties, seems to be unable to hand you your ass back after you've just made a tactical error, unless you really give the whole battle to them (by having your general killed while your frontline is heavily beset, for instance...). And when it does punish you for your mistakes, it doesn't seem to capitalize on them by attacking your now ill-protected border marches (if they can).
That's a real pity, and I really, really hope that the AI is buffed big time in the next patch.
~Wiz
Jango Fett
10-26-2004, 18:36
nice to see people in the TW community are also into flight sims such as il2! i actually play this when im bored of rtw
I think I'll wait and spend my 50 bucks on Pyro's upcoming game Imperial Glory which is scheduled for the first trimester of next year. It's just past the alpha stage and the first reviews are very promising. It has sophisticated on-screen naval battles, robust diplomacy and a war engine that handles soldiers individually, lets them hide behind buildings and trees, etcetera.
Had a look at this game and the first thing to point out is that its quite clearly not an ancient wargame, so as far as I'm concerned its not an either or choice.
At first glance it certainly looks impressive but I was concerned to note when viewing the trailer that the developers have chosen to opt for the old movie makers trick of introducing exploding cannon balls and bayonet charges to spice up the game play.
Hopefully, someone will put that right before the game is released as If I'm going to buy a Napoleonic Wargame I would prefer one which is reasonably accurate.
War and Peace was an absolute waste of money and I threw it in the bin before even completing a single campaign so I shall be much more cautious about spending money on another similar title.
Thrudvang
10-27-2004, 11:01
My only gripe about Rome is the really bad path finding. You should hear my swears whenever I give a simple move order to elephants or cavelry.
Instead of 'go around and to the point' they just stop all your own men, you can set waypoints, but it's kinda annoying to have to lay down signs to direct your own men.
Battle AI is on the same standarts as MTW. What it needs is to enhance the ability of campaign AI to produce and maintain high quality generals.
In MTW no faction would produce high quality armies. The camp. AI would not take advantage of its tech tree, but in RTW it will. The problem is that when the phalanx pikemen are frontal charged by my cretan archers and the archers win. Thats because my archers are under the command of a 9 star general and will fight to the last when the pikemen have no general to fight for.
troymclure
10-27-2004, 11:31
i've been thinking and one of main problems is something "the wizard" mentioned. The AI doesn't take advantage of it's victories, it's like hannibal you know? :)
I have lost the occasional battle on the strat map but normally it doesn't really matter, lose a battle in MTW and you've normally lost a province, lose a battle in RTW and you MIGHT MAYBE get seiged, then the AI might actually seige you (it might wander off without having tried as well) and even if you are seiged you've normally got an army/diplomat/ nearby to protect you, that or lots of archers plus stone walls. Either way i think i've lost maybe 5-10 provinces in about 5 campaigns, that just isn't enough. There are some good battles in the start of a RTW campaign but i find once ive got a certain amount of provinces it becomes just a matter of time. MTW/STW were similar but not as bad, i think it's more to do with the new campmap AI then anything. Lets say you're the spanish in MTW you take all the iberian pennisula and head down into africa so you could advance up to say egypt with your army. Now lets say you've got your big stacks on the border, and of course nothing in all the provinces behind it cept a few peasants. If you lose that main border force you KNOW your in trouble, that in a few turns the enemey will be marching back up through africa into your homelands and your going to have to do something about it. In RTW if the same thing happened and an army of my borders got wiped out i don't worry. Sure moment o' panic but then i realise it will take the AI 20 turns to actually do anything about my now undefended borders and by then i can have another army/diplomat waiting for them.
I think most of the problems maybe are linked to the campaign AI rather than battle AI which is quite understandable seeing as how this is the first time they've had to program for something like this.
Adrian II
10-27-2004, 12:07
Hopefully, someone will put that right before the game is released as If I'm going to buy a Napoleonic Wargame I would prefer one which is reasonably accurate.Don't tell me RTW's oliphants are anywhere near accurate. The issue of realism has been discussed to death here. Needless to say I respect your view, but in the end it's all a matter of personal preference and it would be impossible for developers to keep track of what a majority of prospective players judge to be 'realistic'. That applies to Pyro just as much as to CA. I just hope Imperial Glory will surprise me in ways that RTW doesn't. And I'll continue playing STW and MTW for quite some time, I'm sure. BTW: my eldest son (9) has just discovered STW and we're having all sorts of discussions that go far beyond the scope of the game itself. He has definite ideas about loyalty and he feels you cannot betray an ally who has been fighting alongside you for most of the game. However, if you want to become Shogun you'll have to fight even your closest ally sooner or later. So, we had a long discussion about what power, or the quest for it, does to people, and how come that people in high places seldom have real friends.
STW as an educational tool, who'd 'ave thunk eh? :book:
Mmh, I admit there is something right here.
The feeling I have, is that the AI doesn't really know what to do.
Armies wandering aimlessly is a common sight. For navies, it's even more obvious.
I think that AI should have goals for each of its armies. If it's on the offensive, it should aim for enemy's armies or cities, try to blockade and try to destroy his fleets.
Right now, it seems that it only happens by accident, without that much of planning and thinking.
Perhaps that's only a feeling, but well.
troymclure
10-27-2004, 12:32
STW was a good educational tool actually i used the manual for that game to do a history assignment in high school. Did pretty well on it too if i recall. I also have to thank the civlopedia from civ 1 as that was the reason i did well in ancient history. Teacher kept wondering how i knew so much about the ancient wonders of the world.... :)
ps:- think it's very cool that it's been used as a moral education tool though.
The game is far easier to complete than MTW which is why you get bored faster, its half finished and subsequently has lots of bugs, the standards agency should set up stricture guidelines on games, unfinished and buggy games should not be released and IMO fines should be imposed, it will never happen but how many games do we get that are not totally completed and bug free these days.
You may argue that this will always happen, but thinking back to games of the past they used to be released largly bug free, have developers got lazy or what.
To think we have to wait for the patch and probably even the expansion to play a completed version of Rome is an appaling thought, its like buying a car with half the insides missing.
Bear in mind this is there 3rd attempt and its the worst attempt in terms of bugs and missing features.
The games reviewers should also have a part in thier reviews showing howing complted a game is Id give Rome 75 percent completed on SPand 15 percent on MP.
Sp00n :furious3:
Thrudvang
10-27-2004, 12:47
One thing that annoys me is when people blame the developers for bugs.
It's the publishers fault, people.
Well they are both to blame at the end of the day they pass the game on in its uncomplted form.
If they spent less time on shiny new graphics and more time getting the gameplay right we woulnt be moaning.
I don't really ever post but I agree with most of the sentiments expressed.
I knew the game had lost me when on my 3rd campaign I began to auto resolve battles. I never used auto resolve in MTW.
Are we all sure that this series can become a great diplomatic game? To me MTW was a battle fest and the best of its kind. If I want good diplamacy I play EU2 or other Paradox stuff.
I was hoping RTW would give me a 'classical' battle fest and didn't really expect anything from the diplomacy side. Well they've even managed to bugger that up haven't they.
I don't think CA are as much to blame as the 'suits' from Activision.
Publishers don't have customers they have balance sheets.
All the best.....
One can certainly get too much of a good thing. With STW, MTW and RTW, I've generally gone hammer and tong playing it as much as I can for about 2 weeks. Then, I reach campaign late game and the interest in managing a massive empire wanes, mainly because the mopping up process to reach the victory conditions becomes progressively tedious. At this 2 week point most of the AI nuances and the more irritating of the bugs start causing frustrations...
At this point I know it's a good time to take a break and do something else. Later, I'll either decide to start a new campaign (as the early game expansion is always the most addictive part) or wait in eager anticipation for some game altering, AI changing patch...
I've always thought one of the major failings of the TW series has been maintaining interest in the late game. So far I'd say MTW's glorious achievements mode has probably come closest.
Maintaining interest in the late game is ALWAYS the hardest part.
Just look at Civilization. Just read the Civilization's fora, and see the huge number of posts about "late-game tediousness".
I agree, though, that GA gave a nice set of objectives to do while the game went forward, while pure conquest start to become somehow boring at the end.
This is probably my fault, in the way i approach the game, but i find myself quiting campaigns after i reach the higher tech units.
Once i establish a solid economic base and am able to produce my best armies, every other battle becomes more or less equal.
This was about what happened in MTW too, the difference is in RTW this happens a lot sooner. Even the romans with their reform have it happen way too soon, not only making short lifes for some units (triarii.. principes...), but also making the next 100 years or so that it may take to conquer the world very redundant.
It may not be a good idea to compare MTW with RTW but how can you not do it? Multiply then number of factions by the number of eras, add in the fact that you had 3 distinct religions, and within those a huge variety of troops and armies. You get an idea of the replayability factor. If you consider MTW:VI (even less fair, some would say) the diference in replayability is enormous.
But maybe the secret is in living the experience and not "Playing the Game"...
Here's my recommendation on how to avoid being bored with RTW so soon after you've purchased it:
1. Make sure your job has at least a 90 minute commute each way, and requires you to be at the office at least 50-60 hours per week.
2. Marry a woman who can't understand in the least why you would waste any time playing a wargame on the computer when you could be spending that time together (of course, she's right since I'm home so few hours a day during the week).
Then, like me, you'd play no more than a few hours a week (if I can wake up early enough on Sunday and let the wife sleep in), so even though you bought the game the day it was released you'd only be around year 245 BC on your first campaign and you wouldn't be bored at all yet... in fact, you'd still be aching to play it all the time ~;)
- dcd111
Despot of the English
10-27-2004, 16:26
I work quite a bit too so my time on Rome has been limited although I manage to squeeze in a session every night.
What do people think of the campaign map being settlement based rather than province based in MTW? And also having armies and agents with movement allowances? I wouldn't have minded a map with numerous provinces to conquer myself but I am happy with the game overall. Graphics are stunning and far better than MTW.
Spartiate
10-27-2004, 17:17
As soon as i sort out the Romans in any campaign game i start to feel bored.This game just isn't holding my attention or affection in the same manner as MTW and STW STILL do.
Having said that it was my interest(once i started reading these forums,months before i joined them) in modding that caused a resurgence in my love of these games.I am sure that once the full set of modding tools are released to us or once the serious modders figure out and write up a comprehensive guide to modding RTW that i will find myself unable to leave this game alone again.
As it stands though i now find that i turn on a campaign save,play about 5 turns and then turn it off again.I wish this hadn't happened but it has sadly.
How many times did any of you finish a MTW campaign? When you'd turn the corner in an era it was always hard for me keep my campaign up and running.
I agree with alot of your assertations towards this game. But as CA said months ago - this game is for the modders. The "potential" growth of this game is amazing - and I guarantee in 1 year this game will have a lot of naysayers recanting their previous positions.
Did CA drop the ball - not really. Are there some major changes needed - of course. Is this something our community can accomplish - of course.
Besides, VA made MTW a much much better game.
In addition - I pick factions that have the potential for disaster the soonest. Meaning I pick factions that have the greatest number of enemies early on - and I'm loving my campaign right now with the Macedonians.
If you keep the heat up - currently I warring with Thrace, Greeks and the entire Roman world - you can make the game enjoyable.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.