My final thoughts on RTW

I posted once before on some of the things that I noticed about RTW, and now that I've played most of the factions at least a little bit, I figured I'd give my final compare/constrast/wish-list/etc....

Likes:
1. The towns and cities are great. They're absolutely immense, and the way you don't necessarily have to kill everyone, but merely take and hold the town square is much more satisfying. Also, it's really cool when you're invading a big town to at least take a minute to look around.
2. Elephants. There's simply not much that stands in their way. In one Carthaginian campaign I used about four units of Armoured Elephants and wiped out around 800 Gauls without a single loss.... and then I turned around and did it a few more times to a few other factions.... ~:cool:
3. Senate missions (and the senate in general) - Unlike the pope, the senate can actually help you from time to time, the rewards for completing missions aren't too shabby. Also, you know that eventually the Senate will get it's come-uppance, and that once they're dead, they stay dead.
4. Moving armies by ship
5. Changing seasons.
6. Cavalry charges - I know many have griped about these, but I actually see them as being one of the most exciting aspects of the game. They're only really effective if you can strike from the flank or rear, which is (IMO) as it should be.... and man when you've got a good angle it's cool watching the bodies fly.
8. Last but not least, the inspiring battle speeches (although I wish they were only reserved for really large battles).

Dislikes and/or things I would change:
1. I am yet to fight a night battle in the regular campaign, and I miss the "weather report" from Shogun. Also, I wish I was able to fight in blizzards, heavy fog, and snowstorms like in Shogun... really added to the effect.
2. Ambushes - Sometimes my army just tells me they're "ready to ambush", not that it does a darned hill of beans worth of good, as I've never fought in one (on either side). I would change things to where both ambushes and or forts were automatic, so that if you attack a barbarian faction, they'd have say a 25% chance of ambushing (possibly going up with command experience), and if you play a Roman faction, there'd instead be a 25% chance of having to fight them in a fort.
3. Command bar (during battles) and lack of speed slider - I still say the icons are too small, and would rather see them at the top of the screen. Also, in the midst of combat I've more than once "mis-clicked" the new speed thingy (meaning I clicked just beside or below)... I thought the speed slider was easier.
4. Routing troops run too fast.
5. Archers and ballistas shoot my troops right in the back if they get in the way (I know, teaches em' to not get in the way, but still).
6. The whole "city growth" thing is perhaps the single biggest annoyance I find with the game. I'll wind up slaughtering my citizenry every other turn towards the end, and everything's just chaos. Rather than feeling like I've accomplished something, I instead feel like I'm just trying to wrap up as fast as possible. Very UN-enjoyable.
7. Ending sequence - I played shogun till the end simply to see the end movie. It was awesome. By comparison, MTW was a letdown, and I had big hopes for RTW. In my opinion, the new "ending movies" are the worst yet.
8. Lack of "area specific" units, buildings, or bonuses - This was one of my favorite parts of MTW, and I wish it was there for RTW. I thought it added alot of character to the factions, as well as the game as a whole. Obviously there are certain areas now where you can get elephants, and perhaps a few other units, but overall that's about it.
9. Juggling family members - This is easy enough in the beginning, but later on is a pain in the neck. I think you should be able to "appoint" a unit to a city if you don't have a family member close by (perhaps with a slight performance penalty or something).
10. Generals - seriously, I've had some fairly basic armies take on some top notch enemy generals, and inevitably the general impales his horses on my spears and that's that. Even if he lives, he doesn't really seem to do much for the performance of his army.
11. Camera movement - The camera seems far more restricted than it used to be, and you can get a headache trying to zoom in on the action at the top of walls during a siege.
12. Sapping - Speaking of sieges, all one really needs to do is sap for one turn and you're in. Normally, I autoresolve sieges, as although the towns are interesting enough, there's really no need for ladders or mobile towers - just dig your hole and get down to business.
13. I'd like to have seperate "cycles" for Navy vs. Army. Sometimes I'm trying to find a certain ship, and wind up having to scroll through every land unit just to spot it.

So, overall:
I've had some fun with this game. I'll probably have a little more fun as well. Still, I don't think it's going to have the "replayability" for me that MTW (or STW for that matter) did. With all that was successful with the games that came before it, I would have assumed RTW would have been a slam dunk - adding onto past successes while tweaking past failures, all in combination with a healthy dose of graphical enhancement. Instead, it seems like the developers were far more after the "playstation" crowd than the gamer crowd that (to me) is the core. I find the game unneccessarily complex where it didn't need to be, and not complex enough where it should be. Battles live up to their hype, and there are some interesting new features, but overall it seems like alot that was good was ommitted this go-round. I can only hope that if there is a MTWII (or some other TW incarnation) these things are addressed. Still, I guess it's like with the movies, "The sequels are rarely as good as the original".

You should try the "Total Realism Mod" in conjunction with the "Total Combat Mod", together they make for a more MTW experience, similar to the MedMod, thought not quite.

Particularly, items, 4, 6, and 8, have been moderated somewhat effectively. Routing troops are no longer much of an issue. The "City Growth" issue is a good bit more manageable and hopefully each mod version will make it better, until the Patch is released. The latest version of the Total Realism mod has begun to address "area specific[ation]".

If interest go over to www.twcenter.net and search for the mods, imo, use both for the best experience. Don't forget to *read* the Readmes.

Without the mods, I probably wouldn't be playing the game anymore. It just wasn't fun.

Agreeing on many point.

But really, about the 4, I'm surprised : the routers routs too SLOW, not too fast !

I'm able to catch light infantry routing, with my armoured hoplites ! If anything, routers should be FASTER...

Routing troops should run very fast.

If you were being chased by an Urban Cohort with tons of experience, you'd be running for your life!

The whole idea of routing from the battle field is saving your life. If you want to save your life you run as fast as you can regardless of how tired or how much stuff you are carrying.

If I may add something, without getting Medieval Assassin on me, it would be: Retraining. You can retrain 8 or 9 units per turn. Ín battles you don't need to be careful at all about which units you use and how many you loose, since money isn't a problem either. Oh, one thing about the money issue as well: you end up buying solely the very very best troops you can get (like Spartan Hoplites or Urban Cohorts). That makes very unvaried battles. Boring indeed.


:wall:


:end:



EDIT:
The problem with routing, Octavianus, is that you'll "loose" every single man if you don't win the battle. Where they'd go, you might ask.

I feel the same way about the game. There are lots of improvements compared to VI but I'm only on my third campaign and I've already lost my zest for 'one more turn'.

There are lots of threads concerning things to fix but I thought I'd mention a few points that reduce my overall enjoyment of my current game (Brutii, campaign VH/ battles H).

1. right off the bat the AI navies were too strong to be dealt with 1/1 and they magically targeted any fleet carrying an army. I dont mind giving the AI some advantage at the harder levels but when I consistently loose with 1:1, 2:1, and even 3:1 ship advantages, thats just silly.

2. My previous campaign was selucids on medium which was too easy battle-wise and became tedious by the endgame due to the inability to manage distant cities without periodically slaughtering the population. In this campaign I've moved up to hard battles and find it nearly impossible to win with a captain against the AI. A stack of upgraded principes and archers are just fodder for AI armies composed of lightly armed barbarians. A decent general evened things out a bit, but if the AI stack contains a general or some heavy inf my losses are disasterous even though I win.

3. Missile ranges are annoying. There is simply no reason why barbarian archers should have firing ranges that appear double that of roman archers and appear on a par with ballistae.

4. Wooden walls. How is it that archers outside the walls can target (and slaughter) my units inside but I cant fire back with any effectiveness at all with archers, pila, or ballistae (which destroy the walls and gate). OK we have the towers, but their firepower should reflect the missile units present inside the city including the ballistae.

5. Diplomacy seems broken. Its now 232 BC I'm at war with the gauls, britons, dacians, and now the greeks (maybe I'll become a Greek protectorate). The only faction I attacked was the Dacians and the only fcation that would ally with me is the Spanish! My Roman allies are useless (I dont think either has taken a single city) and I fear the end is in sight since I still only have 2 cities that have grown to the point where they are capable of producing upgraded units (to match the AI light warbands).

None of these (especially 5) are 'game-enders' but in total (along with the real bugs) they detract from my enjoyment to the point where I'm thinking of not playing another game. Hopefully the patch will address the gameplay problems (and will be out soon). For the most part, once I move on I dont go back to an old game.

I wouldn't put to much faith in the patch. I'll give CA/Activision a good grade on supporting products, but it seemed like we had to do allot of screaming and yelling to get the last patch for VI.

I like what the Total Realism mod is aiming to do, and the Europa Barb.. I'm not using the Realism mod yet because I'm concerned about some of the negative changes some people are reporting. Once it gets tweaked I intend to use it. In the end I think its the modders that will move this game to the level where I can really enjoy it. Like many games before, the fans that mod make a good game great. They seem better atuned to what the core players want from the game. Why this is I'm not quite sure, but if its any feature a game developer must include for it to be great, its the ability to mod it. All we need do now is be patient or participate if your able.

Quote:

---

I'm not using the Realism mod yet because I'm concerned about some of the negative changes some people are reporting. Once it gets tweaked I intend to use it.

---

What things have you heard?

Issues, whether perceived (majority), or real are NOTHING compared to wasting your time playing Vanilla. Particularly, if you favored the MedMod. TR is the closest thing to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToranagaSama

What things have you heard?

Issues, whether perceived (majority), or real are NOTHING compared to wasting your time playing Vanilla. Particularly, if you favored the MedMod. TR is the closest thing to it.

---

My version is hardly vanilla now. I've changed more then I can recall, all for the better, but it would be nice to get them all in one mod, plus the extras.

My ony concern really was some unit balancing. Some mixed feedback at the TWC regarding chariots and such. Really though its nothing I can't edit myself as I've already changed many unit stats, specificly Egypts. But you make a good point, and I will install v3.2 now because some of the more pressing issues of the vanilla game are really starting to bother me. But version 4.0 looks like it going to be great. Can't wait.

Hi all! Haven't posted in a LONG time, but have still been playing MTW and picked up RTW a couple of weeks ago. Agree with just about all the issues posted here, but what REALLY bothers me is the cumulative effect of all the problems. We have Super Elephants, lots of individual unit stat issues, suicidal generals, more complex diplomatic options (with seemingly random results), V&V issues, etc.

Any small subset of these I could probably deal with without a lot of fuss, but while playing I always have a nagging suspicion that there are a multitude of random & bizarre things going on "under the hood". The complexity is nice, but only if there is some rational method for implementing it. Might as well have a Panzer Division attacking the Legions out of Germany, or a Fast Attack sub prowling the Med sinking Biremes at will-- not a lot worse than some of the bizarre things that have happened on campaign.

Guess the bottom line for me is that I want to feel as if I am playing a "rational" system, not just outlasting a bunch of random events. I may be off base, but I always seem to be just waiting for the next goofy thing to happen-- which ruins the immersive feeling and that just isn't worth my time. Also disappointed that a lot of this wasn't caught in playtesting (not asking for perfection but I'm a pretty casual gamer and some of the stuff is so obvious ...).

But I still have hopes for this game-- maybe the patch can correct enough of this stuff to give me back my illusions! Until then, it's back to MTW.

--Swordsman

So the executive summary is, a great game that needs a patch..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

So the executive summary is, a great game that needs a patch..... ~;)

---

or three

On the missile range thing. There are four basic classes in the game:

Slingers with 80 meter range (stone ammo)
Elite merc slingers with 120 meter range ("bullets" of lead or hard clay)
Archers with 120 meter range
Elite archers with 170 meter range

The Romans get archer auxilia eventually with the same "uber" range as others.

I'm getting ready to test a mod with elite slingers at 100 meters, and elite archers at 150. I have a hard time accepting a 42 to 50% range increase, especially since the elite missile kill stat is so high anyway.

MMMM....thinking of MedMod ~D

I agree Praylak, it is the Modders that seem to do more for the game. Like with MTW, I tried a few of the mods floating around then found the XL Mod and loved it... for one it didnt totally change the game so that you needed to reinstall it, and added ALOT more factions makeing Scandenavia more interesting by adding Norway and Sweden to the mix. Im a Viking by blood (Norwigen/German) so I loved playing as Norway.

I would like to see a Later Game mod to add the Historical Headachs like Sparticus, The Goths, or The Huns. Infact, the Goths historically were a big reason Rome fell so hard. Being that they were the only large army to invade in Centeries starting around 410 A.D. I may be off on the year but the time period is right. If they are in the game I cant see getting that far in a Campaign so how about a Mod starting from where you leave off.... as Emporer.

Likes:
1. some of the city planners need a swift kick in the butt, though
8. agree, they should be given only in large battles, and maybe only by generals
Dislikes:
1. The Trivium mod gives you more varied weather. I think it changes too quickly, though. Night battles would be cool. Have had evening ones. Looks nice.
2. Yeah, where are the ambushes?
3. Bring back the slider! (or at least make the buttons bigger)
9. Should have an "assign to city" option for family member, maybe with a delay to arrival based on distance and perhaps a few % chance of getting lost if having to cross seas or enemy territories.
overall:
I'm a bit worried that the game may not last as long as MTW, it feels like it's getting a bit old already. Patching and modding will decide... The game is so great! It's like a lovely gourmet meal with a turd in it ~;)

Icerian Rex,

I modded the weather file so that you should now see more weather types that mimic those from STW. Jerome did once say that weather is DX based and not software based like STW and therefore it would never been quite as atmospheric. I imagine this design decision was made to help lower the cpu load and help keep up the fps.

You can find the mod here at the TWCenter.net forum:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=13917

It's been great to see alot of the responses, as it lets me know I'm not alone in the frustration. I'm definitely going to have to try a few of these mods, and it makes me wonder a little bit if when the developers stated "this TW will be the most moddable yet", they were privately thinking "... cuz yer gonna need it!".

I know it's kind of a harsh assessment, but it definitely seemed as though, with as much time as the developers had, that many seemingly simplistic bugs or annoyances could have been addressed early on (or definitely in the beta testing).

This may sound silly, but even though the unit graphics in MTW weren't as good as RTW during the battles, I was far more immersed in the action than I currently am. I "knew" the general (even without the battle speech), and I "knew" the units that were being deployed. The same was true of STW (who can forget Shinano, in the midst of a driving snow?), even if the units were just sprites? Now, I get more of the sense that I spend half my time marching across the battlefield, and there's about sixty seconds of combat. I remember in MTW spending at least a half hour or more in some pretty "epic" battles, and there was always the palpable sense that my abilities were going to control the outcome! :duel:

Currently, I'm going to finish up my campaign as the Greeks, possibly try the Egyptians, and then I'll try the mods some people have mentioned. After that, I'll go back to MTW.

P.S. Wouldn't it be awesome to have the graphic quality (and JUST the graphic quality) of RTW units for MTW?

Quote:

---

P.S. Wouldn't it be awesome to have the graphic quality (and JUST the graphic quality) of RTW units for MTW?

---

IMHO RTW adds more than only graphics. The new map, city battles and diplomacy are a great advance and allows you play new kinds of strategies.

I think that the game needs to be tunned but the engine itself is far superior than the MTW one.

MTW out of box had several problems to. I remember how frustrating was those all peasants army that the AI built, or the random damage when you conquered a province, or these tactical flankings in front of your nose, ...

Quote:

---

P.S. Wouldn't it be awesome to have the graphic quality (and JUST the graphic quality) of RTW units for MTW?

---

This is precisely what I said awhile back, and to a large degree I still feel the same.

Just a couple of points, the Tactical AI was MUCH more challenging, and the manner in which the unit stats, terrain effects, morale, fatigue, and all that sort of stuff, simply worked MUCH better. Excepte for the Tactical AI (, MTW's was an improvement), all that stuff worked better in MTW and best in STW. I was able to make much better use of Terrain to effect the outcome of a battle, in terms of moral, fatigue, etc., than in Vanilla RTW. I would go so far as to say that, at the current speed of RTW, Terrain effects are non-effective toward the outcome of a game.

---

One thing I mentioned in a post of another thread, is regarding the Campaign Map. There really can't be any direct comparison between RTW's map and STW/MTW's maps, as they are simply DIFFERENT.

Yet, in comparing the overall game experience, in relation to the *advance* that is RTW, CA has giveth and taketh away.

I was thinking on this today, one aspect regarding STW/MTW's map missing from RTW is the ability to win battles/provinces W/O having to literally fight a battle(s).

The STW/MTW map was so "Chess-like", that it was possible to outmaneuver the AI on the Map, winning battles and taking provinces.

In other words, you could maneuver your Stacks in such a way that you simply out-Stacked the AI causing it to retreat from a Province.

Additionally, it was possible to out maneuver the AI in such as that the AI would move its Stacks in order to counter your moves, leaving one (or more) of its provinces open, without any Stack present, allowing the Player to move in w/o any battle taking place at all.

THIS cannot be achieved with the RTW map. While it's still possible to out-think/out-maneuver the AI to a good degree, it is NOT possible (or, at least it's very rare) to take a City w/o a battle, except by Siege, in the event the City garrison is hopelessly out-matched and doesn't come to fight. So far, I've only noticed this during the very beginning stages as the Juii.

As a result, especially during the beginning stages, a Player MUST fight a number of redundant and inconsequential battles. Unmodded, this particularly the case, TOO MANY BATTLES!!! The Total Realism Mod, I've found, cuts down on this a good deal, but not fully, and the little Rebel bands continue to appear and roam around to no good purpose whatsoever.

---

Again, regarding "Immersion", I said the PRECISE same thing.

Shiano!!!

Even MTW didn't fully measure up to STW, in terms of Immersion. MTW was good, but Shogun: Total War was the best. RTW, even with all the graphical goodies simply misses the mark.

I never have the feeling that I'm *Ceasar* out to conquer the Gauls; but in STW, I always felt like a Damiyo!!! Samurai.

---

Quote:

---

...or these tactical flankings in front of your nose, ....

---

BTW, what exactly do you mean? Troop Dancing while being pummled by arrows?

---

In comparing RTW, should I mention the MedMod? One wonders if the guys at CA ever played it to any extent at all?

---

Back to Shiano....

Me: a couple of Nagata units (hopefully with armour); 3 or 4 units of Spears (again, hopefully armoured); 2 or 3 units of VERY good Archers; my General and his bodyguard; and a unit of Calvalry (hopefully Archers, if only 2 foot archers).

Not even a full stack, gimme that, put me on that mountain in Shiano, and I don't care how many Stacks the AI has. Oh, the good ole days.... That's just defending, Taking Shiano was quite a challenge. Simply manuevering Stacks on the Map, hoping for the best possible match was a challenge.

One thing I hated though, was that the AI would ALWAYS put its troops near the top of the hill WAY at the edge of the map. I always thought the AI s/h put it's troops at the top of the side mountain, just like any sensical player would. I guess the coders thought the AI couldn't handle it, if a player attacked up *both* slopes, front and rear/side.

Yo, ho, ho, ho.... Yo, ho, ho, ho.... Yo, ho, ho, ho.... Yo, ho, ho, ho....

---

Icerian Rex, one last thing, if you either mod, or try one of the exisiting mods that adjust the Kill speed, etc. You'll find that your appreciation of RTW's graphics will improve greatly!!! Truly so, with Total Realism, as they've changed some of the skins, etc, but the big thing is they took out all the *Candy Cartoon Coloring* CA used, and replaced it with more natural/realistic colors. Big Improvement.

Quote:

---

Now, I get more of the sense that I spend half my time marching across the battlefield, and there's about sixty seconds of combat.

---

I never thought about it that way, but so, so, so, true.

Quote:

---

I remember in MTW spending at least a half hour or more in some pretty "epic" battles, and there was always the palpable sense that my abilities were going to control the outcome!

---

Do as I did. Like you I *wanted* to finish a Vanilla campaign first, but one day I simply got fed up. So, I decided to make a second installation and use the mods with that. So, I've got two installations, one Vanilla, the other the combo of Rome: Total Realism and Total Combat mods. Since doing so, Vanilla is an afterthought I haven't played since.

Luck!

Interesting comments all...

I must say I find the AI to be about the same between the two games... If the AI heavily outnumbers me it all out attacks with all units and I can be swamped.

If the AI is even or slightly less then even it will dance in front of my archers and give me a chance to slaughter lots of guys..

If I heavily outnumber it now it bolts (which I don't remember it doing in MTW).

Bottom line, the AI hasn't changed much. I believe the differences folks are experiencing are more to do with differences in unit speed and weapons differences, which can sometimes affect the AIs decisions a little.. but it feels like the same ol' AI to me.

How many times in MTW did I see the AI bring units up to my line and walk them back and forth while my arrow pushers killed them? I lost count!

The improvements in the campaign map are too many to count. It just rocks over the 'risk style' map of MTW. A whole new dimension.

There are niggling bugs, but they will be fixed.

And on the issue of generals, I now just use them as units of heavy cav. The econ system in the game creates so much money after a point that costs are not important.. and I've taking to exterminating far provinces because of unrest issues rather than deal with it because of the current game mechanics.

Baseline: the game plays the way it does. I can understand why some folks who loved MTW don't like it. There are aspects which are very different that MTW. I loved MTW to death, and love RTW to death also.

As a counter balance, i'll list the good things (to me)..

Unit retraining: I like the new system.
No microing trade routes: I didn't like how this had to be managed in MTW. Specifically because naval warfare was so abstracted. I never felt that I could have an real affect on the outcome of naval battles, yet a larger part of economic success depended on keeping sea-borne trade routes open. Not fun.
Battles require armies to come into proximity, not move into province: this is so much better. Now I can use strategic maneuver to gain an advantage where numerical superiority is with the enemy.
Major differences between different factions: Now factions are MUCH more different, thereby vastly increasing the difficulty between playing one vs. the other. This is another area that I think rocks. The Romans (as they should be) are easy. Parthians and Gauls? Hard! I played Romans to learn the mechanics, did a short as Greeks, and now am playing Seleucids.. next is Carthage or Parthia!

In short.. I love this game... I know many don't feel as I do, but I do feel this is a major step forward. I look forward to a patch (and will also try the mods, just as I did with MTW after I felt I understood the vanilla game well).

The units rout too quickly - large Gaulish forces below vh can be routed with a good general and some cavalry and even on vh it sometimes possible. But I cannot agree with complaints over the time actual combat. A number of historians following John Keegan - I think - contend that combat in an ancient battle would never have taken more than 15 minutes at a time. They would fight and break, skirmish and taunt, and resume battle. An actual ancient battle, slow and piecemeal as it was, would not be too much fun. If CA were to adjust the game to certain player's conceptions of realism in terms of combats, it would be like the situation with phalanxes:rtwno:. Everything from that directional creep to the right as soldiers took advantage of his neighbour's shield moving towards the enemy, to the Thracian helmets and the length of Macedonian spears, have given rise to complaint. Yet CA were either correct or making a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

One basic thing that spoilt STW and MTW is that units would look rather blockly. Given that for some here, the poorer the graphics the better the game, that is no problem.

The atmosphere in STW came its spare, elegant design than from anything else.

My complaint is simply that the ai is utterly stupid :dunce: regarding walls. Maybe it is some crude of simulate good command, but armies without generals can be lured to walls and they stay there until the last man drops. Now that is some impressive discipline. I would think without a general they would rout rather quickly. The ai and walls need sorting.

Why is there such a difference between hard battles and very hard battles? Unless troops are heavily outnumbers or have a very poor general, I win, nearly always on hard. Yet very hard is massively harder. Hastati with some upgrades and training lose to Gaulish forces with none and lesser numbers.

The battles speeches are rubbish:furious3:. If I here a general utter 'here we are....band of brothers' that soldier has just volunteered :hanged: to charge and rout, singlehandedly, a full four units of veteran bull warriors/spartans/armoured elephants/archer cataphracts. How could anyone like those speeches after one or two instances of them? The captain and non-Roman speeches are fine, being very short.

Sorry for the length:bow:.

I think the battles are largely alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToranagaSama

---


BTW, what exactly do you mean? Troop Dancing while being pummled by arrows?

---

---

Yes, MTW AI sometimes try to flank you turning their full army but it does it just a few steps in front of you.

The terrain, moral, ... has bigger effects with the MTW engine, I am agree.

But I can't understood your concerns about game feeling, now you have a family concept that give you some protagonists that you can "educate" to archive your goals.

The battle field integration with the strategy map allows you deep defence, sacking raids, block strategic ways ... now you have the feeling that you are conquering terrain, sincerely I don't view what is better in the old map style.

Sorry if my english is poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToranagaSama

Again, regarding "Immersion", I said the PRECISE same thing.

Shiano!!!

Even MTW didn't fully measure up to STW, in terms of Immersion. MTW was good, but Shogun: Total War was the best. RTW, even with all the graphical goodies simply misses the mark.

I never have the feeling that I'm *Ceasar* out to conquer the Gauls; but in STW, I always felt like a Damiyo!!! Samurai.

---

ToranagaSama, you make a lot of good points but this one is very much a matter of taste.

I totally agree with you - Shinano in STW was an amazing experience. What a map! In my latest campaign, I was besieged there by massive Hojo horde armies stuffed with upgraded monks and No-Dachi. However, the brilliance of STW battles was somewhat offset by the tedium of the strategy map - I have to defend Shinano (or some bridge province etc) every turn (yes, maybe I should be more offensive, but MTW and RTW give you more freedom to play a more relaxed game). You are right RTW has too many small sieges and rebel fights etc, but maybe that is what autocalc is for and even playing them manually is infinitely quicker then defending Shinano!

I personally don't find RTW lacks immersion - I find it has more period "flavour" than MTW and definitely felt I was Caesar out to conquer the Gauls. Partly it is the speeches, partly the Senate missions, partly the more realistic campaign map (as Julii, I feel I am marching through wild barbarian lands), partly the greater contrast between units (legions vs chariots and war chanting barbarians etc). Even enslaving or exterminating a city - which I dislike doing - makes me feel suitably Roman. Perhaps the only thing in MTW that comes close are the crusading type desert battles - Order foot in the burning sun facing massed horse archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Octavius Julius

Routing troops should run very fast.

If you were being chased by an Urban Cohort with tons of experience, you'd be running for your life!

---

Yep. And routers tend to drop their shields etc

Quote:

---

The units rout too quickly - large Gaulish forces below vh can be routed with a good general and some cavalry and even on vh it sometimes possible. But I cannot agree with complaints over the time actual combat. A number of historians following John Keegan - I think - contend that combat in an ancient battle would never have taken more than 15 minutes at a time. They would fight and break, skirmish and taunt, and resume battle. An actual ancient battle, slow and piecemeal as it was, would not be too much fun. If CA were to adjust the game to certain player's conceptions of realism in terms of combats, it would be like the situation with phalanxes. Everything from that directional creep to the right as soldiers took advantage of his neighbour's shield moving towards the enemy, to the Thracian helmets and the length of Macedonian spears, have given rise to complaint. Yet CA were either correct or making a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

---

Please, this point has been argued extensively after the release of the demo. No need to rehash it, as any historical reference is totally missing the point! This a Game, and we're talking about GAMEPLAY in that reference. As I said, this is not a historical simulation its a game.

Presuming your historical reference to be correct, so what. It makes for a lousy gameplay.

Beyond that, even presuming your historical reference to be correct, this doesn't mean that the "time [of] actual combat within the game is truly relative and representitive. I contend it is not.

Futhermore, your contention:

Quote:

---

hey would fight and break, skirmish and taunt, and resume battle. An actual ancient battle, slow and piecemeal as it was, would not be too much fun.

---

is a bit oxymoronic, as it prefaces that the "actual time [of] combat" as it is, presently, within the game is, in fact, fun. Many, particularly, veterans, do not find it to be so.

Consquently, the foundational premise of your argument, that is historical accuracy vs. "fun, supports the call for MTW based "actual time [of] combat".

Question, is your satisfaction based upon, historical accuracy or fun?

Quote:

---

One basic thing that spoilt STW and MTW is that units would look rather blockly. Given that for some here, the poorer the graphics the better the game, that is no problem.

---

Sure it wasn't the quality (or lack thereof) of your video card and/or system that is more the reason for the "blockly" look, than the actual Sprites? They didn't seem so to me, but, perhaps our conception of "blockly" is different.

Quote:

---

The atmosphere in STW came its spare, elegant design than from anything else.

---

You need to expand upon your meaning as it is not at all clear. What regarding STW do you deem as being "spare" and "elegant", and how does MTW and/or RTW differ?

Whatever you attribute STW's "atmosphere" to, the reality remains, its more immersive.

Quote:

---

Why is there such a difference between hard battles and very hard battles? Unless troops are heavily outnumbers or have a very poor general, I win, nearly always on hard. Yet very hard is massively harder. Hastati with some upgrades and training lose to Gaulish forces with none and lesser numbers.

---

I haven't played Vanilla on VH, but I play the Total Realism/Total Combat mod on VH/VH. I started Shogun on Hard and quickly went to VH, played 90% of my time on VH. Similarly with MTW, cept I started at VH, dropped to Hard, after learning that MTW isn't STW, then quickly went to VH, played 90% on VH. I also, played the MedMod on VH.

Don't know how much you know about the workings of the TW games, but I can venture an experiened and educated guess as to why there is such a difference. First the *actual* underpinning difference between H and VH, probably isn't much different than the previous games. That is on VH, the AI gets all sorts of *Boosts* to, morale, fatigue, etc. VH is not *fair* to the human Player. There is a significant segment of the TW community that refused to play at this Difficulty for this reason alone. (BTW, if you want to really test yourself in MTW, try :nuttermode:) I'm sure the same soft of unfair advantage has been given to VH in RTW.

So, what's the issue? Actual difference vs. Effective difference. As I stated the "Actual" difference is probably no different than previously, BUT, as a result *all* the cumulative Gameplay changes within RTW, the "Effective" difference is MAGNIFIED.

What does this mean? Well, in MTW at VH, a Player could challenge himself to raise his skill level to match the unfair advantages of VH Difficulty. The mechanics and Gameplay settings facilitated this.

Unfortunately, the vastly different Gameplay settings and mechanics DO NOT facilite this. The Battle Speed of RTW negates Player Skill. The Battles simply move TOO FAST for a Player to be able to compensate, **TACTICALLY**, for the unfair advantages that is VH Difficulty in RTW.

The battles move so fast, its almost impossible to utilize extensive manueverings as an effective tactic. Frankly, the battle is so fast a Player can't make any *true* Flanking manuevers---AT ALL!! (Possibly using Cav, but not foot troops.) Certainly, NOT, in the manner that one was capable of within both, STW and MTW.

This is a ***Fundamental*** difference, and I strongly suggest that CA has not balanced the game accordingly, as its clear that the intended design of the game was meant to be FAST, forestaking full tactical manuevering.

You asked "why", well that's why.

---

Going back to a historical reference, it is the only thing I can think of to justify (other than marketing purposes) for the speed of battle. It may be an attempt to simulate the reality of change in warfare that the Romans represent. Undisciplined non-Roman troops vs Disciplined Roman troops. Imagine Undisciplined troops, used to 15 minute battles, as you suggest. I suppose what they may have been used to was fighting for a few minute, in which time the enemy would break and run; or, both sides would break and rest, while tauting one another, then resume fighting for another 15 minutes or so.

It must have been quite a shock for troops used to such type of warfare to encounter Disciplined Roman Troops, who would neither break nor run. Using tactics to maximize their stay in battle and killing effectiveness, full body shield, short stabbing sword, and fighting cohesion.

In the face of such an onslaught, undisciplined troops, not only must have broken after 15 minutes, but ran like hell, at least what was left of them! No wonder the Romans took over the "known world".

Could this be what the game speed is supposed to simulate? If so, then somebody forget match the proper unit stats and settings for the Romans, cause the rout like undisciplined troops!

Quote:

---

The battles speeches are rubbish....

---

Maybe, maybe not, in my view of things, this is one of the least things to be concerned about. Though, since you brought the subject up, WHY has CA forced this upon us. I suppose it's an attempt at Immersion, but, frankly:

WHERE IS THE OFF BUTTON??!!

I would very much like to turn OFF *all* the 'Cut Scenes', my time is being wasted. Those Cut Scenes, even if you hit Esc, probably waste a good, cumulative, 15 minutes, or more, of the time I have to spend playing the game. Why are they forcing this intrusion upon my time? Why do I not have control?

ToroganaSama, I understand you don't like the game.. but you are making a generalization that may not be true...

'particularly veterans'...

I count myself as a veteran. I've played MTW a LOT (I like both Vanilla and MedMod both..), and STW before it.. I love RTW. FYI I will have all three games on my harddrive for a long time to come. They are all fantastic. Just as they are all different. Similar, yes. But with very fundamental differences each one of them.

I understand your dislike and encourage you to continue to speak your mind, but it is patently unfair of you to suggest that veterans are more likely to dislike this game, you just don't have the datum to prove such an assertion.

Also a question: what cut scenes are you complaining about? I just ESC out of all the talking and such and find it wastes no time.. Am I missing something here? I listened to one battle speech in my first game and figured 'damn, thats a waste of time', so now I just hit ESC. If I've played 500 battles I've wasted about 250 seconds worth of time, over the course of hours of play. It ain't a lot in comparison to game time. So I must be missing something..

And just a note for all as a level set..

I'm 46 years old.. I'm into Ancient/Modern History and Ancient/Modern Military History. I'm an avid player of computer based strategy games (STW, MTW, RTW, Combat Mission Series, Starcraft, Command and Conq. Series, AOE2, Laser Squad Nemesis all have seen plenty of attention on my system), and board based strategy before that (Panzer Leader/Panzer Blitz/Chess/so much more..). To me a game must be fun above all else, otherwise why bother? I like historical accuracy, but if they made it exactly like history, boy would some things be dull (so I fundamentally agree with ToronagaSama on this point).

I personally would have been just has happy with a game with less graphical improvements and more AI improvements (just as many have alluded to..), but I do not think that makes RTW less of a game.. only a different one (which I still find extremely fun). That said, if ya ain't having fun, I truly feel sorry you wasted your money.. If that is the case than going back to MTW is the right thing to do.

And finally.. because I'm into historical accuracy...

ToronangaSama said:
It must have been quite a shock for troops used to such type of warfare to encounter Disciplined Roman Troops, who would neither break nor run. Using tactics to maximize their stay in battle and killing effectiveness, full body shield, short stabbing sword, and fighting cohesion.

Read Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, the Roman troops were known to route also. It was less likely, agreed, but not 'none' as you suggest.