Printable View
Was there ever a consensus on the game by the die-hard Total War community? Not talking about the people that joined the Org because of Rome or the people that spend all their time in there. I'm talking about the old-school Shogun/Medieval players. I personally tried the demo and disliked it, than forgot about the game, waiting to read some reviews by real fans of the Total War genre.
In short,
Shogun RULZ
Medieval SUX
Rome Is the greatest stratagy game of all time.
The frog view in brief:
Some of the changes I like (e.g. the speed [until infantry start running!] I found the demo way too fast but the normal game feels fine [until the infantry start running!])
Some of the changes I hate (Let me move my army in one go and maintain facing!)
Some of the nasty changes are easy to mod away (green arrows die with one text edit)
The new engine has plenty of good advantages aside from the obvious graphics. I feel that the battles are more chaotic than MTW, more like STW because the units tend to mix up as they fight instead of remaining as two distinct clumps.
The new engine also calculates fewer 'factors' (archers can all fire in 10 deep formations without issue and FF is ludicrous) in combat. This means RTW is simpler than the previous games. Gah!
Overall I am finding historical tactics and expectations yield good results.
I love cavalry. I also like archers and missile units doing damage again, although the elite archers could perhaps use toning down. The normal archers remind me of STW.
Many of the unit skins/models have me wincing because of little (or not so little in the Egyptian's case) errors. If anyone can tell men why all the mail shirts are neatly slit open at the front so they don’t protect the groin and lower stomach I’d be very interested to know. I’ve never seen evidence for armour like this; even medieval hauberks had the split placed lower down, and these guys are meant to be Roman. Roman mail has always had a complete skirt in every source I’ve seen, except for the occasional side split on cavalry mail, so if someone can point me at the source for this I’ll be a happier frog.
Faction wise RTW is the best; each faction is unique and individual with strengths and weaknesses. It’s not a repeat of the identikit parade of STW or the virtually identical Catholic factions of MTW.
Balance wise, well all games need tweaking. It could be worse but it could also be better.
The campaign is fun; I've played 2 short campaigns to completion and several others which I dropped. I have now stopped while I wait for a patch, but this is more than I ever got out of MTW
In MP the lobby sucks, totally and without any slight hint of redemption. In-game chat is also fiddly.
However if you do get a MP game going it's quite good fun. I do play with people I know; this means less chance of having to fight a 16 archer army or something else dumb. I didn’t play MTW MP much and I never touched STW MP so I can’t really compare.
Technically RTW is doing nicely on my PC however arrows, just plain, simple arrows lag me to death in MP.
The AI in battle is prone to perform at a steady level of dumbness with the occasional flash of brilliance or moronicness.
Bugs, yes there are bugs but they are nor horrific game stopping bugs. I haven't had a single CTD with the vanilla game. However many of the bugs are rather annoying and this is why I am waiting for a patch. I’m quite happy; I like the game but it is a shame there are issues. RTW is one of the greats and tiny things that wouldn’t matter in another game really hurt in RTW, purely because it could be near perfect if only …
This is more a colusseum topic, so over it goes.
I play the Total War games exclusively since S:TW.
Somehow I love them all for different reasons.
Shogun is my favourite era but it has limited troop diversity.
Medieval was great in that it brought a huge unit diversity, many different factions, bigger map, slightly better battle-controls.
Rome beats them both in respect of the campaign map. There're so much more possibilities of troop movement etc. The battles are quite fast but I still play without any mods attached. Speed of units is fine but as froggy says the infantry run speed is too high. I like the fact that archers are more deadly, as in Shogun.
The only real issue I have with all the games is that the battle-AI is too weak. That's still the case in Rome. On the campaign map Shogun and Medieval AI's do better in that they lead their armies with tough generals. Fighting an 8* Spanish General with a full stack silver weapon army on expert could be a close battle in Medieval. Unfortunately this doesn't happen as often as in M:TW. It's more common that you fight small skirmish battles against captain-led armies (no bonus for them). Some battles are challenging but it doesn't occur that often. Factions like Parthia or Numidia are worthwhile because of difficult starting positions.
I would definitly recommend to buy it. I haven't stopped to play since I got my copy.
R'as
P.S.: The demo is crap and doesn't represent what the real battle-engine offers.
Being a TOTALWAR fan I have every one of the TW titles.
My own view is that something went wrong in the development of RTW.
STW had its problems with things like suicidal faction leaders and the Hojo Horde which were partially resolved by patches.
MTW built on that foundation adding seiges and simplistic naval warfare but suffering from some unit balance problems. However, it retained the lesson learnt in STW and generally played better than STW. The biggest let down in MTW was the absence of the movie clips which were a real pleasure to watch but were replaced by boring and bland parchment effect scrolls.
RTW has seen massive improvements in graphic's, seige mechanic's, skirmishing and diplomacy but seems to have lost the earlier lessons learned about suicide leaders and friendly fire control. As such RTW is a step backwards in terms of unit behaviour which isn't helped by the fact that many of the new features like group formations and seige operations are actually bugged and don't work reliably.
Hopefully, all this can be fixed by patches but it begs the question as to how and why the third evolution of a game engine can resurrect issues which were identified and resolved years ago.
Yes, that's the general consensus - NOT! :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Efrem
OK, in spite of the lateness of my join date, I consider myself a die-hard mtw player. (I tried stw as well, but after mtw it wasn't that exciting imo)
I largely agree with frog-person.
The difference is that I've played dozens of mtw-campaigns, not to completion, but to "the point of no further challenge". Probably about 10-15 vanilla ones and more than twice that number with different mods (and about 5 vanilla VI ones).
Now, after 3 campaigns, rtw feels somehow old/stale.
I'm not sure why, but it's clear that the AI needs fixing, both campaign and battle.
The strategy game is superb.
Tactically, I think the attempt to combine a claim of historically accurate battles with an attempt at mass-market appeal was an ambitious mistake.
If I'm right, the implications are pretty dire for the future of would-be realistic historical games. No one will be able to afford to develop them because there won't be a big enough audience.
As I've said before, all the factors that drive the "realist" core users nuts are pretty obvious attempts to make the tactical battles more "fun" and "exciting" and less time-intensive. Consider: infantry that's too fast. Kills rates that are two fast. Timers that are too short. The overpowered, dramatic cavalry charges with "flying" horses that act like projectiles. Elephants that are very hard to kill. I even think the friendly fire problems and loss of the spear-unit rank bonus are related. The changes nerf the time-old tactic of putting archers behind a spear wall, making battles more "fluid" and "exciting."
After all that, Activision's attempt at mass market online appeal suffered from multiplayer system bugs so severe, it required an almost immediate patch.
As a single player, I'm very pleased with the game. I like the strategy. As a horse archer player, I love the changes made here. It's the first game where HA worked right.
I'm not looking forward to the patch nearly so much as to the expansion kit. It will make more factions playable -- as several players have already done on their own -- and make numerous fixes and tweaks.
Instead of easy, normal, hard and very hard levels that just add combat modifiers, CA should provide "easy," "realistic," "very realistic" and "uncompromisingly realistic" levels that add complexity, lower kill rates, etc.
I am not nearly as knowlegeable as most people here, concerning the TW series. I have, though, been a fan since M:TW.
It's my opinion that Rome was meant to appeal to a much broader audience than either of the previous games in the series. I won't say that R:TW is 'dumbed down', but it does seem to shift the Total War series into a more action-oriented genre of strat games.
Vanilla (and patched) Medieval was simply the greatest computer-based board game I have ever played. I'm not sure how many hours I must have put into that one - it's an obscene amount, though.
Rome, on the other hand? It's the best looking board-based video game, no doubt. And I think that's the main difference, to me: Medieval was a board game on the computer, while Rome is an arcade game that wants to feel like a board game.
Rome is great, don't get me wrong. It's just a tad too click-festy for me to look forward to playing it all that often. As frogbeastegg mentioned - I've finished 1 full campaign, and dropped about 4 or 5 more. Eventually, it got to the point where I lost the inspiration/passion to continue playing. Even worse, I started eyeing that Medieval box and contemplated reinstalling it.
I agree. Any company planning to market a historical wargame should not allow its product to be corrupted by those who wish to introduce un-historical gimmicks for mass market appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
I think a clear choice needs to be made right a conception.
If you are producing a historical wargame then historical accuracy is paramount otherwise you are just going to piss-off your target market and earn yourself a shit load of bad press from people who bought the game expecting it to be a historical simulation and took less than two seconds to spot that your development team and marketing guys just conned them out of £30.
If you are not producing a historical wargame then basically stop fecking about, drop the pretences at historical accuracy and go for the full fantasy option with all the super cool units like flying pigs, fire breathing dragons and wizards.
Trying to tip-toe some imaginary line between these two options is dumb, the game is too inaccurate to appeal to the guru's and too boring to appeal to the click-fest kiddies.
Personally, I am desperate for Napoleon Totalwar as its my favourite historical period. However, have no doubts that if it hit the shelves and proved to be a pile of un-historical crap my wrath would know no bounds. It would definately be the last CA game I ever purchased.
GAH!
Vanya sez... CA should heed Vanya's Software Manifesto:
"Always add, never subtract."
-- Vanya
Reading some of the comments here, it seems to Vanya that features were removed to dumb things down. Pity. Vanya have much fun with all three games.
:charge:
Sadly, though, Vanya no longer can field the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom, since RTW has no gun units. Another great pity. Vanya weeps, for He has no guns to discharge into enemy backs. Just imagine what RTW friendly fire would be like if youz could have STW lines of musketeers or arquebusiers firing through your lines into the silly enemy pig-dogs?
:bow:
Vanya sez... CA should add Roman Praetorian Arquebusier Cohorts to the game. And, don't forget about the Armored (linen armor, not metal) Camel Cataphract Cannon Beduins. And Naked Fanatics that are actually, ahem, naked. Better yet, Naked Fanatic Noble Womenz units... fielding arquebuses! GAH! The glory! The mayhem! Vanya is getting too excited... must run...
~:handball:
GAH!
You know, it's kinda funny, but when I think about MTW, I can barely remember the vanilla version. Played it a lot, but what made it great for me were some of the mods I used, most notably, Med Mod. Still love the homelands concept. I've thoroughly enjoyed playing RTW, even with all the bugs, and am glad I bought it. I, like Froggy and some others, am waiting patiently for the patch/expansion. But I have a feeling that in the long run what will make this game great will be the mods. The engine is there. It's the best I've seen. Must have the game to play the mods--and probably the expansion. I'll never regret buying it. Let's get real. I've played this particular game just about every day for an least an hour or two for nothing more than the original cost of the game. Now, is that a bargain, or what? ~;)
PS: If any publisher relies strictly on MP with this type of a game, and/or excessively dull historical accuracy, they'll go broke. Let them hit a middle ground and make a profit. The modders will polish for the die-hards. But, and this is a big but, most of the real problems with RTW can't be modded. They need to be patched, and certainly will be. I have more faith in CA than any other developer I've personally experienced. And Activision stands behind their work, also.
Vanya is loopy.
I have been playing the Total War series since Shogun came out and I have liked all three games, the only part I have never is Mongol Invasion. I really like Rome, because there are massive battles, the AI is very well done when compared to how much it has to do (I am not saying that it is very smart, just quite good for the programming difficulty), I love the strategy map gameplay adn the addition of non-province to province turns, I like the balance and I really like all the improvements that 3D has brought. Hopefully in the next game or expansion they will be able to add some of the old features like, infantry wedges and such but for CA's first foray into true 3D strategy gaming this is an excellent entry!
Hmm. I was really excited about Shogun: Total War. I made about a dozen scenarios for the demo...The Brothers Jeiko, Valley of the Horns, and a few others. I loved the game, as it was the first one in the series. The only other game that I played like it was WArhammer, Shadow of the Horned Rat, which was too hard. Anyway, I loved the game. But, of course, it wasn't perfect. The Hojo Horde was always a problem, as was the alliance system. The Mongol Invasion fixed a lot of the problems, and generally improved the game.
Medieval: Total War. What a great game. Many different factions, ect. But, I was expecting a lot more with the AI, specifically diplomacy. I was disappointed. Still, a lot of time was wasted playing this game.
Rome: Total War. The demo scared me. It was too fast. Then came the game. I played 40+ hours the first week. I thought the game was great. During this time, I downloaded one of the tweaks that slowed down the battles and kill rate, which improved the game immensely. However, after about two week I was tired of the game. Again, the AI is just horrible, specifically faction ai on the strategic level and diplomacy. Lets face it, diplomacy is a joke. I then downloaded the Realism MOd, but found it lacking. I haven't played the game in almost a month. The only thing, for me, that can bring me back is if the patch fixes the game. For me, now, the game is unplayable.
.
My opinion is that after some patching & maybe the expansion it'll be great.
Especially some of the mods.
Meantime I'm using the Rome:Total Reality mod.
A little off topic here but I loved Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat as well as its sequel which probably more people are familiar with, Warhammer: Dark Omen. Too bad those games just faded away into obscurity later. But hey, we have a better engine in R:TW and much, much better graphics and interface as compared to those games. All we need is to have some sort of spellcasting available in the game and maybe some sort of immunity to certain weapons for certain troops and we're all set for Warhammer: Total War. Ok, maybe that's too much to ask but I can dream can't I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
In fact, I thought I saw some effort being made to do a mod on it. Even saw part of a map.
Anyway back on topic, there are some pretty annoying AI issues on both the battle and the strategic map which make R:TW easier than Medieval and Shogun. I still remember the games on Medieval where the enemy frequently brought the battle to me and if you were substantially outnumbered on Expert, you knew that the chances of being defeated were very real. I agree with the comments that there's more variety in units in R:TW even though the exact number of units was larger in Medieval but also feel that the AI needs to be able to use this variety and to know how to counter it as effectively as it could in previous games. In another thread, someone commented that the "suicidal general issue" has become much worse because "Jedi generals" no longer exist as in previous games. I tend to agree with this.
Would also be nice to have that record battle function for campaigns, reduce friendly fire and a host of other features which were better done in previous games in the series. But all in all, IMHO, R:TW is still a very immersive experience. You could always play safe by waiting for the patch before deciding to buy, but I say why wait, get it now and start having fun (you could always slap on a mod if you're not completely satisfied).
Well said, and worth quoting again. We seen this happen with StarfleetCommand, and many other series. Denial of what made their original vision a notch above all the rest, only in the end to give way to greed. Its a human fault, guess I can't blame them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
I like RTW and some new fatures, but its a soulless flash in the pan. I say that because once you get pass all the ooh and ahh, you see right through it. I can't see playing it two years from now. MTW, STW those are masterpieces. Now that CA has made all that money making a game for the warcraft crowd, will they return to their roots?
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ovaat
Rome is an outstanding advance beyond Shogun and Medieval. It still needs some tweaking to adjust the cav and spear units but such things are doable. Sieges are much better, the strategic map play is much better and everything looks vastly better than in previous TW games. The troops are more alive than I ever imagined they could be.
I think Rome is brilliant.
Short story, it is worth getting unless you are primarily interested in multi-player. I suspect most of the larger problems will be addressed with a patch.
My take:
STW/MI were very good by the time of the final patches.
MTW/VI were great by the time of the final patches. The unit balance seemed about right and purchase and upkeep for high end units like heavy cav made sense. The heavy cav could often be decisive, but they could also be countered by the traditional historical counter units. Vanilla archers only worked well vs. unarmoured opposition or from very steep ground (accurate.) Missile units needed to be in shallow ranks to work well. Distance to target was a big factor. Friendly fire made sense. Terrain & trees were extremely important. Javelin skirmish units really didn't work very well. There were issues on the strategic side, particularly with AI army composition. The battlefield AI wasn't brilliant, but on expert it was challenging and with equal forces could bowl me over at times.
RTW is good. Hopefully with a patch it can be made great or at least very good. The strategy map is terrific, battlefield/siege graphics are great. There is a lot of promise, but it has some serious play issues.
The AI builds good armies although it tends to have them led by a captain rather than someone with command stars. It often fails to combine them, and strategic fighting gets very boring when the AI throws an endless stream of understrength armies at you. It has no idea how to use its armies on the field--battlefield AI is much weaker than MTW.
Unit type balance is wonked. Heavy infantry get the short end of the stick vs. archers, elephants, and cav. Cav is very deadly and apparently warped in from another time period. Counter units to it are few since it will rarely be employed in simple head-to-head, and game speed, kill rate, and rout rate allow easy cav steamrollering by two units working together. The "counter" units don't have much in the way of anti-cav bonuses, so a cav charge usually exceeds the "mount effect" bonus of the anti-cav unit. The elephant units have too many pachyderms, and are about 4 times as resilient as they should be...but the hit points and high armour makes them highly resistant to archery and javelins--both of which should be effective. You can attack them with horse charges though... ~:confused: which doesn't make historical sense at all. (Modding them to greatly reduce elephant armour and hit points, while increasing their mount effects vs. cavarly does a lot to make them believable, while at the same time allowing them to have great punch for a short time.) Archery is a big step backward, arrange them 16 ranks deep and they still all fire and accuracy is not effected (yes, I've done this.) Friendly fire is bass ackwards as fire-at-will leads them to shoot your own men if they get in the way, and they won't stop shooting when you tell them to, they squeeze off more shots before stopping--you have to micromanage them as if you were supervising 80 toddlers who just so happened to have loaded firearms and needed a nap. Archery effectiveness is quite high, as with everything else, they get a high kill rate per volley: sometimes 15% vs. unarmoured (but lightly shielded) targets at max range. Drops down to about 2% vs. the most heavily armoured and shielded targets. This was probably done to match the high movement speed and kill rates, they won't be able to fire for long.
Formation effects are very strange. Depth for spears and phalanx doesn't seem to be beneficial. Thin formations of phalanx units seem to work when they shouldn't. Phalanx units *can* be very strong...particularly ones with the sarissa. However, their are problems with undersized phalanx units. And the AI can't use them well at all. It fails to form phalanx lines and use them.
Cav are easy to raise in large numbers and are cheaper to field than good infantry. Most of the lower level cav upkeep costs should be doubled. Battle in RTW is mostly about the cav...unless there are elephants. If you limit yourself to a few units of cav, then you will find the "very hard" battles a bit more challenging and you can get beaten if the AI brings along tons of cavalry (the Macedonians often have nealry 50% cav and full army stacks as well.)
The naval aspects need work, although it shows considerable promise. Autocalc with boats is a real problem: on very hard you can forget about putting more than a few boats in the water, you can't afford combat attrition even when you vastly outnumber the other fleet (you will lose disproportionately even then.) Few boats sink on either side, admiral stars are missing, and naval engagements are indecisive. The AI does not use them for strategic purposes, but it build oodles and oodles of boats, even in captive seas where there are no enemy coasts or ports. Transporting armies by boat is much too easy. A single boat can tranport a whole army stack. A single boat can blockade the largest port (lucky for us the AI rarely uses blockades or naval invasion except when it has Senate mission to do so.)
Be ready to mod a lot of stats and apply mods to fix things like admiral stars, the timer, faction playables, etc. Heat modifiers for units work backwards, as does stamina. Several units have obvious mistakes in their stats like the wrong shield rating, wrong armour rating, etc. It can also help to mod the initial diplomacy so that Carthage isn't steam rolled early on.
Senate missions are a nice touch. Diplomacy is improved although there is still tweaking for CA to do. Sieges can be impressive. A spy opening the gates for you is often a bad thing...the boiling oil is at least 10 times more effective than in MTW, it is limitless, and it is still there when the spy has opened the gate.
The number of ways to exploit the AI are exponentially more than in MTW. Some of this is simply the complexity of the new strategic game and the battle engine.
It is peculiar that cavalry in R:TW is more effective than the medieval knights of M:TW.
I dont know what to do with RTw. I expected stuff that never happened. The generals command star system is far too simplistic, the AI is abominable (AI in previous games was sometimes challenging, this one is retarded). Plus, the things that really make a game reality, like the atmosphere, nice music, command voices in the spirit of the game, even the sketched portraits are no longer there. It seems the company focused only on the visual part of the game, and created new diplomacy option rather than make a completely satisfying tactical game in the ancient world.
Note:
I never played STW/MI.
I did play MTW/VI and it is the greatest game I ever played. I played it and mods of it for probably two years, with not much in between.
Rome is not as good as MTW - I just am not as hooked. I've managed to take a significant break from it (though school is partly to blame).
Even though the factions were more repetitive in MTW, there was just something there that was... intangible but made me a practicle addict. Not so for RTW.
I particularly miss the old drag and drop movement scheme for MTW, with battles resolved at the end of turns. I think this is a personal dislike, but I just don't enjoy the system for Rome.
Just about everything else mentioned before applies for me.
MTW - 9.7/10
RTW - 9.0/10
My opinion on RTW, for what its worth, is that it is a wasted opportunity and I wonder what went into that extra year of development it was supposed to have. It is full of good ideas but is very badly implemented. To have problems identified and fixed in the earlier games appear in this one is unprofessional. To fail to tailor the AI, which is essentially the same as before, to the new features is just wrong and makes it much easier. In effect there is, IMO, no real game or enjoyment to be had from RTW. It has all of the failings of its predecessors and any potential innovations are ruined by failings in their implementation.
I will be going back to EUII for strategical play and MTW for tactical stuff soon enough I feel. I hope that a patch will fix some of the problems with RTW but realistically I fear not. CA's patching has not been that great previously (IIRC one patch, expansion, another patch) and this game needs alot of work IMO.
Must admit when you compared to the fantastic music used in Viking Invasion and The Mongol Invasion and the excellent voice acting used in MTW and STW something clearly went wrong with RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrusaderMan
The music is monotonous and the voices are embarrassing ~:confused:
IMHO the most important thing about a game is that it is fun and RTW beats them all.
Best thing is seeing your elephants throw the enemy (hate those romans), great fun battles. Lots of diverse strategy options... blast 'em , swindle them or CIA them.
I started my TW experience with M:TW and later M:VI, and was blown away. R:TW just dosent hold the same apeal to me for a number of reasons.
The good news is that R:TW looks awesome, both the campaign map and especially the battles. The campiagn game has alot new details and elements added. For examples that the position of your army on the campaign map will decide what the battle map will look like, the abbility to build towers and forts is a nice touch, roads enhances movement speed and so on.
The bad new IMHO lies in the battles especially. I've been trying to figure out just why I feel the battles are such a let down after M:TW and so far I belive its tied to a couple of factor
1) elevation, trees and fatigue dosent seem to be all that important anymore. In M:TW taking (or holding) a hilltop had a clear and often decicive inpact on the outcome of the fight. This added extra variable and oppotunities to consider in a fight. In R:TW I feel most battles are either sieges or plays on more or less a flat open field
2) It's to easy to outflank and out-manuver the enemy. Riding your calvary around and charging headlong into the rear of enemy units tend to be far to easy in my experience. I'm not sure that its so much a matter of poor AI (no its not great,b ut the M:TW AI wasent always the sharpest spoon in drawer either) but rather a combination of movement speed compared to the unit sizes (that is, it takes a lot less time to ride around the enemy). The AI also falls short when it comes to keeping his units somewhat in formation.
The short of it is that unless the difficult is turned up so high that the AI's men becomes somewhere near never-routing killing machines battles are just to easy. Even on the highest difficulty level i get kill ratio's of 1:10 and sometimes up to 1:100 even facing something near an equal force. That never really seemed to happen in M:TW (unless you were killing pessants with knights or some such).
Oh well, don't get me wrong, R:TW is not a bad game, It looks great and will most likly keep you entertained for longer than most games you might pick off the shelf. Its just not as good as M:TW IMHO.
Rome just doesn't hold the touch that medieval had due to its braindead AI and it's utterly dire multiplayer support; If the multiplayer gets properly streamlined, the AI is made comparable to Medievals (or a little better i'd like to think) - as well as ironing out bugs with archers and phalanx troops as well as making very hard AI play better instead of hit you at +7 which is an utterly rediculous way to balance a game - then it will be a world beater. As it is, I still love it, but now and then I miss Medieval badly.
Same thoughts here. I loved MTW. It was my first TW game and I played it to death. When the RTW demo came out I was befuddled - how could a company that put out such an outstanding title as MTW put out such a lemon of a demo? I thought it must be an oversight or they didn't really want to put it out or something! ANYTHING! Alas I was mistaken and the game does just what the demo did - make the game look like it's amazing. Unfortunately, apart from the great campaign map overhaul and nice looking charges I found the game bitterly void of any real substance. I hope that the EB mod will help cure this, but until a patch comes out to fix the mind numbing bugs and flaws I can't even look forward to that. I played the game a lot - but in Hindsight I think they alienated their core fans while pulling in new players who may not stick around long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashen
After the demo I hated the game and struggled to continue playing custom battles even though I hated the changes to the tactical part of the game. Then teh game came out and it was amazing to me and I loved it. Eventually the true nature of the beast showed through the cracks of unit grouping and pathfinding bugs amongst others and I couldn't bring myself to play it anymore.
Take a look at some of the rants following the demo - that's where I lie right now; hopeful, but not faithful.
MTW cd literally stayed in my computer for close to two years with only a brief 2 week sabbatical to make room for a less enthralling game. I would often stay up very late playing just another turn, just another turn you know the drill. I rate MTW as my all time favourite. Sure, it wasn't perfect but for me it was the next best thing. I even went out and bought Shogun and liked it but was difficult to take a step back so haven't played it so much.
RTW has lasted me for probably 3 weeks of intermittent playing and I still haven't finished my 1st campaign. Not sure when I will.
The bugs and dumb AI are a (huge) problem but for me it is more than that. RTW has the potential to be amazing but the campaign side seems designed by a government comittee and is therefore tedious to play between the fun bits. I simply can't be bothered directing every spy, assasin and diplomat around the map with such a small move allowance or by sea - why I can't tell them where to go and get them to pay for passage on a trade vessel or whatever is beyond me. Its micromanagement to the point of silliness.
And then the dumbed down battles have me autocalcing (even on vh) just to relieve the chore.
Not exactly what I was looking forward to from RTW and I looking forward to it more than any other game.
I still think RTW has the potential to be an amazing game and I will wait for the patch to arrive before I write it off completely but atm it is disappointing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Quote:
Originally Posted by desdichado
Precisely what I was trying to express. Especially when you find yourself autocalcing because battles are a "chore". Not good at all.
I think it really boils down to essence of the game.
STW. MTW. RTW.
Each one after the previous one loses essence and is thereby exponentially more difficult to keep the essence of the initial release sustained through all the sequels. I can't wait for the EB mod to come out, the skins and changes in that mod so far have totally outstripped the vanilla RTW and will undoubtedly put that substance back into the game I am so sorely missing. Great beginning, just needed a little modding to perfect it.