disapointed with rtr, you are my last hope

rtr is nothing special, awful skins, the AoR is ..... the battles last the same of vanilla, a gallic swordsmen unit of 80 ROUTED with 65 guys still alive.... the custom battles units with docens of units available make the teams having no weakneses (imagine the online battles) no new animations for phlanx specially, no plahanx can stop even the weakest elepaht, and of course, no AI (darthmod) formation improvements, the new music is boooring...

BI seems to be a hell of arcade but has a patch and some new formations or little improvements

now, waiting EB specially after seen my country's iberian warriors i cant wait, and i still cant wait to your decisions of mod BI. and cant wait for BI to patch rtr and omg, i cant wait BI AND EB + patch

*do you hope the patch will improve AI and the game so much? it really needs it ~D

is it true that CA is releasing 1.3 patch appart from BI? sooner o later?

i think rtr 6.0 is pretty damn fun. They have improved a lot of things. I just miss playing as the britons ;(

RTR 6.0 is out? Ho hum. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infierno

a gallic swordsmen unit of 80 ROUTED with 65 guys still alive

---

Hell of a lot more historical than whole armies fighting to the death. To my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infierno

the new music is boooring

---

Then put the old back in. It can't be that hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cube

The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.

---

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Look at some of the pretty non-barbarian previews.

Nothing good can come of this thread. ~:eek:

Alexander, you're pretty right as well as being pretty good. ~:)
We've also had complaints that we're too focused on the Hellenistic factions, so I guess we must be doing something right. ~;)

RTR 6.0 is damn good my friend. It's the best thing we got and a far cry from Vanilla.

The AOR is amazing. IT's the best feature i think.

Quote:

---

The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.

---

Over 700 posts and your talking like a 1 poster here. EB has said numerous times that they are re-working every single faction. The previews are testamony. Take a look, all the faction have been tossed out the window and rebuilt.


Ok, sure, EB is going to be the best MOD. But RTR is a great MOD. I think many people thought it would be a different game altogether. I know I did, I read the home page news posting that said "no stone is left unturned". That is a bit far fetched, but the game is well designed.

The AI is smarter, calvary always goes for the flanks and suicide units are gone.

My only problem is the stupid animation for infantry while running.

Whoohoo, an EB convert. I haven't played RTR yet, there's something awful with the registry on my comp so i can't get it to work. But EB is definitely something you should try, that's for sure.

I actually enjoyed myself rather well with RTR. The map is shite compared to EBs and Units aren't as beautiful, but the AoR is brilliant. These guys are setting the bar rather high, I wonder how much higher EB will set it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.

---

Actually EB has a very balnced focus, where as RTR seems to ingore the barbs almost as much as vanilla.

[QUOTE=Gelatinous Cube]Eb There's way too many Barbarian Factions for my tastes; I personally think you could get by with 2 or 3.



Agreed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ignore? Nah, they get just the right amount of attention; as proper rebels, except for the few that actual did stuff important during the time period of 280 BC to 1 AD.

---

In that case, what did the Greek city-states do besides get conquered? ~;)

Well I think EB does it just right- historically! Their 'barbarians' are very aesthetically pleasing and will be fun to play with- they're also well researched and depicted correctly.

First off barbs have to be barbs.. It is hardcoded, plus the "barbarian" of the day werent as useless as you think. Their descedents managed to become the most influential force in modern time. Gaul was much more powerful at the time than the scatered city states. Infact i would like it if there were more barbs. A split between the aedui and averni would be nice and so woul illyria.

Eb is giving the barbs exactly what they deserve. If i made a ww2 mod and made sure to represent america would i be america centered?

Dont critize Eb for making the Barbarians historically accurate.

all im saying is your critizing a historically accurate mod for being historicall accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It was the Successor States that shaped the world until they got conquered by the romans.

---

Aye, the Macedonian successor states, but what about those piddling little city-states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The real difference between RTR and EB is the focus. RTR has more of a balanced focus, whereas EB has more of a focus on Barbarians.

---

BALANCED!? They focus to the some factions (Successors, rome) and don't give a shit to the another (Germanics, gauls...) and you say they have balanced focus.
Look at the EB prewiews, their every faction is historical. In RTR there is some historical factions, but many anhistorical too.
So which one has more balanced focus?

I still think the AoR is a neat feature!

The skins in RTR are beautiful, especially in the latest release and there is simply nothing wrong with them imo

well. I actually like RTR. just not in custom-battles (every faction can train every AoR unit->elephants, phalanxes, etc) so never mind online play.
the units are nice, really. but i'm still disapointed they had no Falcata's on the unit: falacata men . i'm just a sucker for those things. Also the germanians arent very nice. "framea men" as an example...Noble spearmen..another nice unit. and they have Siege:Total War in Greece
it's really a nice mod and i'm playing it until EB comes, but some things annoy me a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, I'm criticizing it because I don't think it spent the available faction slots in an ideal way.

---

Yes, you have the right to criticize.
You seem to be focused on those mediterranian cultures, but perhaps a mod with a smaller map mainly focused on this area fits better for you.

I think EB shall make a better solution about on your points Infernio. They are developing this mod for more than one year that makes them a specialist over RTW dynamics. I believe they make their best in the coding limits of RTW.

In the other hand i don't expect too much core improvement for BI by the CA side. They declared it several times before such as this messages. I've pickep up from two of them in FAQ section:

Quote:

---

Q: What do you think about to do for tightening the tactical deepness of the R: TW BI besides swimmable units and night battles?

A: Many aspects of the AI for battles has been worked on since RTW was published, and we think you'll find it gives you a better game. Then again, the cynics out there would expect us to say that, but short of making this an essay there's not a lot more to say other than it ahs been worked on.

---

Quote:

---

Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).
A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW.

---

wasnt it supposed to make battles last more? the best roman and gaul forces, (units of 80 guys) running with 65 still alive is not a great step forward

other reasons seen in their forums:

roman skins sux, all different colours

this game could be called PHALANX WARS 6.0 (too many phalanx)

heavy cavalry heavy uderpowered, specially the charge

trarri can kill, better than phalanx ,all cavalry

heavy cavalry cant kill even non-speared cheap infantry units

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by infierno

roman skins sux, all different colours

---

Actually i like their roman, the feathers could have used a different pattern, but otherwise i think they are fine.

Quote:

---

this game could be called PHALANX WARS 6.0 (too many phalanx)

---

Many nations fought in phalanx... You can't ignore that for the sake of gameplay. And nobody forces you to use phalanx, i had good results with army with lots of light inf.

Quote:

---

heavy cavalry heavy uderpowered, specially the charge

trarri can kill, better than phalanx ,all cavalry

heavy cavalry cant kill even non-speared cheap infantry units

---

That i don't know, i didn't tested a cavalry charge alone for the moment. My cavalry always routed the ennemy but the moral was the main factor, not their effectiveness. I will check.

those are forums opinions, not all mine :)

anyway, in what BATTLE DIFFICULTY do you play?

my own complains are

music

Mass routing early in battle still occurs...I thought one of the aims of 6.0 was to balance the unit stats better to make this stop? (3 minutes stting up, 3 minutes battle 5 minutes killing routers)

custom battles and internet battles with all the mercenaries make no weaknesses on factions

some skins...........

cavalry underpowered



another forum opinion: You right, now upgrade of city buildings is not necessary lots good mercenaries with beter experiences than country unit aviable in everywhere, all temples give the same efect it is not funy..., Unfortunately after this changes the game lose climate


i repeat you are my last hope

Please try to avoid any comparisons between mods here, especially since none of you (including the closed beta testers) have seen what EB really has to offer yet.

On focus - EB is attempting to give the peoples of the period who had the opportunity to become great their due. This includes those that DID become great (the Romans, for instance) and those that were conquered.

It is up to the player to decide the course of history. Will great nations be destroyed and relegated to near obscurity, as they were in history? Or will they instead make their mark as a lasting civilization?

In this respect, we focus on those nations that attempted to conquer the world, or at least parts of it, and try to make each of them as historically accurate as possible. We do not want to force history to repeat itself (i.e. the same civilizations always win, and others are always shown as bumps in the road) but rather to set the table so that the player may decide the course of history based on initial parameters (and perhaps a few nudges in the first few years).

We're not "focused on barbarians," we give all people equal weight in our research. The Romans and Greeks were not the only civilizations that had power or culture in the period.

They were merely the victors.

what i must say is: EB "SEEMS" to be much more prepared and organized, with a very very pre-organized objetives: what we whant to make? with time and order

rtr is a small mod that has raised with less orders and with non-linked ideas

always with the word "SEEMS" but this is my opinion, after playing 6.0 i pray for a patch 6.5 to fix this if posible

next step is BI with 7.0

our final stop is EB

well. another minor point of critisism is the cavalry. the Hetairoi look great, absolutly terrifiing. but Every unit of cav has teh same charge bonus, thats not right:weight is an issue, and breed of horses...
also, why are there 8 different pikemen. "levie" pikemen, and a stand-up: pezetairoi. but why so freaking many!?! also, the hoplites look exactly like pikemen (length doesnt differ much, neither does shield-size) and some hoplites also have 60 men (normal-settings) in stead of 40. balancing is weird!

Nice mod, Huge step up. But graphic-wise not like EB (what we've seen). and I HATE RTR for keeping the "chosen swordsmen". i havent seen teh building system of EB, nor have i sene teh balancing. but god i hope its better than RTR, i know it can be so.

I agree. RTR is completely unbalanced. Playing as the Parthians you could win the campaign without ever using cavalry (except with generals) because they have so much infantry, even decent phalanxes, open to them. Also, the map extensions are quite poorly designed IMO, especially when compared with MM (map making genius there) or even the vanilla map, which isn't very detailed as it is. Scotland just looks wrong and the eastern extensions are blaaaand. :furious3:

Rome Total Realism isn't even very realistic/accurate either. The Gauls have a province in the middle of bloody Turkey (they must have been confused between Gaul and Gallatia). Epirus, Syracuse and several other independant states are members of the Greek Cities faction (they should have just chosen one greek faction and stuck with it, its just unbelievably inaccurate as it is). Illyria is in the game, a faction with quite poor influence, especially compared to Dacia, which they took out to combine with Thrace.

EDIT: If the information I supplied is in any way wrong, correct me by any means, but at least I won't be making a "realism" mod with incorrect information about history.

How can any one say that RTR, CA, or EB pander to any faction? It's the way it was for the most part. CA is guilty of spending too much time on Rome and nobody else, but CA was banking on the fact that we would playing nothing OTHER than Rome.

As far as EB paying more attention to the Barbarians... Have you seen Backtira? Have you seen Makedonia? Those previews are beautiful. All the previews look great.

EB oringially started off as a Barbarian mod. CA's generic "barbaian calvary, warbad etc.." was to bland and incorrect. It made the barbarians out to be some two-bit culture, where in fact they were quite vibrant!