I looked but didnt see it posted so here it is
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-total-.../711174p1.html
The reviewer didnt seem like a noob and he/she liked it.
Printable View
I looked but didnt see it posted so here it is
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-total-.../711174p1.html
The reviewer didnt seem like a noob and he/she liked it.
The comparison to VI is encouraging - that was a pretty challenging campaign for most factions (I'll never forget a Wessex PBM campaign that ended in ignomy after three reigns).
I don't like the idea of exterminating every city I take, but may be refusing to do that as a house rule will make the campaign even more challenging. (Anyone know how many cities Alexander did put to the sword?)
Depends on how you count cities, towns many more than are recorded (alot).
Nice preview. But it says clear: "Not too much diplomacy" :embarassed:
Yeah, I noted that too and VI was an excellent expansion. It was the fast and uber tough viking huscarles (I think that was the unit) that were the bane of my existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I am looking forward to Alexander. It looks to be very interesting.
Not that much. I read somewhere the Athenians denounced him for having mercy upon those filthy Barbarians (but this source did go at extraordinary lengths to prove that Alexander was a good guy). Of the major cities he captured only two were burned: Thebes and Persepolis. However, I suppose he did loot several of the smaller ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The review does not provide much new information, but the fact the reviewer found it both challenging and fun is certainly promising.
Hey, this thread is back! It seemed to disappear yesterday and I couldnt figure out why?
Some things I found interesting.
In a little over a decade, he took a splintered and fragmented group of Greek city-states and united them, and challenged the greatest military powers of his day, the Indians and the Persians.
Philip his father did this, you can tell thatt the writer does not know history.
The Indians come to the field with powerful elephant cavalry and legions of naked female archers that can be devastating to those unprepared for them.
LMAO LOL !!!!11 I mustve skipped that page when I was researching alexander (maybe the page was glued together :book: ).
In 100 turns, the player simply doesn't have time for niceties like building up an infrastructure, properly securing and garrisoning conquered cities, or training troops and then taking the months needed to move trained units into place. Instead, the player will be forced to lean more and more on mercenary units with all the morale and loyalty problems that implies. I found that the best course was just to put as many conquered citizens as I could to the sword, reaping as much gold as possible and leaving a much reduced populace behind me to reduce the danger of insurrection.
Even worse, the lack of time to properly pacify my conquests meant that rebellion, sneak attacks, and barbarian uprisings were a constant thorn in my side -- even back in Greece where the Thracian barbarians kept trying to pull down my largest source of tax revenue.
What was worse, I couldn't rest and heal up my units nor consolidate my control over Halicarnassus. I was forced to leave behind some of my best units and make up for them with lesser quality mercenaries.
Its a blitzkreig game, nuff said. Even for the promised 14.99 price tag im not going to buy this work of fiction, but maybe ill change it if some modders can make fix that.
legions of naked female archers HAHAHAH:2thumbsup: