Whats the difference between RTW and BI
Printable View
Whats the difference between RTW and BI
RTW is a stand alone game. BI is an expansion pack that requires you to have RTW to be playable.
RTW is set in the time of the rise of Roman Empire. BI is set in the time of the fall of (western) Roman Empire. They have different factions and different units.
Does that answer your question?
Yes.
Whats new in BI?
New factions, new units, new map (right?), night battles, hordes.
Named legions :jumping:
Rubbish unfinished/rushed units aplenty.
TheOrg does it once again! I've noticed that in each topic about RTW and BI, there has to be at least one post that totally trashes the game. How typical.
To the Caius, you might want to read up some of the BI PBMs we've done:
Alemanni (story thread):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59706
ERE (story thread):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=55882
WRE (story thread):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60372
Personally, I find the WRE campaign the most compelling in all the TW games (especially with Goth mod).
This post is not about "trashing" the game... but just simple questions...
I just keep asking myself why they removed so many provinces in this addon and let the map size the same... why removing provinces ? :inquisitive: Even in vanilla 1.0, many player complained about the small number of provinces and map extension, considering the posibilities of the game in recreating at least a reasonable historically-acurate environment.
The Sassanians and the Huns stretched alot in the east... sometimes, troubles in the east stopped the Sassanians from fighting the ERE....Stopping the map somwhere just east of the Zagros Mountains is like cutting down from history half of the Sassanian Empire... ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: Egipt reduced to only one province ? Sahara the same... reduced.... when all those small Tamazigh kingdoms played such an important role during the vandals, until late up to the arab invasion ... "Colonia Dacia" ? Never existed such a town... maybe "Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza"...
The same question is for Alexander also... they made so few provinces... and made the campaign a sort of "race against the clock" , the factions... not nice at all... no comment...
I know modders have already solved those problems regarding provinces, turns, skins, factions etc, or work to solve them... but why not resolve them in the original game ?
I think the smaller number of provinces may be to increase the frequency of field battles relative to sieges. Quite a few people have complained of "Rome: Total Siege".
I also seem to recall at least one book I read on the history of the Roman Empire mentioning something of a population implosion. Lower birth rates, plague outbreaks, sacks of major cities such as Trier and Rome all led to a shrinking population. Maybe it was an attempt to reflect that? Or the increasing importance of a small number of large cities?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Making a simple calculation:Quote:
I think the smaller number of provinces may be to increase the frequency of field battles relative to sieges. Quite a few people have complained of "Rome: Total Siege".
Less provinces = less cityes, so less sieges indeed
but ... Less cityes = less places from which to recrut stacks, etc (whe not discussing that much hording)
So overall gameplay and balance may be seriously affected...
And finnaly, what about those who are passioned of historicall accuracy ?:book:
Maybe... but keeping (at least) the number of provinces from 1.0 but more poorly developed, or whith lower starting population, could have been used to represent the same thing...the collapse of the Roman Empire, altough as farr as i know the great decline in population started sometimes later, around 500,600, 700... climatic changes, etc.Quote:
Maybe it was an attempt to reflect that? Or the increasing importance of a small number of large cities?
Playing BI on VH campaigns, I've never found small AI armies to be an issue. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
Plus the (Roman, at least) settlements are often rather populous and have rapid population growth, so lack of raw material for your armies is usually not a problem.
I still think the province issue is primarily one about how many sieges you want - few and epic is my preference. BI can give this. In RTW, you can have many silly little sieges of wooden walled settlements (especially annoying because of the AI's bizarre insistence on running its men aimless around behind the walls while you shoot them to pieces).
Many people actually complained about the number of sieges: there were too many and they were boring or just displayed the A.I.'s incompetence. I don't really see how decreasing the development level of cities will help that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
Well, cutting the Seleucid Empire in half wasn't very historical either. You have to end the map somewhere, so you will always run into this problem. Egypt did not play an important role in the late Empire, so why devote many cities to it? IIRC Colonia Dacia was the common name of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, the latter being rather too long for everyday life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
I think the problem is that CA caters for the general market, not the history fanatics. The latter are very picky, meaning you need to spend a lot of time doing research. CA either could not or would not do that, so they cut some corners and sometimes set gameplay overrule realism. I don't like this either, but as far as I can see, the BI expansion is quite an improvement over vanilla when it comes to both gameplay and realism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
People will complain about anything. Seiges are the only thing that made RTW worth playing! :wall:
Sieges were greatly improved on MTW, but IMO were typically less fun that the field battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisruptorX
The worst sieges were those of settlements with wooden walls with the AI defending (they could be rather tense if you were defending as the walls were scant protection). They were ruined by the inexplicable way the AI would run its men ragged under fire before you breached the walls.
Sieges with stone walls were more fun (although large stone walls have a very annoying bug, whereby men cannot climb some siege towers). When the AI had a decent defending force (ie a lot of good armoured infantry - e.g. Romans), assaulting one would be a daunting proposition and in such a case, I'd prefer to starve the AI out.
However, when the AI was attacking stone walls, it often - at least under BI - tended to bring just a tower, a ram and some ladders. The ram usually caught fire and the single tower + set of ladders was silly when the AI often had a full stack or two, so could have brought more siege engines and brought its superior numbers to bear.
The implied criticism that everything else about RTW was not worth playing is quite wrong, IMO. Try one of the realism mods - the field battles can reach MTW quality. Have a look at some here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65721
Howewer, if you wait for them to sally, they will be extremely vulnerable.... Sally may be decent when you have numericall superiority, or good troops, or some reinforcements, or anything... otherwise, even if you try to get out of your city and kill the enemyes, you will have terrible losses... i think (but i`m not sure) that the forces in the city who attempt to sally, have some moral penalty..Quote:
Sieges with stone walls were more fun (although large stone walls have a very annoying bug, whereby men cannot climb some siege towers). When the AI had a decent defending force (ie a lot of good armoured infantry - e.g. Romans), assaulting one would be a daunting proposition and in such a case, I'd prefer to starve the AI out.
Frankly speaking, any siege can be easy , or extremely hard, depending on the composition of the 2 armyes... But i`ve seen that when the AI has crap units in an army, even if it has huge numbers, it does not attack... while whith good units, they always siege in the second turn or so....
Yes, that's part of what I meant when I said I would rather starve out the AI than assault a well defended stone walled city. I have not worked out what determines whether the AI will sally at the end of a siege - sometimes you get the city without a fight, sometimes they sally; I haven't worked out why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
If you go out the front door but are outclassed, the AI may charge you and press you against the city walls before you can deploy. That's nasty (although very characterful). For safety, I tend to go out a side door to get time to deploy. That turns a sally into a regular field battle, albeit with you as the attacker.Quote:
Sally may be decent when you have numericall superiority, or good troops, or some reinforcements, or anything... otherwise, even if you try to get out of your city and kill the enemyes, you will have terrible losses...
Well, back to the original question BI is just that - Barbarian Invasion.
Almost every barbarian faction in BI requires you to have your guys expand into Roman territory and knock out one of their regions, while avoiding any other barbarians who want that same territory. It's a kind of revenge against the Romans (Julii, especially) for conquering so much land 450 years ago.
Obviously if you're the Romans, this is where it gets interesting. The Eastern Empire doesn't need to worry about money and religion (there are official religions and if the majority of people are a different religion there will be serious Public Order problems), but have the potential of massive armies from the Huns, Vandals, Sarmatians, Goths, Roxolani, and the Sassanids just waiting to destroy you. With the Western Empire you have to deal with all that plus serious religion, money, and loyalty problems.
As a final point, the PBMs that econ21 advertised are a great read - the WRE one inspired me to get BI.
Unless you do like I did, and setup a paganist coup (ie set a pagan family member as the faction heir, have him march to the capital, load the faction leader on a ship and send it on a suicide run against pirates) and burn all the churches and enforce paganism as state religion. You will have a nice civil war in your hands in no time, with some cities revolting and many being on the edge. That makes for a challenging ERE game.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
If I install BI, will I be able to paly night battles in the original RTW campaign?
no I'm afraid not- there are some mods that use BI to do this but vanilla R:TW wont use it. Night battles are not that interesting anyway. they have their uses but generally they are just eye candy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Durian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
I did that since The eastern empire is such a walk in the park otherwise, I also re-played the Western empire doing the same to make it even harder.
If you do it more gently then theirs a lot less civil wars.