Printable View
Don't care about the official game, but R:TW despite its bugs and bad AI is still a great engine. And the TW series are the only games I have played the past few years. 90-95% for me. There is room for improvement, but I think that CA did its best despite Activision.
the only thing that's keeping me from not breaking the game is EB and the 50 bucks i payed for it.
I don't play it anymore but I gave it 60 - 65% for the first few campaigns worth of enjoyment.
The 'two patch' policy should take a good 30% off any rating.
95% without AI, bugs, stupid battles, with those things 45%.
Where are massive attacks from MTW???
battles are also far more interesting in MTW, more realistic I would say.
I also played Shogun and I can say that 3 boggest problems in RTW are:
1. BUGS, thousands of them;
2. "AI".....in fact NO AI;
3. Battles (again AI, morale, chain routing...etc.).
Battles in Shogun and MTW were interesting, longer, challenging and AI was better....
This game sucks big time with all those thing like AI, stupid battles involving chain routs, low morale....etc...
I was outnumbered 2.5:1 and i won the battle, killet 2900 of 3600 bastards and lost 17 men....its called C R A P ! ! !
After STW and MTW RTW seems like childplay!!!
I Emplore all of those who game the game over 80% to actually try playing the previous total war games, just for a day.
You will see how badly rtw lacks tacticly , eccpeccially in multiplayer.
Also the unit balance and battle mechanics are a JOKE compared to its predeccessors.
i gave it 60%
Definitly for me i never lost a battle where i had a army that could put up a fight. I'm a MTW veteran and in MTW my greatest victory was when i was outnumbered 1:10. 2000 of my soldiers vs 20,000 Egyptians. it was a Massacre. and now i have to take my mighty armies against small forces that you don't even want to attack. i want the old mass attack battles back, even if it takes the 3D map out.Quote:
Originally Posted by NicSO
I'd say about 85% (I never played STW or MTW, FWIW). I'm nearly finished with my first campaign. It's great to look at, I've always loved strategy games and thought they had died out (I think Real-Time Strategy is an oxymoron and an incorrect description for that genre of games. Real-Time Tactics, maybe). I enjoy the Senate, the strategy map, the diplomacy, spies and assassins, and the battles. I love my family and how they can grow and develop. I'm going to be heartbroken when Flavius the Cunning dies (he's 65 now and I hope he'll live to become Emperor).
But...
1) The serious bugs that still exist after two patches are too numerous. There's the Horse Archer skirmish problem, the awarding of VnV's being messed up, and the AI lifting sieges upon loading saved games - finding out about that one was a killer because I play in short spurts and do a lot of saving.
2) The AI is not performing too well, tactically. I feel sorry for the computer and have to limit myself. For example: using a 4-man barbarian cav unit to make 60 warband run all over the map chasing them is just not fair. The AI will split its forces so that you can eliminate their numerical superiority too easily. The end result is that they can outnumber you with great odds and you can still flank them and rout them very easily. I try to never outnumber the AI so that the battles will be a bit more challenging for me.
3) I'd like more complex naval combat, or at least something so you can't load 1000 men on one boat. This part of the game is about the same as most other strategy games, no great leap forward here.
4) After a couple dozen provinces, there's not much difficulty in getting more. The end game needs to be more exciting. This would be the chance for more intrigue opportunities, with some Choose-Your-Own adventure stuff dealing with the Senate and other factions. Maybe have options come up at the beginning of the turn to handle family disputes that might trigger certain VnV's or affect your family in other ways, deal with the Senate and other factions, problems with provinces, or taking action as part of your official duties as Quaestor, Consul, etc. Basically add some more role-playing options. I know there's the thing where the Senate tells you to commit suicide, but I haven't seen it yet. The same goes for the Marius reforms. My current game isn't going to last long enough to get to them. I've had one unit of Triarii the whole game, and am just getting Principes here at the end. (This campaign was started pre-patch, so this might be different with a new campaign, since with the pri/sec fix my hastatii aren't so all-powerful).
Marius and conflict with the Senate are things to look forward to, but I'd like a little more to happen between getting 10 provinces getting 40.
Really, at this point, I've beaten the game and I'm just in the mopping up phase to get the 50 provinces and see what happens at the end. I was planning on saving the Senate and Rome for last--one big climactic battle.
Summary: A good game with the potential to be great, with the right mods and some more bugfixes. I've definitely gotten my money's worth, though, so I don't regret getting the game.
:rtwyes:
Very interesting results. But they fared how i would have expected. RTW has dropped significantly. I expect PC Gamer to realise this also and drop the rating. After all, i think this marks a new age in computer games because any game can sell brilliantly and have awesome ratings as long as it fools people until they realise...Hold on, this isn't 95%!!!
70-75%
All the glaring problems, but mainly, for me, the shallowness of it. A bigger problem than anything else is the generic barb factions and the super fast, no tactics battles.
Yesterday, I played BKB's super mod for MTW:VI, and in one battle, while my archers where dueling, the enemy cav came out towards my archers to attack. I pulled my archers back and rushed up spearmen...and the enemy pulled his cav back!! In RTW the AI just says "There enemy. Me rush there now."
Crazed Rabbit
i love this game but it hurts me to realize that it could and should have been so much better... better AI, less bugs, more polished and complete... right now it's 80% in my books...
remember when one of these came out during the release and almost everone voted 95-100%
Current stats with 67 responses show an average short of 81% if you use the average of each range. If you use the higher value in each range it comes out to 83%; and if you use the lower value in the range, 78%. It was very similar yesterday with about 60% as many total votes, so the sample might be stabilizing.
I'm happy at the amount of exposure this thread has achieved. I've also just realised that a great many number of topics people open on this forum are related to the problems and bugs of the SP game. As opposed to just things like strategy and story talk.
I gave the game 80-85%. I really do enjoy playing Rome, great graphics, lovely sound effects and music, however ( as already stated) there are lots and lots of bugs.
I first started playing the TW series with Shogun. It was just what I was looking for, in a strategy game. Then came Medieval, again a step forward however it still wasn't the same to me, the game seemed to big. In Shogun the game felt compact and intimate MTW and RTW are way to big. In my first camp. as the Roman Julli I never went anywhere near the Egyptians or anywhere east of Greece there was no need. To me this is a huge waste of resources which could have been better used to put more detail into the lands around Italy, Greece and Western Europe.The east and to some extent the North should have been saved for an expansion. GET the basics right and then add the exras later.
I really wanted my battles in RTW to be like Time commanders ( big and impressive), but the battle areas are way to small I really can't see the point in having a large map area if your not able to use it! Just a small square in the middle!!
Oh well
As was pointed out in another thread (now closed), the lack of discussion of strategy/tactics is because there is very little of that required in RTW. If the bugs and problems were addressed we might see a return to those topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by derF
hear hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
Same here, I played MTW just before voting in this poll and the difference between the two games is so huge I could hardly believe it. MTW is so much more fun it's not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
There are a few improvements in RTW, for one thing battles in MTW are just too long, I've played three battles in a row that took more than two hours apiece, the routing period especially is much too long and takes forever which is stupid considering you've essentially won the battle at that point. Also I completely forgot when going back to MTW that the "skirmish" routine is broken and ranged units do not run out of the way the way they are supposed to, which is a bloody nuisance. But the battle phase itself is much longer which not only gives you more time to employ tactics but also more time for TENSION to build. Tension is what I find really lacking in the RTW battles - especially when even if you lose it's a matter of just whipping your army back to the nearest town and repairing all your units right away.
RTW does have one or two subtle improvements which were glaringly absent in the earlier games which I really like. These include (1) the ability to select a particular sequence of troops in a line or group by clicking on their icons in the desired order. The ONLY way to do this in MTW or STW is to click on the units themselves, and even then if you try and group them the AI will group them randomly in the wrong order. And (2) the way grouped units in RTW will maintain the exact formation you selected them in after a move, which is quite handy.
But apart from that, it's very obvious when going straight from one game to the other just how much RTW has been "dumbed down" for a mass audience. I really thought those old grognards who complained so much about the dumbing down were exaggerating, but going back to MTW after playing RTW for a while makes it palpably obvious that they were right.
I think some "dumbing down", or rather streamlining, was quite in order (like the shorter post-routing phase in RTW for example) but CA went too far and threw the baby out with the bathwater. Just as you say Mikeus, they are like two different games.
Other changes in RTW have been improperly thought out. It was fine to go to a more detailed campaign map, but the problem is that now you have heaps of little half stacks roaming around that are no contest to whip. In my last three MTW battles I fought against armies THREE THOUSAND strong - that is, the equivalent of three full stack armies in RTW! How often do you get a battle against a triple-stack army in RTW?
Also, the campaign game is still as one-dimensional as the previous games.
And finally, RTW still has many, many minor little bugs and glitches and also problems with the AI that make it seem, if not quite beta, then not fully "finished" either.
So I could only give it 50-55%.
I was tempted to give RTW no more than about 80%, but even though I've lost much faith and patience with the idiocies of the game and the fundamental flaws and lack of polish, I've still played it for hundreds of hours since I got it way back in the end of September last year. And the 3D battles (despite being more and more unsatisfying) are way ahead of anything else on the market. So a 85-90% rating is not out of the question.
Modding the game yourself (or using someone else's mod) to up the challenge is probably one of the few things that really have kept me interested though, as well as the 1.2 patch. Although I tired of that about a week later. CA's attitude to 'this is the last patch' and their inability to improve on basic errors and bugs and gameplay balancing issues is perhaps another thing that had me consider a lower score rating.
The implementation doesn't live up to it's potential. Developers are going after the dollar rather than the gameplay experience.
As a matter of fact, I dont' know why I'm still haunting these forums, I've moved onto other games where the developers appreciate their fans more.
What other games trousermonkey? Just curious.
Tell me about it....in MTW, you'd play for hours on end, until there is only you and 3-4 other fractions left, all engaged in one big world war....now look at RTW, and it's just your one big empire steamrolling everyone. After all, have you seen the speed some people can complete it in? Just look at Maltz's short stories, he conquered the entire map in 30-40 turns. Now try doing this in MTW. Impossible!!Quote:
After you conquer maybe 15 or 20 provinces, why keep going? It's just more of the same. I'd like to hear anyone who has conquered all the provinces in one single campaign. Half of them? It seems like hard work to me, while doing it in MTW was great fun.
It's good, I love it. It has flaws, and needs a couple more patches and an expansion or two. When it gets to the VI-style expansion (ie expansion of RTW2) then it should rock. :P
I don't know why people are just comparing it with MTW. That is not what the poll is asking. The 3d battles are amazing and much more spectacular than previous totalwar games. Everyone is saying MTW AI were amzing but they weren't that great - all they did in my game was run to the nearest hill and then charge cavalry down at me even if it was spearmen that were advancing on them.
Campaign has suffered a bit which brings down the rating to about 85-90% but the ability to mod brings it back up to 95-100%. Also (seen as I'm having a bit of a tantrum ~;) ) I'm sick of people saying that the ability to mod is even less in RTW than in previous games. Well of course it is because now the game has moved into 3d so it's no wonder that new people find it harder to mod. But overall I think it is less work once the model is complete rarther than having to make sprites.
Yes it has glitches but so does every other new game now and after nearly half a year it is still way better than any other game out there.
Well, why all that complain? You should compare the game with other game’s note with ‘the ultimate game in your mind’. So I guess 90% - 95% is still acceptable (most comments I did read gave this level).
I especially enjoy the siege battles. They keep getting better and better! Whew! :charge:Quote:
The 3d battles are amazing and much more spectacular than previous totalwar games.
Well the game isnt as moddable as the developers want us to believe and it has nothing to do with simple model making:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundjata Keita
In MTW VI 2.01 we could:
Have 100% separate campaigns, prouction files, unit stat files in the same game directory so you could play MP SP various mod in the same game WE CANT DO IT IN RTW!!!
We cant:
Add more factions!!
Add campaigns without affecting the original!!
Add more than 300 units (500 skins its not much if you think of making 30+ factions, standardbarers officers generals etc)
Mod the Senate (make more "senates" for shatterd factions like barbrians Greeks etc)...
Modify AI build units orders (we could do that in MTW)...
Modify the phalanx animation wich is hardcoded...
And the list goes on and on just visit the Europa Barbarorum forum...
The bottom line is that they keep things hardcoded so they can sell the expansion...
Hellenes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundjata Keita
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it's very moddable compared to some games out thereQuote:
Well the game isnt as moddable as the developers want us to believe and it has nothing to do with simple model making
i think most people here bought RTW in MTW's legacy and are dissapointed atleast i am. i'm playing MOHPA now
Mohpa?
Yeah, well...I played STW (vanilla 1.0), but not MTW. And I have to say, RTW is a far, far better game than STW was. Not as difficult, no--for one thing, all the rebel provinces/armies don't work together to form one uber faction that dominates everyone--but that's not too important. So I'm not disappointed at all ;)Quote:
i think most people here bought RTW in MTW's legacy and are dissapointed