Until the patch is released, I am playing MTW!

For me, the biggest way that RTW lets me down compared to the other two is that when you take an army into battle after looking at theirs, the odds, the experience etc is that you know beforehand what the result will be and most often if not always (unless a brutallt stupid AI bug such as general suicide with reinforcements) you know you will win.
The only thing in doubt is how much you will win by and if the enemy army will still exist post conflict.
Someone mentioned build up of tension previously on this thread and that is the key element that RTW misses. RTW is more like taking a Dyson vacuum cleaner over Europe and easily sucking up enemies, especially with the AI not doing to you what you can do to it ( as effectively) such as assisinations, building up and using diplomats to bribe etc.
I remember in MTW taking my stack of 1000 well solid troops with an awesome general against many thousands, lets say 4000, and having an EPIC.
Due to tiredness you would have to keep a couple of units in reserve until later but would that mean you would be too badly outnumbered. OK i've killedthe general quick, that leaves only 3800 troops to deal with vs my 950.
This type of tension no longer exists in RTW and was a real draw for me in the other 2.
I PREDICT A POST WILL FOLLOW THAT SAYS 'I THINK THERE IS THAT TENSION IN RTW AND I AM JUST NOT PLAYING IT RIGHT' Hmmmm, how long will it be.?

By the way, hello all, haven't posted in bloody ages. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacBeth

Yeah - not only has the game been dumbed down, so has the feel of these forums.

---

:embarassed: yeah. it used to be all history and strategy chat. good point.

I should be more careful what i post. To clarify, I mean that the game in its current state has not encouraged many threads on how we can defeat the uber AI ~:confused: or on battle tactics. I in no way meant the members of this forum, which is currently the only plus point to a rushed and pretty incomplete game.

Many of the posts I read here suggest changes that, while they may make the game more "realistic", they would also take the element of fun (you know FUN; the purpose of all games) out to some degree. An example would be the whole bribing/assassination genre. Sure, the AI can be programmed to use every advantage to build up a big treasury, then systematically bribe everything you have away from you. Would that be fun? We could change the AI so cities would revolt constantly, and the people would never be happy. Would that be fun? We could eliminate morale from the battle AI, and also any attempt to emulate the particular style of a civs battle tactics and instead have cold calculated logic for all AI behavior. Would that REALLY be fun? We could make siege warfare much more realistic by emulating real life behavior and eliminating nearly all direct assaults. Sieges will be a waiting game because, with proper defensive logic, direct assault = SUICIDE. Again, would it be fun?

I'm not a bonafide military genius, but I know the computer can easily outmanuever you if decision making and actions are equally based on logical reference and limited time to execute (i.e. RTS where you cannot pause). Do you think it would be fun to have a game that deteriorates to a "click fest" because you cannot think and react as quickly as the computer? A good game will always balance the fun aspect with the difficulty or tedious aspects of the representation.

There are bugs which need to be addressed. Hopefully, all the major ones will be. The bigger the scope of a project, the more likely bugs will remain hidden for long periods. They still discover bugs in Windows 2000 on a routine basis. I really don't see how any enthusiast for military history and tactics could NOT have fun with this game. Yes it has limitations, bugs, and stupid behavior at times on the AI's part. But I think, even with all that, the game is still a dang lot of fun. I play it for hours and hours, and enjoy it even with the flaws. The patch should fix most of the outright bugs, but there's no way the AI will be improved enough to satisfy some of the most demanding players in the time they've (CA) had to implement the patch.

In past TW games it took a lot more time to deploy troops, march troops and do the actual battle itself. The deployment/marching/maneuvering ritual is gone! :dizzy2:

The units are too fast and unbalanced. What is the longest battle you've had in RTW? In MTW? in STW?

In STW, deployment was very crucial, due to the chain rout.
In MTW, it was much easier, due to the strength of the spears and higher morale.
In RTW, it was dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even matter anymore since the enemy will all charge at the same time at unbelievable speeds ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

In STW, deployment was very crucial, due to the chain rout.
In MTW, it was much easier, due to the strength of the spears and higher morale.
In RTW, it was dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even matter anymore since the enemy will all charge at the same time at unbelievable speeds ~:eek:

---

Um, I'm not sure about this. In some ways, I think deployment matters more in RTW because combat is so quick - it is hard to pull off grand manouvres, so it is more a question of having pointed your men in the right direction and letting them go.

However, it seems terrain matters rather less in RTW than the earlier games - hills, in particular, don't seem so dominating. (This may be a good thing.) So this reduces the importance of deployment.

I appreciate the speed of RTWs battles, particularly in the context of keeping a campaign moving at a brisk pace, but they do often seem to miss the epic quality of some of STWs and MTWs battles. However, my hunch is that a lot of the problem is in the AI failing on the strategic map to get a reasonable force to counter the player's. The few times I've confronted full strength AI stacks with decent generals, the battles have been impressive if still brisker than in the earlier games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Um, . The few times I've confronted full strength AI stacks with decent generals, the battles have been impressive if still brisker than in the earlier games.

---

Fully agree, IMHO the main problem of the AI is the bad use of their generals, most of it's full stack armies are leaded by a capitan, meanwhile player armies are leaded by a 4 stars general at least.

It has two major effects, armies are cheap to bribe and their battle performance is to poor.

If AI used good generals to lead their armies. the game would be more challenging

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I think deployment matters more in RTW because combat is so quick

---

I disagree too. Whatever happened to the Rock-paper-scissor scheme?

Quote:

---

it is hard to pull off grand manouvres

---

That's because it was abandoned. That's what separated TW from other games in the first place. You can't do it because the units are meant to plow head-on. Why do you think they cranked up the speed in the first place?

Here's some of what's missing, from STW (minus expansion pack):
- Vicious fights for the Hill. Defending or attacking, the fight is always on the edge.
- Weather effects. Attack a province in a middle of a
a) Snowstorm/blizzard. The AI is hidden. Formation is always defensive.
b) Heavy rain. Most of the AI is hidden in the forrest and your arrows are considerably weakened. Occasional lightning can help. Trying to extricate a buried army is amazing. ( in RTW, you just plow right through).
- AI hides and divides its forces. You are constantly torn whether to divide your army.
- Limited access to army. You can't pump out units from many province or you'll go broke quickly.
- Routing and Rallying. It is practically impossible to do this since 100s of soldiers are wiped in a couple of seconds. In bridges, you just create a box, let the AI flow through and then charge. Literally, the whole army vaporizes.
- Ranged unit shootouts. Try charging arquebusiers with melee units and they will rout. Attack hidden archers without backup and your melee units will be decimated.
- Better battlemap. They kept talking about huge battlefields, yet you have this tiny area to maneuver in the final product.

Where are these TW hallmarks in RTW? I can let my collosal disappointment of MTW pass, after info on RTW was leaked out. Heck, I even bought VI since I was impressed with RTW.

I'll try out Imperial Glory if RTW is still a dog after the patch. CA seriously need a competition. Right now RTW is a Wargame/Arcade hybrid, it simply doesn't mix. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo

I am really soured on RTW given the broken features, idiotic AI, and bugs. The claims that the game is still playable is really laughable when you consider that archers can beat heavy cavalry in melee. I wish that I could be optimistic with the patch, but I think the speculation is overhyped and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Well, thats my opinion anyway.

I have rediscovered MTW and I can tell you that the MTW battle AI is vastly superior to RTW. It isn't perfect, but MTW is by a more finished product than RTW. With Mods such as BKB's Supermod, MTW was a far more moddable and enjoyable game than RTW.

My hope is that Slitherine's Legion 2 will salvage the Rome period and will be historically accurate and more challenging than RTW.

---

im doing that to......but patch is up so..... PLAY!!!! ~:cheers:

For me the biggest dissappointment in RTW is the lack of challenge. I haven't played STW, but when I began playing MTW it took quite a few battles and a lot of forum browsing to discover all the tricks and ways to beat the AI and even after that it was still quite difficult. It was fun, step by step I could face greater enemies with more confidence, but victory was NEVER certain! Now RTW is just plain boring in that aspect, the AI ALWAYS uses the absolute same tactic. It deploys in a long thin line and charges, thrilling, isn't it? In MTW the AI tried to manevour for higher ground or a better position, I remember trying hard to out manevour him.

I mean a battle in RTW where my army of 2300 beat an enemy of 3500 and I only suffer 37 casualties, that is not normal! Sure I could put it to VH and see my unit of heavy cav be cut down by archers, but that is just plain stupid, ahistorical and most importantly NOT FUN!

RTW has been made more appealing to the FPS crowd and thus it was seriously simplified, I mean the AI uses barbarian charge tactic for every army out there *sigh* Yes it does, I made a test where I gave the Parthian, horse archer heavy, army to the AI and it just charged it.

The second great dissappointment was the lack of historical accuracy. The Roman factions are portayed nicely, but when one looks at the barbarians :dizzy2: It doesn't really help if all barbarian factions have the same units which are named like in some very old games - I mean: swordsmen, chosen swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry, noble cavalry. It is like it used to be ten years ago, where you faced yellow enemies, blue enemies and red enemies and there was a boss that had the same skin but was black. *sigh*

And when we see some difference it is totally shocking...druids...head hurlers...:dizzy2:

The above really takes away from that feeling when you play the game, where you think who it is best to attack and you need to take into account casualties and the size of the enemy army. It was nicely pointed out that in RTW you just run over Europe with a vacuum cleaner, doesn't really matter who you attack, you will probably win, even if you don't use the cheesy bribe. ( Full stack for 8k anybody? )

actually in roman history there were several famous battles that ended with 50 to 300 roman casualties and 5,000 or so barbarians casualties
the thick line was the most common battle tactic ia ancient times
did you try to play as emperor (not general praetor or consul) ?

:book: ~:handball: