Confession time

[King Kurt]

As many of you will know, I have been an ardent MTW player and contibuter to these boards for some time. Just recently I have had to replace my PC at home and a consequence of the upgrade is that I can't play MTW on the new machine. Now, like many others on this forum I have held a slight disdain for RTW - seemed like a flashy up-start and so many people said that it was flawed etc etc etc. But as I couldn't play MTW any more, I thought I would give it a go ( My previous machine was not up to it)

So I went down the local Game shop and brought the 3 in 1 version - RTW + BI + Alex - loaded it up - well RTW only at the moment - and gave it a go - expecting to be a bit disappointed.....only to be really surpised!!

I haven't played a lot, but the game seems to have a lot more in it - more subtlety in the strategic movement, more diplomatic posabilities, no mega naval moves moving units from Norway to the Holy Land in an blink of an eye. The game has a lot of roots in MTW so an old hand can get stuck in quickly, but enough differences to make things interesting. It obviously looks very nice and the few battles I have fought produced no major surprises.

So I suppose my question is - where are the areas of contention?? what causes so many people to be so dissmissive of it?? I shall miss playing MTW - I expect to get back to it eventually as our old machine has been passed on to our 10 year old son but is in need of a monitor - but I see at least a couple of years of interesting gaming to be had with RTW and its add ons etc, let alone mods.

What do people think??

[Sabinus]

I honour you for your honesty, may you be glad of wonderful, fruitful years of Rome fever you shall receive. May you end your days a contented hammer.

[Jxrc]

I have not played RTW that much (something like four campaigns) and it was a while ago (only played the vanilla version) but as far as I can remember the main negative points were:

a. Strategic map
- AI can fundamentally not manage it and it's difficult to make sense of some AI move;
- micro-managing assassins, diplomats, etc takes even more time than in MTW
- AI cannot cope if you send assassin on sabotage mission
- too many meaningless skirmishes against bandits and orther faction (nice wy to get new generals but tedious after a while)
- almost impossible to keep track of too many v&v
b. battle map
- AI very stupid (quite a few times it will stay idle while you are peppering its troops with javelin and arrows)
- sieges are a big joke due to AI incompetence

as far as I remember I lost one battle in four campaign and that was the first time I had to deal with the celts and their chariots (as a matter of fact they pretty dealt with me on that occasion cause that was one of my most crushing defeat ending up wondering WTF had happened long after the very short fight has ended)

Not saying there is no fun possible with RTW or that MTW is just perfect but just enjoy MTW a lot more

[I of the Storm]

It isn't as bad a game as everybody is describing it. Especially the vanilla version of RTW with the civil war can be fun, as long as noone expects realism or historical accuracy.

AI can fundamentally not manage it and it's difficult to make sense of some AI move;

I don't know, I've seen the AI handle mountain passes and bridges quite well, and with BI.exe most of the times they know how to invade your hinterland by sea with decent stacks.

AI cannot cope if you send assassin on sabotage mission

Well, the assassin can fail, and at least there are sabotage missions, no?

too many meaningless skirmishes against bandits and orther faction (nice wy to get new generals but tedious after a while)

Agreed. Those rebels are quite annoying. I always make them turn up very rarely in the files.

- almost impossible to keep track of too many v&v

Agreed. There is an enormous amount of them compared to MTW and not even a few seem to be redundant.

- AI very stupid (quite a few times it will stay idle while you are peppering its troops with javelin and arrows)

Agreed again, although I notice this mostly with enemy captain-led armies. What's more annoying to me is the fact, that the battles are to quick, units morale breaks too fast in vanilla RTW.

- sieges are a big joke due to AI incompetence

Depends, I mean the AI does the best it can, i.e. creating as many "holes" where to enter as possible. The human brain just happens to be able to prepare better for such a situation. MTW1 sieges aren't exactly breathtaking either...

[macsen rufus]

I give it three months - that's how long the "ooh, pretty" glitz took to wear off on me, after trying RTW & BI. It dawned on me eventually that I was pretty much fighting the same battle every time, and I really yearned for the old MTW days. I rolled back my video drivers for the older games and haven't taken RTW out of the box since. One day I will, just to try EB, but till then I'd rather have MTW and STW than RTW. But, hey, that's me - your tastes may be different

[Sabinus]

Macsen has hit the nail on the head there, each to their own. Everybody has their own oppinion on everything.

What is v&v?

[I of the Storm]

vices and virtues

[Raz]

I play MTW and RTW (and played M2TW). I enjoy playing MTW more so than RTW because of it's gameplay, simply. RTW has nice graphics, pleasing to the eye and what not. With graphics tuned right up, it is like candy to your eyes (obviously with less FPS though (It's amazing how much grass can lag you PC )). But MTW has that distinct edge to it that I can't put my finger on. To keep this short, I find that RTW has a slower CampMap, and repetitive battles (Not nearly as repetitive as M2TW ). Something very trivial that really does get on my nerves with RTW is how slow it is to end your turn. Especially when there're plenty of factions and you've got to wait for every one of them to take their turn. MTW is really quick when loading the next turn - Thus keeps me interested longer.

After thinking about it, I realise that MTW has more of that roleplaying portion that is lacking so much in RTW. Rather than saying "One of your heirs has now matured" in MTW, it now says "An heir to your leader has now matured" in RTW or something along those lines. Something very trivial and ever so tiny, it's got the same meaning, it gets the same point across, but it doesn't make me feel like I am the leader of this faction, it just makes me feel like I'm controlling the leader of the faction (like more as a step above the leader rather than actually being the leader).

[Timsup2nothin]

Now for a different point of view...

A few months back some computer mag posted a list of what their editors called 'the best 25 PC games of all time'. To keep their list from filling up they only allowed one entry from a series, and picked what they said was the 'best representative'.

Being an old timer, and a very game centered guy I had owned and played 24 out of their 25. Much to my surprise their number six pick was an alien to me. Somehow I had never discovered Total War. Their representative choice, btw, was Rome.

Me being me I did some quick research and ordered 'Eras'. I had some other things going and it took a month or two before I loaded up Shogun. What a great game!

After being very satisfied with Shogun through a lot of failures and one success, and without exploring the numerous alternatives of starting time or even all the factions, I loaded up Medieval. Much to my surprise I was immediately so impressed that I loaned Shogun to my son.

Now I've loaded up Rome, and it has dominated my playing time for a week or so. In no way whatsoever did it make Medieval obsolete for me. There are great things about it, but there are some steps backwards too. I can't really say which one is more likely to provide more TW binges in the future. Truthfully, there will likely be some Shogun binging down the line too.

So, from someone who 'discovered' MTW and RTW at about the same time, it's pretty much a dead heat.

[Martok]

So, from someone who 'discovered' MTW and RTW at about the same time, it's pretty much a dead heat.

Which is totally fine; I completely respect those who enjoy Rome as much or more than Shogun/Medieval. I just (admittedly) can't quite understand why.

Actually, no that's not really true. I do understand the game's appeal -- the upgraded graphics, the city management, the new traits/ancillary system, the period setting (which I suspect is probably the biggest reason for its appeal), etc. -- it just doesn't appeal to *me* personally.

For me, RTW is like a woman that intellectually I know is good-looking, but I'm not actually attracted to.

[Timsup2nothin]

Upgraded graphics...not my thing, really.
Period setting...I'm old, but both Rome and the dark ages were well before my time so pretty even on that.

But...the city management, more complex trait system, and strategic positioning on the strategic map...those are winning points with me for Rome.

I explained it to my son like this:

If I was setting every battle to auto-resolve and strictly playing a TBS game, Rome wins, hands down...BUT, and it's obviously a big but, I never auto-resolve even the most lop-sided silly battles, and the real time tactical game in MTW is way superior. Hence he can't have either one, and by the way I want my Shogun disk back pretty soon.

[Raz]

For me, RTW is like a woman that intellectually I know is good-looking, but I'm not actually attracted to.

Eh, that analogy again?

[I of the Storm]

Eh, that analogy again?

it seems to be a famous one among all these old men...

[bondovic]

(It's amazing how much grass can lag you PC )

Then don't smoke it so close to the processor.