Which RTW to choose?

[Brandy Blue]

I am thinking about buying RTW, and I see three versions advertized:

Rome Total War Gold Edition

Rome Total War (by Sega, 2006)

Rome Total WAr (by Activision, 2004)

Can anyone please explain what the differences are between these? Thanks.

[Phoenix]

Rome Total War Gold Edition includes the Barbarian Invasion expansion pack and has the most recent patches included usually (some are only patched to 1.4). The only difference between the other 2 are dates published and patches included (I'm guessing the 2006 version would be patched to 1.2 or 1.3).

[Brandy Blue]

Thanks.

[SubRosa]

I would go for the most recent version of the game you can find, as it may not require patching that way. Beware RTW Gold in that some pressings of it shipped with RTW at 1.5, but BI at only 1.4. Installing BI would then roll back RTW to version 1.3, making it necessary for you to patch both back up to 1.5 and 1.6 respectively. I have one of those copies, and it sure came as surprise to me.

You might want to look at Total War Eras as well. It comes with RTW and all the expansions, as well as MTW and STW and all their expansions as well. They are all at the highest version levels so no patching for any is needed. They also ship in dvds, so you do not have to sit there change out multiple cds when you install them.

[peacemaker]

yeah, i got one with RTW 1.5 and BI 1.4

I would say Eras or the most up-to-date version, because there have been lots of complaints about RTW gold not being able to connect MP

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I would go for the most recent version of the game you can find, as it may not require patching that way. Beware RTW Gold in that some pressings of it shipped with RTW at 1.5, but BI at only 1.4. Installing BI would then roll back RTW to version 1.3, making it necessary for you to patch both back up to 1.5 and 1.6 respectively. I have one of those copies, and it sure came as surprise to me.

Just to say, that only applies to the dual CD-ROM version (by, I think, Activision) - not the single DVD-ROM edition (by SEGA).

You may also be interested, Brandy Blue, in the Rome Anthology (amazon.co.uk for UK users, amazon.com for US/international users). As well as containing fully patched R:TW and BI, it also contains the Alexander Expansion too.

As well as this, if you come across them, it is notable that the white label editions of the game are fully patched with nothing additional needed. They come in separate editions, although there also is a Gold Edition containing R:TW and BI.

[pevergreen]

There is a dual CD-ROM? Mine is spread over 3 CDs, and was purchased before 2006. Just to clear up any confusion.

[gollum]

The Anthology Omanes suggests is good especially if you want to try all expansions (2) of the game.

Otherwise i d choose Gold that comprises RTW/BI. BI is worth it at least as much as the original in my book. Alexander i wouldnt bother. The campaign is an exterminating rush fest. The historical battles campaign are more worth it especially if your pc runs the game smoothly in the higher settings.

Be aware that RTW is very different to MTW/XL that you seem fond of especially in the battlefield. The campaign game is more interesting and enhanced - the battles though are on a very fast pace and melee lasts really short. The battles play more as intended (they are more tactical) in the higher settings since melees are prolongued especially if you are using deep block infantry formations.

Cavalry rules badly and archers/horse archers are devastating.

Keep an eye on the fine selection of mods available and/or in learning some simple home modding in case you prefer vanilla to make your game more to your particular taste.

!it burnsus!

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

There is a dual CD-ROM? Mine is spread over 3 CDs, and was purchased before 2006. Just to clear up any confusion.

I was making a rather badly educated guess back there. I probably should have said multiple CD-ROMs since I had no idea quite how many disks there are in each version.

[gollum]

Not so bad of a guess - but it appllied to older games. STW was 2 CD-ROMS. Other types of games were multiple CD-ROMS - 5 or 6 - like say MYST and this type of thing. For every level/world you needed a different CD_ROM and ended up switching a lot in the pre DVD-ROM days - heh.

!it burnsus!

[Brandy Blue]

Thanks again for everyones' advice. I've taken the plunge and ordered the Gold version, so that's settled. I could not consider other versions suggested because I was buying with an amazon.com gift certificate, and had to pick from what was available second hand. I lack the money to buy anything else.

I take it for granted, Gollum, that modding will be necessary. Everyone has their own preferences. Is there a RTW equivalent to the MTW gnome editor, or am I on my own for modding? I will likely come back here after I have tried the game to ask advice about choosing a downloadable mod as well, but until then I won't know what I want in a mod anyway.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

R:TW is laid out in a more organized fashion rather than it being a rather hard to read jumble in ".txt" format so such an editor for many modifications are not needed. An explanation of what everything means in the units modding file can be found here.

If you would prefer to use a tool, however, there's always Caligula (units) and Hadrian (buildings).

[gollum]

The most important bit in my opinion is to mess about with the ground movement modifiers file. You ll see that most ground types have a value of 1.0 - this means that you assign 100% of unit movement to them.

This wont do as its responsible for the fast pace of the battles and it litterally takes fatigue out of the game (other than in snow fought battles as snowed ground has a 0.5 modifier).

Instead of 1.0, type in 0.725 on average (my preferrence). Most mods set it to about 0.875 - but they also increase defense and morale of units as well that prolongues melees - i am not so fond of this later part though as they make them so long that matching your units corrently means nothing - only flanking plays a part.

By reducing speeds to 0.725 you make the battles significantly more tactical (now the AI can use the further options he has like flanking since teh pace is not so fast that there is no time for it as in vanilla) and re-introduces fatigue into the game (cant run your foot troops or cavalry up and down all the time without caring about fatigue as in vanilla).

Other than fixing battle pace - this has the added benefit of reducing cavalry charge impact (since RTW has mass as a parameter and so momentum). With less speed prior to hit - cavalry charge is more realistic - it doesnt send men flying into the air with only 2 meters of galloping as it happens in vanilla.

Another important bit is cavalry unit strength; this by default in normal settings stands at 27 men. Considering that melee units other than phalanxes (that work differently) is 40 gives you a ratio of 27/40. While this is close to the MTW ratio of cavalry/infantry - considering the power of cavalry in the game its rather high. Lowering it to say 17/40 - that is make cavalry units 17 men in default should help. Otherwise you should meddle with cavalry stats (lower their attack and maybe their defence). For bodyguards make strength 5 (they will be 6 in the field plus the general) for newby generals and will grow in number depending in rank, command stars, influence etc as they normally do. One word of caution - be aware that elephant/chariot unit strength is better left untouched as it has frequently caused CTDs for me - lower the stats instead.

Chariots and elephants are bulldozers - notice the attack stat of the vehicle/animal and you ll see why. It needs considerable nerfing to make them play close to something that does not echo teh word *overpowered*.

Last but not least you need to meddle with bow missile power. Javelins are ok, in fact historically they should be the significant missile units of the era - but archers are simply unrealistically devastating and horse archers the most boring units to play with - they are cheap to recruit, cheap to maintain (and so can be have in great numbers), close to impossible to catch, they can shoot on the move and can beat anything if used en masse. You can get heroic victory after victory by simply switching on and off the skirmish button while drinking your coffee - the most boring thing in the world.

The same goes for foot archer units - certain of which (pharaos bowmen in RTW, eastern archers in BI) are again like cheat units - they outrange all others and are devastating. Their missile attack values need nerfing.

My take is to reduce the missile attack to something around 6 (realism mods make it 5 but thats too low i find) and standardise the range mostly with small exceptions. Also reduce the ammo somewhat.

A further word can be said about trainable siege engines - they turn field battles into dice throw. Consider removing them altogether other than infantry targeting ones like the scorpions (as many mods do).

Dogs, Arcani and the like units can be left out and especially the incediary pigs that the AI builds as he thinks they were some kind of elite cavalry unit.

All this can be done from the unit file and building files that are as in MTW the most important ones.

Omane s links are very helpful - as he says the RTW txts are much more clearly organised than the MTW txts - its easy enough to jump straight to home modding after reading the file key at the top of the file - especially if you are not after aesthetic touches like adding unit skins, colours, new factions etc.

have fun

!it burnsus!

[Vulg]

I own the RTW on 3 CDs, BI on 1 CD.

I recently saw all 3 including Alexander in one box in DVD version. So bought that to save space about £19 in the UK.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Very interesting post gollum

Just to add to that, one thing that you may be interested in BB is in increasing unit hit points. I had no idea about texture slowing down (as in I had no idea it existed). When I first started having a mess around I did a "Find and Replace" hunt through the file. I can't remember exactly what I put in, but I trebled all unit hit points excluding those of units which had two already (I just gave them three like everybody else). This slowed down fighting speed (as in the rate of unit death) to pretty much a third of what it was before. I'm not sure if the modification of terrain speeds has the same effect or whether it just effects the rate at which everything walks/runs at. I'm fairly happy with those speeds anyhow, however.

As well as this, I did a total review of unit attack/armour strength. I set an average attack of I think seven (for infantry/cavalry) and, from there, limited myself to allowing the strength to be two points either side of that. Armour was more based on how the unit looked, but I did try to make the levels closer to each other than they were prior to the modification.

This did lead to a more balanced battle where strategy rather than the unit strength was much more important. If played on harder difficulty levels, giving the AI a bit of a statistical advantage, then battles certainly are also more challenging.

[gollum]

Thanks for the compliment

I can't remember exactly what I put in, but I trebled all unit hit points excluding those of units which had two already (I just gave them three like everybody else). This slowed down fighting speed (as in the rate of unit death) to pretty much a third of what it was before. I'm not sure if the modification of terrain speeds has the same effect or whether it just effects the rate at which everything walks/runs at. I'm fairly happy with those speeds anyhow, however.

What you have done would indeed slow the time melee takes to resolve (as men need to take 2 hits (over defence) to die instead of one) - yet again as the higher morale and higher defence approach it eliminates match ups - in essence battle lines lock for ages even if you match up swords against spears. This is somewhat off for me as i said above as match ups become insignificant - flanking is then the only deciding factor. BTW the TW AI does match ups better than anything else so you are taking away some of the challenge and potential this way. All this of course is a matter of taste - and mine is a bit oldschool - STW oriented in terms of gameplay.

The effect of the modifiers as i wrote is to reduce walking/running/charging speeds - take away some of the cavalry charge punch of vanilla and in essence enable better control of units while engaging that is in the heat of the battle. The way you ve done it things are less interesting before and while engaging (maneuvering to position) and more after (maneuvering to envelop/flank). Match ups being irrelevant means that you get plenty of time to flank even if you engage wrong - match ups being significant means that if you engage wrongly (swords against cavalry, spears against swords cavalry against spears) then your battle line pulverises before you can flank.

Lowering the movement modifiers also reintroduces fatigue as an importnant factor - extra hit points with 1.0 terrain modifier do nothing about it - but with 0.7-0.8 modifier you have to think when to run and preserve stamina of units - in other words running around at full speed and double click ferociously as in vanilla can actually become your undoing. I doubt that this will appeal to SP RTW regulars though since the vanilla game is notorious for the lack of significance in terms of fatigue. It s more likely to appeal to exMTW TW players like BB though.

Another interesting take is to reduce the range at witch foot units charge - in vanilla cavalry and infantry have the same ramge (30 or 40 m IIRC) and this results in the silly AI behaviour of foot units spreading to charge all the time as they are *activated* to charge by the distance. By reducing this for infantry to 20 or 15 metres they behave a bit more prudently.

EDIT;

As well as this, I did a total review of unit attack/armour strength. I set an average attack of I think seven (for infantry/cavalry) and, from there, limited myself to allowing the strength to be two points either side of that. Armour was more based on how the unit looked, but I did try to make the levels closer to each other than they were prior to the modification.

Forgot to mention that this approach of yours is very good in my opinion.

!it burnsus!