Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Savior of Peasant Phill Member Silver Rusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Get off mah propertay!
    Posts
    2,072

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Aww, c'mon, each province has about two cities and you can build forts wherever you like. And with 225+ provinces in the game (compared to the some 99 in MTW) that amounts to one hell of a lot of towns. And if you don't like that cos of micromanagement, then you can give it to your generals to look after. Trust me, don't doubt Rome. It has all your needs except for mp campaign, which I really really want.
    THE GODFATHER, PART 2
    The Thread

  2. #2

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Another point against a larger number of cities - apologies if it has been made already - is that it could a late game a positively painful firefighting exercise as troops have to be moved betwen cities in double-quick time.

  3. #3
    Member Member d6veteran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA.
    Posts
    140

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    I don't know guys ... 100+ cities seems plenty to me. Maybe you are forgetting about the forts you can build?

    Historically speaking there really wasn't a large number of notable cities in the ancient world. When I read about the Roman campaigns in Briton and Gaul; I get the impression that the number of cities that hold more tactical signifigance than a legionnairy fort are few and far between. Same goes for cites with a significant amount of commerce.

    So my answer is no, I'm not dissapointed by the number of cities.

    Also, this is definitely one issue that I don't think can be effectively debated until the game is played. The demo did reveal some issues with the battle map, but none of us has played the strat game yet. By all accounts the strat map is very different from the STW and MTW and the ancient world does not map to the fuedal world very well at all. Give the strat map some legs before making you argument I say.
    Jacta alea est!

  4. #4
    Lord of the Kanto Senior Member ToranagaSama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,465

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Wow, I thought I had read somewhere that cities could be founded. Guess I'm wrong.

    I'm less than 20 turns into a new campaign, and under the impression one could found cities, I put a couple of units along with a Peasant unit (thought you needed peasants to found) onto a boat and sent them over to the Spanish pennisula.

    There's a nice spot just over the Pyrnees (sp? is that the right mountain range?), with some tradeable goods and a fishing village. The interesting part about founding a city is choosing a good location.

    I choose a spot near enough to the fishing village, with a small mountain range to the rear and a meandering river to the front. The river creates a narrow gap to the north and south, the only approaches to the city. I thought this a VERY defensible location.

    I couldn't figure out how to make the units found the city, looked through the manual and found nothing (surprise!!!), and then came to the Org and did a search.

    Toooo bad....

    It's early in the game, and if I could found and develop a city at this location while I'm at Peace with the Gauls and Spaniards, it would serve as a good base for expansion.

    Sigh!

    Fantastic thread. I'm not sure I want *more* cities placed into the game, but the capability to develop new cities would be facinating. I like all of the other suggestions of the original poster!!!!

    I don't wish for ANY more Sieges/Taking of Cities than there already are in the game. In fact, I think Rome: Tota War could be changed to "Siege: Total War"!!! ;)

    As far as Battle Engine development vs Campaign development:

    IMUHO, the battle engine is STILL hands down the best thing going. Not much about the mechanics need improvement (save the RTW interface!!). There are two areas that would really take the Battle Engine to the next level:

    1) An AI, without gettting into any specifics, simply a more *intelligent* and challeging AI. Something that would be a STEP FORWARD in technology.

    2) MODABILITY. The capability to Mod the AI is something that's *sorely* missing. Not simply, as we have now, the capability to mode certain aspects and elements that effect the AI, but the capability to Mod the AI itself. Tailor it to specific tastes and aims.

    Lastly, I support the continued *Civilizationing* of the Campaign/Strategic area of Total War. The true accomplishment of Total War is that it brings true STRATEGIC value to, as well as, EXCELLENT *Tactical* elements, to Battles; without which TW would just be another RTS game with little to no, actual, *strategy*.

    I'm a Strategy Gamer, first and foremost.

    What would be really great would be a collaboration between The Creative Assembly and Sid Meir. Sid Meir is the genius of strategy gaming and CA has the technology, what a wonderful marriage this would make!!
    Last edited by ToranagaSama; 10-10-2004 at 18:28.
    In Victory and Defeat there is much honor
    For valor is a gift And those who posses it
    Never know for certain They will have it
    When the next test comes....


    The next test is the MedMod 3.14; strive with honor.
    Graphics files and Text files
    Load Graphics 1st, Texts 2nd.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    I never had any problems with Medieval's late game, because I never play that long. The fun part is building up your provences civ-style. I usually have a blast playing up untill about the invention of gunpowder, and then start a new game. I also advance slowly and always consolidate my gains, making conquests last longer, and the game not too easy. I find that playing slowly makes it both more challenging, and more fun. Of course "slowly" is a word unheard of in RTW...


    Considering how you have to micromanage every damn city in Rome because the heavy handed squalor rate, more cities would be a nightmare. In Rome, expanding is a pain, because you know you are going to get more damn people in your empire, who naturally hate you.
    "Sit now there, and look out upon the lands where evil and despair shall come to those whom thou lovest. Thou hast dared to mock me, and to question the power of Melkor, master of the fates of Arda. Therefore with my eyes thou shalt see, and with my ears thou shalt hear; and never shall thou move from this place until all is fulfilled unto its bitter end". -Tolkien

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO