So whats the .org verdict on RTW?

[frogbeastegg]

RTW has bugs, and some design decisions I am none too fond of. The entire Egyptian faction is such a mess I pretend they don't exist and overall accuracy can get very screwy. There are things in there which irritate me like crazy, things which sadly can't be turned off. MP is terrible. The path finding in big cities is so bad I refuse to fight siege battles if there are stone walls or better present. Some things are counter-intuitive. Most of the voice acting is poor, and the worst instances are unfortunately the lines you hear the most often. The game has had me swearing at the screen several times because of these issues.

I have never played RTW for fun, even my beginner's bumblings were research for my guide. Every single thing I have done in the game has been to research or to test, never just for the heck of it or because I think it could be fun.

BUT, all this said, I have enjoyed myself. The game has produced some memorable moments, some laugh out loud moments, some "Did that really just happen? Wow!" moments. I have never played it for fun, but I have had fun with most of my research. RTW is miles ahead of MTW in my books because I never found MTW to be fun; I found I was only ever only anticipating of getting good units (i.e. the feudal line of units instead of vanilla spearmen), then once I had them I was bored with nothing to do except easy battles against peasant hordes. It took me a long time to realise that I didn’t like MTW; a long time and two guides, but once I did I saw that I never really liked the game in the first place, with the sole exception of the Viking campaign.

I am expecting quite a lot from the next patch, and I see plenty of potential for modding, but as it stands now RTW is fun.

[Sp00n]

I like Rome SP true its very buugy buts its a big improvement on Rome, unfortunately Ive traded my copy in as after completing the campaign twice, I really bought it for MP and sorry but the MP is an appalling mess.

CA didnt take into account the MP side of the game at all, its such a mess I think my Nan programmed it.

Im now hoping that the patch will sort out the MP game if not my hopes are resting on Imperial Glory which looks like the first real attempt to copy a CA style of game, hopefully the first of many as lets face we have never had anything to compare Totalwar games to, they are different to anythingelse.

New players to the series will love Rome old players may not, but it is a very good game SP, just dont buy for any kind of decent MP experience just yet.

Sp00n

[Magraev]

I'd put myself in the 2) category above. And I quite like this game.

There is a definite need for a patch (or mod) to correct the flaws in the game (mainly faulty unit stats, fast run-speed, general suicides, stamina bug and too fast kill-speed). On top of this the campaign map AI needs improving (too many small armies). I also think archers are too powerful in the game, most battles against the ai at least could be won with mainly archer units an a couple cavalry to screen - no need for infantry at all

I'd like the game to facilitate a precise replay of history - it doesn't now. Syracuse will not remain greek as long as it should (I believe irl it lasted until 231 bc or 80 turns). Carthage is a joke and no challenge, ever. Egypt is too strong. I believe the early roman units are way too cheap. Until the Marian reforms they couldn't field those huge armies that made the empire possible.

Well gripe, gripe, gripe. But it's still a great game - so get a new computer and THEN get the game.

[Paul Peru]

Coming from a fully patched'n'modded MTW to vanilla RTW is heaven and hell.
It's like going out with Jennifer Lopez... (how would I know?)

By the time it's got patched to 2.1, with the Alexandrian invation add-on (or whatever) and the level of quality mods currently seen for MTW, it will be pure bliss (or so I hope), and you'll probably have a new computer

[Dark_Magician]

Estimation based on subjective "number of features", singleplayer

1. "Turn-based-" Strategy

As god as the king of the genre, Civilization, except some features missing like creating cities and manually discovering technologies. This is not necessary in RTW though, as Civ goes for 2000 years and RTW only like 250. Historically as much "real" as CIV - if the were separate award for "realism" RTW would be among the top 3 competitors

2. "Real-time-strategy"

This is actually tactical side, but since Dune and AOE it is called RTS

Allows everything except growing cities on-line. Number of units is enormous, different terrain, cities etc. Has unique morale feature, adding to realism. Beats AOE etc.

3. Castle assaulting/defending - something as own genre, but frequently a part of 2

At least as good as the king of this, Stronghold, having even some features that SH does not have. The cities look more live in SH though with lots of details like appletrees etc.

4. Visual wonders.

Well. Probably beats Doom3 :). If you downscale it to make possible to show like 2000 "monsters" on screen they will surely look such crap that RTW will own it completely.

5. Features of "artificial intelligency"

Only one thing where you could name a number of games with better AI, such as MTW, for example.

Conclusion:

My best in 3 categories ever seen on screen: strategy sim, tactic sim, eyecandy.

One category though average - the AI

[Servius]

just a small thought on the manual, if Activision vetoed a fuller version, why not put the big version online (webpage, pdf, etc.)? I mean, there's a cost to host it, but we have private players here hosting huge mods, so I don't feel a big corp couldn't affort to host a true guide. Personally I think the profit sharing involved with the Prima guide had more to do with it than the size of the box.

[CBR]

Yes I do remember the bit about fewer but more important battles. In the very early part of the campaign that might be true but after that I find myself fighting lots of battles.

The idea about city population limiting unit production is really only there for the tiny villages as you can spit out units from larger cities. I had a dream that would be limiting the number of units a bit but it has no real effect.

Although I never really bothered with MTW SP maybe the 3 hour long battles in MTW were more epic heh


CBR

[Didz]

just a small thought on the manual, if Activision vetoed a fuller version, why not put the big version online (webpage, pdf, etc.)? I mean, there's a cost to host it, but we have private players here hosting huge mods, so I don't feel a big corp couldn't affort to host a true guide. Personally I think the profit sharing involved with the Prima guide had more to do with it than the size of the box.

The Prima Guide is crap as I have said elsewhere.

187 pages of which:

111 are dumbed down unit and building stats that contain less information than is available from the game itself.

The strategy map is such a small scale and so poorly printed thats its totally useless and illegible.

And the 45 so called guidance pages contain nothing which is not already obvious from the game manual.

Its a complete rip-off and I am serious thinking of taking it back.

If someone publishes a decent strategy guide I would be interested but this Prima thing is just a con-trick to get people to part with more money.

[Slyspy]

My only disappointment is that despite the graphics and the new strat/tact integration very little has changed compared to STW and MTW.

The AI is just poor and no improvement over MTW. It still sits there being shot to ribbons. It still (more often in fact) sends its generals in suicide attacks making the battles even easier. It still cannot use its navy properly. It seems less likely to build up large powerful stacks preferring many small insigificant armies (except maybe the Roman factions). All too often its Generals wander around by themselves. Friendly fire is now a large problem because your units no longer stop firing when the target isn't clear. They did in the previous games unless you had ordered them to fire. Pathfinding is poor, especially in cities. AI defenders in a siege, especially of low level settlements, will wander around aimless tiring themselves out while getting shot to pieces by your archers. It seems unwilling to wait for its reinforcements, prefering to attck piecemeal even at impossible odds. Even with the standard "AI gets near infinite resources" style "difficulty" settngs it presents little challenge.

On sieges your archers can shoot through/over walls to hit defenders on the ground below, but cannot fire over your own troops without killing a load.

Killing speed I have no problem with, but seeing those phalanxs sprint so quickly and still maintain formation, for example, is crazy. Infantry move speed should be decreased or fatigue increased for running.

Not sure about the "Civilisation" aspect to the strat map. I played those games to death and am now thoughly sick of them so no doubt this colours my judgement.

The voice acting is terrible! The worst has to be the guy shouting about your victory at the end of a battle. Sounds like the teenage guys in the Simpsons whose voice is just breaking. Others sound a bit like Barney.

Music is bland. I expected a dramatic sound, befitting the subject, or something atmospheric like the previous games. Instead we have fairly standard "Civilisation" style tunes with no panache or style.

Wish we could cut down the audio feedback on the strat map.

On the plus side:

I do like the interaction between the strategy and tactical components, but haven't been ambushed yet.

Soldiers suffer fatigue very quickly on steep hills.

In true historical fashion most deaths occur once one side has routed. So there is some realism.

Sieges are a great touch. Now just get the AI to fight them properly.

The graphics a pretty swish, especially the detailed animations.

The bugs are relatively minor and can be generally sorted with drivers and patches.

The dynastic nature of the game is interesting, and the V&V and retinues are fun. Not sure whether they all work though.

The sound effect are good in the tactical battles.

The Senate is well implemented I think.

The speeches can be amusing.

I no longer have to wait ages when pressing ESC to save, load or quit.

I can see how newbies would find it easy to pick up, just wish there were more variables to change for us veterans.

It is fun, but the replay value for me at least is, as it stands, likely to be minimal.

I never much cared for MP with MTW (too amny uber-units etc) though I did enjoy the odd STW match. Shame really since I now have broadband! Anyway I'm not really able to judge that aspect. I know alot of folks are unhappy with it.

To conclude:

Its OK. Not a huge leap over MTW in much other than graphics. If your computer cannot handle it then don't stress about it IMO. I would just be happy if it had an AI that was worth a damn.

[Doug-Thompson]

Personally I think the profit sharing involved with the Prima guide had more to do with it than the size of the box.

That's a cynical thought. Probably right, too.

[David]

I think its a good game, with some issues. But i dont feel as addicted as with MTW. Ya know, with MTW I planned my entire day so i could play as much as possible. Now its more like, i have nothing to do lets play some RTW.

Still a good game though.

[Jugurtha]

Hmmm, seeing the number of posts you've got I think you probably know what the TW games are about.

This one is no exception. It isn't a military simulator so the AI can do strange things by human standards. But then again, IBM and all its resources are only just getting round to building computers that can beat humans at chess. I don't think you can expect too much from the AI in a game. Having said that, and despite all the "I palyed the game on VH/VH and beat the campaign in 20 turns, using only one unit of peasants" that goes on around here (who and why bothers?) it can provide a challenge. The stacks that you meet are larger and better composed than those in MTW - I haven't seen any significant numbers of peasants. The movement speed and kill speeds are areas some people have issues with, I don't. I was for ever speeding up previous TW games. But that's just me. CA, in their wisdom, have made the game moddable and if these things get to you you can download any number of mods to deal with this or the naval combat, historical "realism", kill speeds, unit speeds or anything you like.

In the meantime the strategic map play is much improved and immediate,

If you liked the previous games get this one there is no reason not to.

[TinCow]

The game rocks. Some people like the changes in speed and killing time in the battles, some don't. If you don't like it you can easily mod it to be how you like it. The few bugs that do exist will be fixed shortly and you can make the game pretty much play however you want it to.

If you're a total war fan, buy it. If you're not a total war fan, buy it.

[NagaoKagetora]

RTW is a good game but overall a let down for me.

As already mentioned, there have been lots of improvements but also quite a few steps backwards which just leave me feeling ... well annoyed.

SP - fun allowing for the speed changes, dumb AI and b0rked command and control.
MP - I have only played a couple of times and I have enjoyed it, but it has far too many show stoppers. And this is the biggest problem for me. Single player is all well and good but it never compares to playing against human opposition. I will only want to pound on AI for so long and then this game is going to end up gathering dust in my collection im afraid. MP should be a vehicle to keep the game alive and with continued support should bring in more sales.....something which the developers seem to have forgotten about/left by the wayside with this release.

I will probably not purchase any more Total War games.

[Zatoichi]

Well, I like it! When you get your shiny new PC, RTW should definitely be one of your first purchases. I've played all the TW games, and this is just as much fun if not more so as any of the others have been straight out of the box. I can't comment on MP as I don't indulge in that side of things, but the SP game is great. Admitedly, I'm using the speed and kill rate reductions, but that's my personal preference - it seems the community is still split on that one. Anyway, it's well worth forking out £700 for a new PC for in my opinion...

[Spino]

Hmmm, seeing the number of posts you've got I think you probably know what the TW games are about.

This one is no exception. It isn't a military simulator so the AI can do strange things by human standards. But then again, IBM and all its resources are only just getting round to building computers that can beat humans at chess. I don't think you can expect too much from the AI in a game. Having said that, and despite all the "I palyed the game on VH/VH and beat the campaign in 20 turns, using only one unit of peasants" that goes on around here (who and why bothers?) it can provide a challenge. The stacks that you meet are larger and better composed than those in MTW - I haven't seen any significant numbers of peasants. The movement speed and kill speeds are areas some people have issues with, I don't. I was for ever speeding up previous TW games. But that's just me. CA, in their wisdom, have made the game moddable and if these things get to you you can download any number of mods to deal with this or the naval combat, historical "realism", kill speeds, unit speeds or anything you like.

In the meantime the strategic map play is much improved and immediate,

If you liked the previous games get this one there is no reason not to.

I agree with most of your points but those of us who are making reasonable complaints about the AI simply want a more sensible AI opponent. Rome's strategic and tactical AI, while generally superior to Medieval's, seems to be worse in some ways and equally inept in others. Watching a unit of phalangites or hoplites separate from the main body in order to 'chase' a unit of horse archers all over creation still leaves me in shock as to the stupidity and futility of such an action. We also realize creating an electronic version of Napoleon or Rommel is far beyond the scope of most programmers and even if such an AI opponent could be created the CPU requirements needed to drive such an engine would easily exceed the abilities of the average gamer's CPU.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for an AI opponent that is the embodiment of tactical/strategic genius in every instance nor do I desire to face an AI that is 100% predictable. However, having an AI opponent that gets the basics right more often than not would be a real treat.

[Slyspy]

Hear him, hear him!

Quite right. Most people are fully aware that the AI is not going to be the advanced. However it should at least follow the basic logic of its own game. For example the scissors/paper/stone system. It should be able to react when it comes under overwhelming fire. It should know what unit is capable of doing what and, to take the above example, that while phalanxs can kill cavalry its still a bad idea to chase after them! It should know to wait for reinforcements when out numbered, or to find a defensive position and above all it should know that the General should not be the first one into the fray! Like Spino said, a sensible AI routine. Not a brilliant one, but one which follows RTWs own internal logic.

[hoom]

IBM and all its resources are only just getting round to building computers that can beat humans at chess

Not true at all.
Making an AI that can beat mere humans at chess is not that hard.
Making an AI that can reliably beat Kasparov, probably the greatest chess player ever, that is an entirely different thing.

The Rome AI is definitely something that needs work though

[Didz]

Making an AI that can beat mere humans at chess is not that hard.

Producing an AI that can beat a human, even a master, at chess is easy compared to producing an AI that can play a strategy game well enough to beat a human.

By comparison with RTW chess is a simple game. The board is of fixed dimensions and featureless and the pieces are of fixed number and value with rigidly controlled patterns of movement. When two pieces collide the result is pre-determined and none of the elements are subject to unforseen risks such as morale or surprise. Everything is perfectly visible and quantifiable thus the value of every move can be mathematically calculated in advance.

The AI for RTW has no such certainties and that has been the problem that so far has defeated every attempt at producing a decent result. Unlike the chess AI which can calculate the mathematically best move from scratch every turn a wargame or strategy game AI needs the ability to learn from its mistakes in order to predict future outcomes. So, far nobody has managed to produce a commercial AI that actually imporves its game based upon its past errors. If they did then the computer would stop sending units to die needlessly under the walls of our cities and try different approaches until it found one that worked. Just as we do.

[Akka]

Additionnally, the chess AI has only one movement a turn by each side, unlike the hundred of moving units in the strategic map for each side, and the tens of simultaneously moving units on the battlefield.

And remember that a chess AI also have libraries of games, and "standard" openings/moves, and that it takes quite a lot of time to play a single turn (involving a single movement of a single piece on a very limited area with very simple rules and no random effect), while it has to do all in real-time on RTW (with many sides, many movement on each sides, a HUGE area, and MANY random effects)....

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Guilty

[Belenus]

I agree with most of your points but those of us who are making reasonable complaints about the AI simply want a more sensible AI opponent. Rome's strategic and tactical AI, while generally superior to Medieval's, seems to be worse in some ways and equally inept in others. Watching a unit of phalangites or hoplites separate from the main body in order to 'chase' a unit of horse archers all over creation still leaves me in shock as to the stupidity and futility of such an action. We also realize creating an electronic version of Napoleon or Rommel is far beyond the scope of most programmers and even if such an AI opponent could be created the CPU requirements needed to drive such an engine would easily exceed the abilities of the average gamer's CPU.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for an AI opponent that is the embodiment of tactical/strategic genius in every instance nor do I desire to face an AI that is 100% predictable. However, having an AI opponent that gets the basics right more often than not would be a real treat.

I agree. I remember reading at TWC that thet Brutii in one guy's game had about five or six full stacks in one province and they hadn't moved them all game. Now that just isn't right, in MTW if the AI had that many stacks they would be halfway across the map in a few turns.

[Midnj]

MP is atrocious and probably is not something that can be fixed to an acceptable level because many of the problems are integral to the single player game too and not really problems there, so the odds that CA will address them are about nil. They will cater to the money, can't really blame them for that, but I am dissapointed they put multiplayer in when it's so broken.

They should just take "multiplayer support" off the box, because it's a complete distortion. I felt so strongly misled that I returned my copy of RTW and downloaded a uh, "backup" copy. I'm not playing it of course, because that would be illegal.

[Bhruic]

Likes:

- the map is nicely constructed, giving a grand sense of scale
- the factions are nicely varied
- the fog of war works well

Dislikes:

- battle AI is extremely hopeless, not to mention hamstrung. For example, if you decide to sally from a besieged city, and the AI has not constructed any siege equipment, the AI will not try and take the city. So the only way the AI has of winning is if you, as the player, decide to attack all-out, and lose all your units. Which is extremely unlikely, as the AI seems to love to walk into tower range, and just stand there while towers completely whittle away all of their troops. Now I'm not asking for a genius AI, but when the AI cannot get to any of your troops, and it is standing there under fire, would it be too much to ask for it to freakin' move out of the way?
- city focus is too extreme. Almost all of my combats take place either attacking or defending a city. It's a bit of the reverse of the MTW system. A happy medium would be ideal
- unit imbalance is annoying, I find myself playing the factions with good cav or cav archers, as they win the day. As others have said, RTW should have more of a focus on infantry

Personally, I'd recommend waiting for the next patch to come out before buying the game. Although you may enjoy some of the aspects of the game now, if they can fix some of the more severe outstanding issues, it will be that much better. This game deserves to put its best foot forward, and I'm not sure it's doing that as it stands now.

Bh

[SirGrotius]

Unimpressed

The bottom line is I don't have that much fun playing the game for more than ten minutes. I don't consider myself a person w/ a short attention span (I'm a fan of Paradox games...), but after a few turns in RTW I find myself dreading moving this or that unit, building an upgrade in this or that town.

The buttons are way too precise. The interface is not intuitive. I'm never sure how much money a town is going to make (or lose) and why.

The game does look good, and the quotes are excellent, but I just don't feel that in control of what's going on.

In battles I'm never sure if my selected unit is going to move where I've told it to or not.

I think this game would benefit greatly from a heavy-duty patch, but CA are too proud to do so.

[DisruptorX]

So, far nobody has managed to produce a commercial AI that actually imporves its game based upon its past errors. If they did then the computer would stop sending units to die needlessly under the walls of our cities and try different approaches until it found one that worked. Just as we do.

Well, in starcraft if you slaughter the computer's zeolots with air units, they will send dragoons as support the next time they attack. You think that RTW could have at least done little things like that which make you feel like you are playing against more than a pre-scripted AI routine.

Starcraft came out what, 6 years ago? It has AI that learns at least a little from what you do. When you defeat the computer using a tactic in Starcraft, in the future it will be ready for it.

[Red Harvest]

You folks discussing writing a chess AI that can beat good human players are completely off the mark. It IS very hard to write good chess AI from scratch, and it took decades before they had a decent approach that could challenge decent amateur tournament players. There were many, many folks working on this and there were many grand masters assisting. (The high end players have been using chess computers to help analyze positions for decades, so a stronger computer was a help to them in tournament preparation.) If we could harness 0.01% of that time to put into RTW's AI it would be very strong.

As it is, there is enough computing power to write decent tactical AI, but there doesn't seem to be enough emphasis on it and it does take time and a lot of testing. Speaking for myself and not the .org, RTW's tactical AI is weak compared to MTW. It has phalanx units chasing archers and horse archers for crying out loud. The friendly fire stuff is bass ackwards ("fire at will" should make FF LESS likely.) But, hey, its early and I have some faith in CA's ability to add some extra instructions into the algorithms. Hopefully the suicidal cav charges into spears/pikes will be addressed.

Once I figured out how to deal with the superfast speed and a couple of units that don't behave in historic fashion, the tactical AI became unchallenging, even on VH/VH. It gets a bit monotonous dealing with the same AI stacks attacking turn, after turn, after turn while you struggle with your handicapped economy trying to build a second army to destroy the threat. The number of battles has been multiplied by 3 or 4 fold and the only time they are "decisive" is if I lose...or suffer enough tediously slow attrition that I eventually succumb to the hordes of AI armies.

I also want to echo the comment about having no idea what effect any given building will have on my overall economy. I'm just guessing when I build economic structures (except mines, I build those ASAP because I actually know that they work.)

The game has merit and could easily become the best of the series, but it needs patches to complete it. Properly patched, with decent tactical and strategic AI, it could become unbeatable on VH/VH. Right now all the challenge is in dealing with the handicaps on the strategic map. I find myself fighting most of the tactical battles only because I must. It wasn't that way with MTW.

[Didz]

You folks discussing writing a chess AI that can beat good human players are completely off the mark. It IS very hard to write good chess AI from scratch, and it took decades before they had a decent approach that could challenge decent amateur tournament players.

We never said it was easy, what we said was it was easy by comparison with the task of producing an AI which can play a strategy game like RTW to the same level of competence.

Well, in starcraft if you slaughter the computer's zeolots with air units, they will send dragoons as support the next time they attack. You think that RTW could have at least done little things like that which make you feel like you are playing against more than a pre-scripted AI routine.

Good point and perfectly correct I had actually forgotten that. However, I'm not convinced that the AI in Starcraft is actually learning as such its merely reacting to the events on a Rock, Paper Scissors principle. If it was learning then next time you played it, it would not make the same mistake whereas in fact it always repeated the same mistakes every game.

However, I agree that even a Rock, Paper Scissors reastion from the AI in RTW when forming armies would be an improvement.

MP is atrocious and probably is not something that can be fixed to an acceptable level because many of the problems are integral to the single player game too and not really problems there, so the odds that CA will address them are about nil. They will cater to the money, can't really blame them for that, but I am dissapointed they put multiplayer in when it's so broken.

They should just take "multiplayer support" off the box, because it's a complete distortion. I felt so strongly misled that I returned my copy of RTW and downloaded a uh, "backup" copy. I'm not playing it of course, because that would be illegal.

Ah! The old MP gripe has come back to haunt us.

I think it would be useful to repeat the strategy used in STW and MTW of creating a completely seperate board or at least thread for MP issues and discussions.

The MP and SP games have little if anything in common and the issues that need to be addressed are totally different as are the type of player that is involved. I think its best to keep the two completely apart.

I'm actually quite curious about the issues MP gamers have even though I stopped playing after MTW was released. I would certianly like to hear what problems MP players are having but not on this thread.

And I certainly don't agree that there is a justification for returning the game and then playing an illegal copy. If you think its crap return it and get your money back but if you thiink its crap then why are you playing it?

The only other rant I would add is that as a matter of principle I avoid playing any MP game that uses Gamespy. In my opinion they are the biggest bunch of in the business and are deliberately ripping MP gamers off by trying to make them pay for playing a game they have already paid for an penalising them if they don't. This is commonly known as blackmail and I refuse to give them any of my patronage.

I am dissapointed that so many companies continue to associate with these people. It isn't necessary and doing so merely belittles your own company.

[Cid]

Makes things easy when you agree with the last post or two. All you have to do is elaborate.

IMO, while there have been a number of technical advances, RTW has taken the TW series a large step closer to Glitztory rather than History and that's a shame. Leaving aside the bugs that can be patched such as unit speed/kill speed, friendly pilum in the nape of your neck, etc. the general theme seems to be creeping closer to "fun for kids of all ages!" mass marketing.

Example-In MTW the English units speak latin (historical). In RTW the Roman (and all other faction's) units speak English...Romans with an American accent for some reason (uh...not historical). Small detail but it seems to reveal a concious decision to dumb the game down. I never felt embarrassed playing MTW (I'm in my 30's) but when you hear things like "Yes Captain? Aye, Aye Captain! 'Ding Ding'" coming from a Roman Brireme or "Run for your lives!", "Head for the hills!" (gimme a break) being shouted by routing Gauls you begin to look around to see if anyone's watching. There was a certain elegance and love of subject in MTW. I hoped that it would be retained and expanded upon in RTW but they seem to have dispensed with it. Too bad.

As to the tactical aspect, I think that MTW has it all over RTW. The close up shots are impressive but how often are you able to zoom in? The view that you usually get is of highly organized ants at a picnic. Sieges are much improved though and will get better when a patch makes the game less buggy.

As to the AI (in BOTH games), I know absolutely nothing about programing but you can't tell me that it's not possible to have the computer STOP building all peasant/all Cav armies, stop invading with one unit, use units sensibly (infantry hold, light Cav flank, heavy Cav break through, etc.) and get rid of generals who should be undergoing intensive therapy or placed on suicide watch.

Positive side!-The campaign map/diplomacy is far superior and will be even more so when patched no doubt. Most of the music (especially for the Romans) is good.

Perfect game?!-IMO-Keep the campain map but make the units shut up (fotunately you can mute this). Go back to and improve the MTW tactical system (not likely), implement the very basic AI improvements as above and don't go AOE/Warcraft on us for God's sake! Play up, not down to the market.

Pretty long huh? Well, it's just that the TW series is the best, most worthwhile and intelligent group of games out there. I think what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is more CA, less Activision.

I will now return to silently perusing other posts in relative obscurity.

[Longasc]

I want to agree with Sir Grotius

I went back to playing Civ3, after you have played some time and the initial fun is over, you wonder how the dumbed down battles can stir any interest over a longer time period.

OK, again I am the evil complainer, but the tactical battles were the heart of MTW, in RTW, they are at best mediocre and need serious tweaking due to unit imbalances and lots of stuff others already mentioned.

The tactical depth and battle feeling on a strategic/tactical scale haven been replaced by sounds, graphics and action feeling.

The Tax Governor is stupid, I need to manually adjust the Tax once a unit leaves town, he does not do this automatically to prevent riots.

Makes sometimes Micromanagement necessary.

In my current Carthage game, I have so many cities to click and manage, that I spend more time with menial tasks than with the short "My Cav charges you and you will run!" battles.


Rome was great, but I feel it misses the qualities that give it lasting value, and that is why it is good, but not deserving the high praise laudations of various game mags gave it.

Harsher said: A game for the quickly interested, quickly desinterested noob, despite many improvements it has so many issues that were obviously traded for outzoomed not so obvious eyecandy, that I am finished with RTW by now - MTW was inferior in many parts, but it stirred my interest for much a longer time, insofar I hope that CA does a HECK OF BALANCING for RTW, otherwise I will not buy another short-lived expansion pack to this game.

Unimpressed

The bottom line is I don't have that much fun playing the game for more than ten minutes. I don't consider myself a person w/ a short attention span (I'm a fan of Paradox games...), but after a few turns in RTW I find myself dreading moving this or that unit, building an upgrade in this or that town.

The buttons are way too precise. The interface is not intuitive. I'm never sure how much money a town is going to make (or lose) and why.

The game does look good, and the quotes are excellent, but I just don't feel that in control of what's going on.

In battles I'm never sure if my selected unit is going to move where I've told it to or not.

I think this game would benefit greatly from a heavy-duty patch, but CA are too proud to do so.