Is anyone else bored?

[Nestor II]

Well, I believe I know why I'm not that excited:

I have to help the poor AI stand on its feet, I have to calculate my movements in such a way that I get strong opposition. In fact I feel that I'm playing for both my faction and the AI, at least on the strategy map.

Don't think you can have fun playing for both sides, you can't have surprises this way!

Don't misunderstand me, I think it's a great game but I believe it's targeted on new customers / players and not the old fans of the series.

If only I could teach the AI some things!!!

[Belenus]

I bribe just to keep down the number of pointless combats. I mean, how many times can I have my city with 1000+ man armies sieged by 200+ units? It just gets absurd. Big armies I'll fight, but all the little ones running around I just bribe now, so I don't have to waste my time. Plus it cuts down on the number of stars my generals get for those pointless battles.

Bh

Sorry to go a little off topic but I agree. Also, I ALWAYS bribe german spearmen. When I saw them do a 360 turn against my infantry coming from behind almost instantly, I gave up.

[Ism8000]

They should add a place FEATURE WHERE you can design your own throne like in Civ1 or something like that more personal gratification also they should of made governing citys easier and more Bandit army appear also they should of made the guals and britons un-united there too storng and I whant more realism.

[Didz]

Must admit the lack of a proper PBEM multiplayer option on TW games is beginning to show now.

These games ought to be the mainstay of a whole new breed of internet wargaming groups but that market is just toally excluded from using TW games because of the lack of a proper MP option.

CA really need to overcome this problem and find some way of allowing multiplayer involvement in the full campaign, even if they have to sacrifice some of the gimmicks to allow it.

[ah_dut]

I just feel that the AI and other features have been dumbed down too much. I could play MTW for months and not feel the time... Now I have tried 1 or 2 games of MP and am never going back. some people flame and cheat. I'm not much of an MP online person myself, prefering lan parties, but I've given up on this game in many ways. Oi'm bored. that and the fact the battlefield AI is stupid in the extreme.

[Bob the Insane]

Thinking about this issue... In MTW even after many, many, many campaigns... It was still possible to have my arse handed to me by the AI...

If you screwed up strategicly or tactically the AI (game) was capable of giving you a sound thrashing.... I am not getting this feeling from RTW..


In RTW if you screw up strategically or tactically you either have enough available cash to buy your way out, or you don't and you are doomed...

It is very binary.. Run out of cash and get beaten in battle and it is game over in the early part of the game. Get to the point where you have a positive cash flow and you can just about always buy your way out of trouble... And if you are play a VH campaign game you practically have to bribe as the other factions get such a cash boost they are building way more troops than is possible for you in way more advanced buildings... So you either face impossible battles where you are outnumbered by more advanced troops that might also be getting combat bouses too, or you start bribing these armies into non-existance and make the game really easy...

Maybe a game where I barred myself from bribing would be a better experience....

I have started a Hard (campaign) / Medium (Battle) game as an experiment to see if I get a more believable experience... (So the AI does not get a huge cash advantage or combat bonuses for it's troops)...

[Ktonos]

RTW is better than MTW and STW in all aspects. If there are some stepbacks, they are inevitable, because they had to be done in order for other aspects to get better.

There are many flaws that keeps the game from perfection, but that does not mean that those flaws make RTW worse than its prequels.

The major problems of STW and MTW were unexisting diplomacy and that from a time point and after factions got eliminated one by one from the 2 or 3 major factions of any given campaign. That ended in having the map divided to those 2-3 factions and tens of stacks in bordering regions.

In RTW diplomacy is a *lot better* (but it still can get *a lot better*) and you don't have the phenomenon of continiously eliminated factions.


The think that is missing is that some things are ahistorical. In history to have infinite money meant that you could support huge armies but it did not meant that you could train infinite armies. Thats the case of RTW. Human resources were limited especially for the civilized factions.

Any given faction was difficult to muster more than one or two huge "stacks" of armies and at the same time maintain "stacks" of armies as garissons in the cities.

Greeksare more than easy relating to history. I can invade Italy and do not worry if my army disapears into nothingness because I have 200000 D in my pockets and can create another army whenever I wish too. When I capture an Italian city I don't have to split my troops and post a garrison there, because I can create a new garisson from the italian citizens.


Proposition:

1. Make for every man taken from a city for training a unit, 1-4 other citizens (his family) grow unhappy as time passes and the man is not disbaned back to its city. Every unit can have an origin template in order the player knows were to disband it (eg Athenian Hoplites, Capuan Hastati).

2. Make factions unable to use military buildings of other cultures. Eg. I conquer Capua as Carthage. There is a Legion barracks there but I cannot use it to train Carthaginian units, because its a legion barracks. I should destroy it and build barracks of my own culture tree.

[Bob the Insane]

Continuing what I said and thinking about changes... Personally I think the game would work better if money was harder to come by and bribing was much harder....

If this was applied to the AI also it would produce a better experience overall... Individual armies would represent a great investiment for your people and the decision to bribe an enemy armies to leave you alone would be a difficult one that would impact your faction's development by the loss of cash...

Ktonos -

I love the idea of linking an army to the settlement it was rasied in but I can also see holes in the argument too... If you raised unit in Settlement A and then placed it as a garrision in Settlement B and left it there for 200 turns (100 years) it is unlikely that anyone in the unit now hails from settlement A.... Though a public order hit for recruiting from a settlement (especially retraining multiple depelted units) that lasted a few years could be an idea...


How about a modification of number 2, you can't train new units until you have you own culture barracks, but you can retrain your present units... It can feel a little odd when you capture a city that is much more advance than any of your own and can suddenly start producing your culture's advanced troop types away from your homelands...

But then again, what is a barracks but some living space, storerooms and a parade ground... So what if the archecture is a bit odd....I guess I am "undecided" on this one...

[Ktonos]

I guess that its not just the architecture but the facilities too. Sword excersising facilities in legion barracks, spear and shield in greek barracks etc.

But most of all barrack tech tree does not represent the space that armies had to train but rather the human manpower and human trainers and veteran experts that a city had to help its citizens train. Well, a campaigning army should have them as well, but my proposition is for getting the game better and simulate the willingness of locals to train and fight in your army as time passes by and the city is in your possesion (and you invest money to make them willing).

Any way to use money to train is ahistorical, as armies where conscripted and its soldier bought his gear and a state only paid its maintainess (if at all) - but its good for game mechanics.

Yes there are holes in my first proposition, but take this as a general proposition. Make it harder to be able to field infinite armies, and make it painfull when units are destroied. Maybe the unhappiness of a unit being away reaches its top after 15years and after that it wears out.

[DisruptorX]

I played the game for two weeks non-stop and I'm now bored to death with it. I feel i've done everything there is to do. contrast with MWT, which I still haven't played to death. I've been playing other games recently (f-zero X, mortal kombat: deception) and haven't touched Rome for about a week. When I get back into the strategy game mindset I'll be returning to MTW, not Rome.

What makes RTW even more dissapointing is that I bought MTW because I was anticipating Rome. I read a very early preview at the beginning of this year for RTW, and decided to pick up MTW to familiarize myself with the series. Fortunately, MTW turned out to be the best strategy game i've ever played, better than Civ2. Unfortunately, this means that RTW was a huge step down and the entire game was ruined for me.

I still hold hope that a good mod will come out to take advantage of Rome's amazing graphic engine, though.

[Lord Ovaat]

To add again, I think multiplayer options are fine. I've never played TW mp, but I do play other games online, and belong to a team. That being said, this is not an mp game. This is a single player campaign game that happens to have an mp option. This game will sink or swim on the strength and character of its campaign playability, not it's mp. Some games, notibly first person shooters, are designed for mp, with sp usage very limited. What I'm seeing with RTW is that it is TOO similar to the past two offerings. What actually kept my interest in MTW for an additional six months or so, was Med Mod's concept of "homeland" provinces, whereby a faction could only recruit troops from it's original "homeland" provinces. In the case of the Romans, for instance, that would have to include at least all of Italy, but definately NOT Egypt. However, I believe this change could not be accomplished with a patch. It would have to be an expansion pack, such as VI. I don't know if Wes W. originated the gaming concept of homeland provinces, or even if such a concept could be infringed upon, but I do believe it would make the game immensily more realistic. BUT, the movement on the campaign map would have to become more realistic, also. There is no good reason why a ship can't sail from one end of the Med to the other in a single turn. Dude, that's six months! And it just doesn't take three years to walk across Europe, neither. And--this may sound heretical--the building improvement/tech trees are far too long, making it almost impossible to ever create and use some of the units. It's also odd to me that the max units for some factions happen to be chariot units, which by the time you can actually build them, were, in reality, obsolete. Don't get me wrong; I feel the game is worth every penny I spent for it. Let's be honest. It's about the price of a couple of movies with popcorn. When's the last time you watched a movie for over a month without stopping. Much.

It took me a long time to become bored with MTW, and longer still with the addition of Wes's Mod. I think this game is just too much like it's predecessors. Man, the tools are there. Let's fix it. If CA won't, or can't because of budget constraints, what about the modders? Those guys haven't even really started yet! So, cheer up. We know what "our" guys accomplished with the other engines and base games. I, personally, am really looking forward to some of the new mod options.

[Orda Khan]

The game is very predictable, which makes for boring play.
Where are the huge, epic battles?? It would be nice if there actually were a few battles containing large armies but then even these would be ruined by the speed with which they are concluded. It is a big let down and I feel we were all duped by this Time Commanders series. IMO CA have lost the plot and I certainly will not be falling for it again

.......Orda

[Red Harvest]

I disagree with Ktonos statement, "RTW is better than MTW and STW in all aspects." RTW isn't any where close to as good on the battlefield. That is half the game and it is a walkover. Depending on position/terrain in MTW, the AI could and did kick my butt at times on expert even though I had a "superior" army. That isn't happening in RTW. If the MTW AI had a high quality army I often had to fight attrition actions with arbalesters and the like so that my full army would not be crushed. Terrain was much more of a factor. The MTW AI did some dumb things at times and could be exploited, but it was more challenging on the battlefield. The siege AI of MTW and RTW are of similar strength except that MTW's seemed stronger on defense.

Bob the Insane nailed it. The strategic side is all about the money. If you figure out how to stay reasonably in the black, you are going to win because the AI can't beat you on the battlefield. The worst blows the RTW AI has dealt me are bribes to my armies or cities.

I had planned to play all the factions before modding the game...but this is appearing unlikely at the moment. I think it is about time to up everyone's defensive skill by a few notches, enlarge phalanx units, get rid of fire arrow ability, fix the desert axemen, reduce elephant unit size and hit points, and reduce the kill rate, etc.

[The Wizard]

Yes... now that I come to think of it, the dumber AI is the problem.

I'll give an example of what I expected as normal for a TW game after MTW.

My last game I played in MTW, which I stopped with a day before I bought RTW (!), was with the Ottomans, or rather the Turks in late, on very hard and in GA mode.

To win, I needed to be very aggressive (not my style early on in a game of TW) and I only had about a maximum of five turns to prepare. That meant that I would only have a couple of small armies to conquer a lot of territory from a lot of foes; everything would rise of fall on account of my tactical skills, for I couldn't afford to lose many men in each battle. I needed absolute, crushing victories.

I know; I made it hard on myself. But damn, it made this one of the best campaigns I'd ever played in MTW, and that's saying something. The AI was constantly creating a challenge and if I screwed up, it would punish me, both on a tactical and a stragetical level.

I'm giving this example just to make my point clear: the AI in Rome Total War, at least on Medium and Hard difficulties, seems to be unable to hand you your ass back after you've just made a tactical error, unless you really give the whole battle to them (by having your general killed while your frontline is heavily beset, for instance...). And when it does punish you for your mistakes, it doesn't seem to capitalize on them by attacking your now ill-protected border marches (if they can).

That's a real pity, and I really, really hope that the AI is buffed big time in the next patch.



~Wiz

[Jango Fett]

nice to see people in the TW community are also into flight sims such as il2! i actually play this when im bored of rtw

[Didz]

I think I'll wait and spend my 50 bucks on Pyro's upcoming game Imperial Glory which is scheduled for the first trimester of next year. It's just past the alpha stage and the first reviews are very promising. It has sophisticated on-screen naval battles, robust diplomacy and a war engine that handles soldiers individually, lets them hide behind buildings and trees, etcetera.

Had a look at this game and the first thing to point out is that its quite clearly not an ancient wargame, so as far as I'm concerned its not an either or choice.

At first glance it certainly looks impressive but I was concerned to note when viewing the trailer that the developers have chosen to opt for the old movie makers trick of introducing exploding cannon balls and bayonet charges to spice up the game play.

Hopefully, someone will put that right before the game is released as If I'm going to buy a Napoleonic Wargame I would prefer one which is reasonably accurate.

War and Peace was an absolute waste of money and I threw it in the bin before even completing a single campaign so I shall be much more cautious about spending money on another similar title.

[Thrudvang]

My only gripe about Rome is the really bad path finding. You should hear my swears whenever I give a simple move order to elephants or cavelry.

Instead of 'go around and to the point' they just stop all your own men, you can set waypoints, but it's kinda annoying to have to lay down signs to direct your own men.

[Ktonos]

Battle AI is on the same standarts as MTW. What it needs is to enhance the ability of campaign AI to produce and maintain high quality generals.

In MTW no faction would produce high quality armies. The camp. AI would not take advantage of its tech tree, but in RTW it will. The problem is that when the phalanx pikemen are frontal charged by my cretan archers and the archers win. Thats because my archers are under the command of a 9 star general and will fight to the last when the pikemen have no general to fight for.

[troymclure]

i've been thinking and one of main problems is something "the wizard" mentioned. The AI doesn't take advantage of it's victories, it's like hannibal you know? :)
I have lost the occasional battle on the strat map but normally it doesn't really matter, lose a battle in MTW and you've normally lost a province, lose a battle in RTW and you MIGHT MAYBE get seiged, then the AI might actually seige you (it might wander off without having tried as well) and even if you are seiged you've normally got an army/diplomat/ nearby to protect you, that or lots of archers plus stone walls. Either way i think i've lost maybe 5-10 provinces in about 5 campaigns, that just isn't enough. There are some good battles in the start of a RTW campaign but i find once ive got a certain amount of provinces it becomes just a matter of time. MTW/STW were similar but not as bad, i think it's more to do with the new campmap AI then anything. Lets say you're the spanish in MTW you take all the iberian pennisula and head down into africa so you could advance up to say egypt with your army. Now lets say you've got your big stacks on the border, and of course nothing in all the provinces behind it cept a few peasants. If you lose that main border force you KNOW your in trouble, that in a few turns the enemey will be marching back up through africa into your homelands and your going to have to do something about it. In RTW if the same thing happened and an army of my borders got wiped out i don't worry. Sure moment o' panic but then i realise it will take the AI 20 turns to actually do anything about my now undefended borders and by then i can have another army/diplomat waiting for them.
I think most of the problems maybe are linked to the campaign AI rather than battle AI which is quite understandable seeing as how this is the first time they've had to program for something like this.

[Adrian II]

Hopefully, someone will put that right before the game is released as If I'm going to buy a Napoleonic Wargame I would prefer one which is reasonably accurate.

Don't tell me RTW's oliphants are anywhere near accurate. The issue of realism has been discussed to death here. Needless to say I respect your view, but in the end it's all a matter of personal preference and it would be impossible for developers to keep track of what a majority of prospective players judge to be 'realistic'. That applies to Pyro just as much as to CA. I just hope Imperial Glory will surprise me in ways that RTW doesn't. And I'll continue playing STW and MTW for quite some time, I'm sure. BTW: my eldest son (9) has just discovered STW and we're having all sorts of discussions that go far beyond the scope of the game itself. He has definite ideas about loyalty and he feels you cannot betray an ally who has been fighting alongside you for most of the game. However, if you want to become Shogun you'll have to fight even your closest ally sooner or later. So, we had a long discussion about what power, or the quest for it, does to people, and how come that people in high places seldom have real friends.

STW as an educational tool, who'd 'ave thunk eh?

[Akka]

Mmh, I admit there is something right here.

The feeling I have, is that the AI doesn't really know what to do.
Armies wandering aimlessly is a common sight. For navies, it's even more obvious.

I think that AI should have goals for each of its armies. If it's on the offensive, it should aim for enemy's armies or cities, try to blockade and try to destroy his fleets.

Right now, it seems that it only happens by accident, without that much of planning and thinking.
Perhaps that's only a feeling, but well.

[troymclure]

STW was a good educational tool actually i used the manual for that game to do a history assignment in high school. Did pretty well on it too if i recall. I also have to thank the civlopedia from civ 1 as that was the reason i did well in ancient history. Teacher kept wondering how i knew so much about the ancient wonders of the world.... :)
ps:- think it's very cool that it's been used as a moral education tool though.

[Sp00n]

The game is far easier to complete than MTW which is why you get bored faster, its half finished and subsequently has lots of bugs, the standards agency should set up stricture guidelines on games, unfinished and buggy games should not be released and IMO fines should be imposed, it will never happen but how many games do we get that are not totally completed and bug free these days.

You may argue that this will always happen, but thinking back to games of the past they used to be released largly bug free, have developers got lazy or what.

To think we have to wait for the patch and probably even the expansion to play a completed version of Rome is an appaling thought, its like buying a car with half the insides missing.

Bear in mind this is there 3rd attempt and its the worst attempt in terms of bugs and missing features.

The games reviewers should also have a part in thier reviews showing howing complted a game is Id give Rome 75 percent completed on SPand 15 percent on MP.

Sp00n

[Thrudvang]

One thing that annoys me is when people blame the developers for bugs.

It's the publishers fault, people.

[Sp00n]

Well they are both to blame at the end of the day they pass the game on in its uncomplted form.

If they spent less time on shiny new graphics and more time getting the gameplay right we woulnt be moaning.

[MacBeth]

I don't really ever post but I agree with most of the sentiments expressed.

I knew the game had lost me when on my 3rd campaign I began to auto resolve battles. I never used auto resolve in MTW.

Are we all sure that this series can become a great diplomatic game? To me MTW was a battle fest and the best of its kind. If I want good diplamacy I play EU2 or other Paradox stuff.

I was hoping RTW would give me a 'classical' battle fest and didn't really expect anything from the diplomacy side. Well they've even managed to bugger that up haven't they.

I don't think CA are as much to blame as the 'suits' from Activision.
Publishers don't have customers they have balance sheets.

All the best.....

[Jambo]

One can certainly get too much of a good thing. With STW, MTW and RTW, I've generally gone hammer and tong playing it as much as I can for about 2 weeks. Then, I reach campaign late game and the interest in managing a massive empire wanes, mainly because the mopping up process to reach the victory conditions becomes progressively tedious. At this 2 week point most of the AI nuances and the more irritating of the bugs start causing frustrations...

At this point I know it's a good time to take a break and do something else. Later, I'll either decide to start a new campaign (as the early game expansion is always the most addictive part) or wait in eager anticipation for some game altering, AI changing patch...

I've always thought one of the major failings of the TW series has been maintaining interest in the late game. So far I'd say MTW's glorious achievements mode has probably come closest.

[Akka]

Maintaining interest in the late game is ALWAYS the hardest part.
Just look at Civilization. Just read the Civilization's fora, and see the huge number of posts about "late-game tediousness".

I agree, though, that GA gave a nice set of objectives to do while the game went forward, while pure conquest start to become somehow boring at the end.

[MadKow]

This is probably my fault, in the way i approach the game, but i find myself quiting campaigns after i reach the higher tech units.
Once i establish a solid economic base and am able to produce my best armies, every other battle becomes more or less equal.

This was about what happened in MTW too, the difference is in RTW this happens a lot sooner. Even the romans with their reform have it happen way too soon, not only making short lifes for some units (triarii.. principes...), but also making the next 100 years or so that it may take to conquer the world very redundant.

It may not be a good idea to compare MTW with RTW but how can you not do it? Multiply then number of factions by the number of eras, add in the fact that you had 3 distinct religions, and within those a huge variety of troops and armies. You get an idea of the replayability factor. If you consider MTW:VI (even less fair, some would say) the diference in replayability is enormous.


But maybe the secret is in living the experience and not "Playing the Game"...

[dcd111]

Here's my recommendation on how to avoid being bored with RTW so soon after you've purchased it:

1. Make sure your job has at least a 90 minute commute each way, and requires you to be at the office at least 50-60 hours per week.

2. Marry a woman who can't understand in the least why you would waste any time playing a wargame on the computer when you could be spending that time together (of course, she's right since I'm home so few hours a day during the week).

Then, like me, you'd play no more than a few hours a week (if I can wake up early enough on Sunday and let the wife sleep in), so even though you bought the game the day it was released you'd only be around year 245 BC on your first campaign and you wouldn't be bored at all yet... in fact, you'd still be aching to play it all the time

- dcd111