Is anyone else bored?

[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