Well, I always said MTW was perfect, and there's every reason to believe they've gone and improved upon that! :)
That said, Rome strikes me as the definitive historical period for a strategy game of this nature - I wasn't surprised at all when I heard it would be the next title in the line. To be able to find any more worthy a period in human history currently strikes me as impossible, although as I've said before I'm no historian. My mind is truly boggled! I'm sure there are other historical possibilities, and I've no doubt CA will find more ways to add gameplay to them that might should them better than RTW, despite the instant boost gained merely by being set in a Roman setting. I also wonder if they might be considering a move towards fantasy or even sci-fi for sequels - I imagine in doing so, they would lose an aspect that attracts many current fans, but replace it with an aspect that would bring many new ones.
Yet despite my opinions of the boosting effect of the Roman setting, I still feel somehow that RTW is a step down from MTW - I'm not saying it's worse, and I've certainly not had enough opportunity to judge. Nor am I criticising it for bugs, imbalances or the like. I guess this once again stems from the point about the Romans being less advanced than their descendants, hence for example there being no gunpowder. I also just have this feeling that attacking a city will never quite be the same as attacking a citadel...
Bookmarks