Second impressions - demo worries misplaced?

[econ21]

After playing RTW some more, I find that I no longer agree with some of the most common concerns that arose from comparing the demo and first impressions with the game to MTW. (This is from a SP perspective only, I don't do MP.) The concerns I am referring to are that the battles were too fast and that archers/cava were overpowered.

(1) Fast movement speed - does not bother me at all now. Yes, infantry runs fast but I rather like the thrill of a barbarian charge racing towards me. Unlike the demo, I never find even large battles feeling out of my control. The AI does not abuse the high run speed - it tends to move straight at you and only run at the end - and nor do I. And I really appreciate the way the faster paced battles keep the long Imperial campaigns moving along at a reasonable pace.

(2) Fast kill speed - again, seems fine to me. Yes, a cavalry charge to rear can be lethal but that's ok. Otherwise, it's brisk but not absurd. Fights you were going to win anyway are resolved quickly and there is still time to savour the closer contests.

Perhaps the key thing with both speed issues is looking at each battle not on its own, but as one of many within a long campaign. Trebia in the demo felt unsatisfactory because it was so quick. But when you are having maybe a dozen or more battles per evening of a campaign, speed can be a virtue rather than a drawback.

(3) "Overpowered archers" - well, yes, I still feel they are rather too strong but this is either because I abuse them (massed archery to cut down the AI) as I did in MTW or because they are hitting soft targets. Archers do surprisingly little damage against well armoured foes like armoured hoplites (felling about one a volley). With a little self-discipline, they are not a game-breaker.

(4) "Overpowered cav" - has not caused me problems yet, perhaps because the AI factions I fight are infantry heavy and I confine myself to 2 cav per stack. Charging light cav or general's units head on into even the weakest melee infantry (eg Gallic warband) is not a good idea. Real heavy cav like barbarian noble cavalry can devastate medium infantry, but I can live with that.

Perhaps the cav/archer issue arises mainly at higher difficulty levels - at medium, which I am still playing at, heavy infantry can still play the dominant role if you let it.

All in all, after getting used to the game and no longer thinking with a MTW mindset, I find the battles very good. They feel just like MTW to me, only brisker. I don't recognise the criticisms that RTW has become like an RTS (By contrast, I recently tried Dawn of War and while that is a very good RTS, it is still so trapped within that genre it still feels like the original Command and Conquer and so never achieves the "suspension of disbelief" that RTWs more freewheeling gameplay does).

I realise this is subjective but I wonder if some of the vets who moved quickly on to "total realism" type mods did not give the vanilla game enough time? I'm not saying those mods can't improve the game if you like that kind of thing, just that the game out of the box is not as flawed as some initially made out. I recall Frogbeastegg making much the same points (and many more) in her initial impressions - it just took me longer to discover them for myself.

Turning briefly to the positives, I just got a new desktop computer and the graphics are vastly improved compared to what they were on last year's laptop. On a lower-end computer, the visuals are disappointing - I thought MTW and STW actually looked better - whereas with a state of the art machine, you can enjoy the gorgeous graphics you saw on Time Commanders.

Sieges against stone walls are fun - I love siege towers! Much better than MTW. Those against towns with wooden walls are not so great. I especially dislike the AI running backward and forward under your archery fire - surely it could be coded to hunker down in cover? (Or failing that, they should nerf the effectiveness of your archery over their walls). The balance between field battles and sieges feels right. I like it that cities can become the focal point for major battles, involving several stacks.

Perhaps the biggest improvement of RTW is fixing the broken end-game of STW and MTW. This was done partly by requiring only 50 provinces, rather than conquer the world. Partly, for the Romans, it was by the clever idea of a climatic Civil War to make sure the end-game still had some challenge. [Along the way, the Senate missions also provide hooks to keep playing.] Partly, it may be by toning down the belligerence of enemy factions - it does not seem to be "total war" to the same extent as STW and later game MTW. Additionally, I am not finding myself out-teching and out-spending the AI to the same extent - perhaps because squalor etc keeps your empire somewhat restrained. In MTW I found once you swallowed an enemy faction (or established a big sea trade network), you were very hard to beat - in RTW, I have not observed such an obvious "tipping point". In MTW, I would not have had the perseverance to finish a single SP campaign were it not for PBM - with RTW, it seems more likely that I will want to finish the campaign for every faction I try.

Overall, I think CA have retained nearly all the good things from STW and MTW, but made them slicker, quicker and far more beautiful. I had very high expectations and RTW has met them brilliantly.

[SwordsMaster]

You partially right, Im also one of those who wasnt that skeptical about RTW and I actually enjoyed the experience....Maybe because I never played the demo...

I dont feel archers are overpowered. Now that the "skirmish" mode works fine, they dont have time to fire as many volleys before some enemy unit gets close, and as you say they have little effect on cataphracts or armoured hoplitles.

missile cavalry works perfect inRTW as opposed to MTW, and you can actually rely on them to do their job while you take care of the rest of your army instead of having to watch their every step.

I find chariots tend to run amok too fast, and are absolutely lethal to your own troops.

Elephants are tough.

the killing speed is right. If you zoom in the battle, you will see that it all happens in the right amount of time. In fact it should be even more brutal.

The pathfinding problems are a pain.

Also, roman infantry, even when out of pila, still display the "throwing pila" (without pila) animation before charging in. that should definitely be removed.

A bit more tactics from the AI would do no harm either, although I think it is pretty capable of defeating the player. I have to admit I got a few beatings without autoresolving.

[ranpiz]

I am a Rome:Total Realism player.

last night i installed vanilla rome in a seperate directory and tried to play an unmodded campaign and it was just unbearable. vanilla on normal speed is like playing R:TR on double speed. i had forgotten how rediculously fast skirmishers run and how any cav unit is a silver bullet for any infantry unit.

getting attack by a stack of egyptian troops that didn't exist in that time period with bare chested skin of steel was the tipping point, i realised again why i downloaded the mod in the first place. the game was released as an action game for the halo2 crowd. if you like action games, thats fine, so do i. but that's not the reason i bought this game.

not to mention R:TR has a better map, better balanced command-star system, more realistic recruiting. I just dont see how anyone could go back to vanilla after playing that mod.

by the way if you have to "limit yourself to 2 cav per stack" then you are admiting they aren't balanced. otherwise why not just let yourself use a whole stack of horses?

[econ21]

i had forgotten how rediculously fast skirmishers run .

I've never noticed skirmishers moving fast - if it keeps them out of trouble, it may be a good thing. I'm finding them rather nasty in the AIs hands (thought my legions were dropping due to friendly fire, then realised it was the skirmishers lurking with the enemy hordes). By contrast, AI skirmishers in MTW seemed ineffective.

and how any cav unit is a silver bullet for any infantry unit

I'm not seeing that on medium. I had a German general unit ambushed by a lone Gallic warband. It was anhilated. Frontally, my hastati can comfortably stop light cav; even AI barbarian noble cav only manages mutually assured destruction. My equites die going head to head against warbands, even when I have a good general.

getting attack by a stack of egyptian troops that didn't exist in that time period with bare chested skin of steel was the tipping point,

No argument there, but then again I found the Byzantines in MTW rather anachronistic but got over it.

the game was released as an action game for the halo2 crowd. if you like action games, thats fine, so do i.

Nonsense - on the battlefield RTW plays very similarly to STW and MTW, just a little faster. It has no resemblance to action games, which I don't like BTW.

by the way if you have to "limit yourself to 2 cav per stack" then you are admiting they aren't balanced. otherwise why not just let yourself use a whole stack of horses?

The thing is, I don't feel it is a limitation (playing as Roman). It worked in MTW where cav was a little underpowered and I am not suffering with it in RTW. I'm finding Roman horses a little too light - yes, they might win but you would lose a lot. Rather like mounted sergeants in MTW. Legionary cav is another matter, but they're harder to get.

To be honest, I used to wish RTWs balance of arms was more like MTWs - now I wish MTWs was more like RTWs!

[Jambo]

For me, I'll play vanilla or very subtly modded variants of vanilla, as that was how the game was intended to be played. I like realism and the overall historical basis of the the total war series, but for me the fun factor weighs in far more heavily than pure historical accuracy. Secondly, it's recognised that the original version has some major gameplay-affecting bugs and since the forthcoming patch is expected to fix these, it's to early to make sweeping negative statements about the vanilla version.

Once i've maxed out and played most of the factions of the vanilla version (post-patch), I may decide to try out one of the great mods out there.

[CBR]

I hated the high movement rates in the demo and I still hate them in RTW

But it all depends what faction Im playing in SP. When playing Seleucids my phalanx/cataphract armies are easy to use and the speed isnt much an issue as my army is generally superior and has more cav (and better cav than the AI)

When playing Julii I had a few battles that was total chaos but I didnt have as much cav as the Gauls.

MP is much worse as you no longer can have a superior army and the lack of control/time becomes very visible.

My main concern back in the demo days is still the same: 25% more units, 50% faster runspeed, plus special abilities to worry about too and faster killrate. I find myself focusing on one flank only and no time to do anything on the other flank only to see that suddenly a lot of units are routing.

After now nearly 3 months with RTW I still dont enjoy it and Im pretty sure I never will. For SP it is sort of ok (depending on faction) but for MP this frantic clickfest is just too much.


CBR

[*Ringo*]

Sieges against stone walls are fun - I love siege towers! Much better than MTW. Those against towns with wooden walls are not so great. I especially dislike the AI running backward and forward under your archery fire - surely it could be coded to hunker down in cover? (Or failing that, they should nerf the effectiveness of your archery over their walls). The balance between field battles and sieges feels right. I like it that cities can become the focal point for major battles, involving several stacks.

I totally agree, sieges are actually fun. I always used to auto resolve sieges on MTW (or send one unit of cav in to circle the city making the defences shoot their own walls) but now i find myself planning and building the right armies. Siege equipment was something i never used in Medieval but now i can't leave home without it! Bring on the flaming Onegars!

Additionally, I am not finding myself out-teching and out-spending the AI to the same extent - perhaps because squalor etc keeps your empire somewhat restrained. In MTW I found once you swallowed an enemy faction (or established a big sea trade network), you were very hard to beat - in RTW, I have not observed such an obvious "tipping point". In MTW, I would not have had the perseverance to finish a single SP campaign were it not for PBM - with RTW, it seems more likely that I will want to finish the campaign for every faction I try.

I do disagree here tho, i find making money far too easy. In my current campaign the date is 230BC and i'm making around 20,000 denarii a turn! This leads to having a big treasury and consequentially bad Vices for Governors, like Financially Irregular etc. I am also the most advanced faction and often find myself clicking on any old thing to building it!

Overall i do agree with most points that you have made, perhaps most importantly i have no intension to install any mods until i've fully explored the game pre and post patch!

*Ringo*

P.s It's taken me about 1 hour to write this response, due to one reason or another, so i apologize if comments i made are now irrelevant.

[econ21]

For SP it is sort of ok (depending on faction) but for MP this frantic clickfest is just too much.

I can see that with MP. I only play SP - I am too addicted to my pause button to try MP.

One thing I have always liked about TotalWar is that it is possible that you focus on one flank and then get a nasty surprise on the other. It makes the battles more thrilling and allows for the possibility of surprise. I still remember my jaw dropping in STW when I first attacked the rebels in the province with the Shogun's palace. A horde or warrior monks charged out of a forest into my flank and I did not have time to salvage the situation. "A computer AI can really do that?" I wondered in amazement. I grew up on turn-based boardgames and later computer games; it was Total War that persuaded me that real time can bring benefits.

Against a human in MP it can imagine the speed/lack of control issue is a real pain, against the AI in SP I am finding it comfortable.

[CBR]

Well the funny thing is that you could experience the lack of control too in STW and MTW. Its not like I want absolutely control of everything.

Give the AI an army of equal or slightly better strength than yours and STW/MTW could be pretty tough if the AI made an all out attack that involved both flanks.

But I think its interesting that you find speed/lack of control comfortable but also say you use the pause button heh. I did use the pause a few times in my Julii campaign out of sheer frustration. I dont mind losing a battle to the AI but I prefer to actually see what happens


CBR

[Red Harvest]

I don't see how one could call the demo worries "misplaced." All of the things that you listed as worries in the demo indeed carried over into the game, so those concerned about their presence in the demo were accurate in their predictions. While whether someone likes, dislikes or is neutral about them, they are present.

My own opinion is that all of the items you listed are a big problem both from a gameplay and historical perspective. I've had to mod the game considerably and set up artificial rules for myself to keep it interesting, otherwise it is just a cavalry slug fest. Cavalry upkeep is so low as to make this nearly inevitable.

[Bhruic]

(1) Fast movement speed - does not bother me at all now. Yes, infantry runs fast but I rather like the thrill of a barbarian charge racing towards me. Unlike the demo, I never find even large battles feeling out of my control. The AI does not abuse the high run speed - it tends to move straight at you and only run at the end - and nor do I. And I really appreciate the way the faster paced battles keep the long Imperial campaigns moving along at a reasonable pace.
(2) Fast kill speed - again, seems fine to me. Yes, a cavalry charge to rear can be lethal but that's ok. Otherwise, it's brisk but not absurd. Fights you were going to win anyway are resolved quickly and there is still time to savour the closer contests.

The problem with fast movement speeds and fast kill speeds isn't simply that it's unrealistic, it's that it doesn't give the player time to react to situations and make in-battle tactical decisions. In MTW, if you had a "main army collision", you had time to move your cavalry around and flank the enemy. In RTW, you often don't. The attack happens so quickly, and casualties pile up so fast, that by the time you've managed to flank, the fight is already over.

(3) "Overpowered archers" - well, yes, I still feel they are rather too strong but this is either because I abuse them (massed archery to cut down the AI) as I did in MTW or because they are hitting soft targets. Archers do surprisingly little damage against well armoured foes like armoured hoplites (felling about one a volley). With a little self-discipline, they are not a game-breaker.

Archers do surprisingly little damage shooting straight at armoured hoplites. And you are talking about one of the best defensive units in the game, with 2 HPs per unit.

And as was pointed out, if you need to use "self discipline" to avoid an issue, that is simply an admission that the issue exists.

(4) "Overpowered cav" - has not caused me problems yet, perhaps because the AI factions I fight are infantry heavy and I confine myself to 2 cav per stack. Charging light cav or general's units head on into even the weakest melee infantry (eg Gallic warband) is not a good idea. Real heavy cav like barbarian noble cavalry can devastate medium infantry, but I can live with that.

Again, same thing. You choosing not to use more than 2 cav per stack doesn't make cav any weaker, it just means you choose not to use them. And yes, your later examples about cav vs infantry may be true if you do a frontal charge with your cavalry, but that's not the fashion that cavalry are unbalanced. The mobility of cavalry means that you never need to do a frontal charge. You can hit the infantry from the flank/rear, which virtually guaruntees you a win.

I realise this is subjective but I wonder if some of the vets who moved quickly on to "total realism" type mods did not give the vanilla game enough time? I'm not saying those mods can't improve the game if you like that kind of thing, just that the game out of the box is not as flawed as some initially made out. I recall Frogbeastegg making much the same points (and many more) in her initial impressions - it just took me longer to discover them for myself.

I don't play mods, which means I've been playing vanilla since day 1. I've been playing less and less as time goes by, because while I find the game enjoyable, tactically, it's just a cakewalk.

In MTW I found once you swallowed an enemy faction (or established a big sea trade network), you were very hard to beat - in RTW, I have not observed such an obvious "tipping point". In MTW, I would not have had the perseverance to finish a single SP campaign were it not for PBM - with RTW, it seems more likely that I will want to finish the campaign for every faction I try.

I've managed to actually finish perhaps 2 out of the 15 or so games I've played. And that is the short campaigns of 15 provinces. Once you've taken 4-5 provinces, you have the game in the bag. The AI is profoundly unable to challenge you in the slightest. The game at that point simply becomes an exercise in nuisance avoidance (ie, trying your best not to have the AI besiege your city with 400 men when you've got over 1000 defending it). Or not having the Scipii constantly land 1-2 units of troops beside your city with over a 1000 men in it. Etc. Other than Egypt, most of the AI factions seem unable to expand to any significant degree. And even Egypt seems to have half of its territory rebel, thanks to squalor. In MTW, you could usually count on having an opposing "large empire" form to counter you. In RTW, that mostly isn't the case, leaving you with no real challenges once you've gained a bit of power. The only limit to your power in the game is money, and money is too easily come by.

Bh

[econ21]

But I think its interesting that you find speed/lack of control comfortable but also say you use the pause button heh. I did use the pause a few times ...

Um, maybe I should have said that in my initial post - viz "I use the pause button like I use my breakpad when driving in central London"!

I am still a turn-based player at heart and don't want to be rushed! I guess that's why I don't mind the movement/killing speeds - they just affect how promptly my orders resolve themselves and I don't mind a brisk resolution.

I wonder if the people who don't like RTW out of the box are usually one or more of the following:

(a) want to do Multiplayer
(b) don't like to use the pause button
(c) want a very challenging game (v.hard/v.hard)

If I wanted one or more of the above (which I don't) AND wanted a thoughtful historical game (which I do) I could see why I would not be happy with the vanilla RTW.

[econ21]

BhruicDo you use the pause button? I am just not finding the battles disintegrate into a quick central melee - I am playing just like I did with MTW, flanking and all. The run speed of my flankers offsets the kill speed of the central melee.

On the balance of arms, I think an infantry heavy Roman army is fine - by contrast, I would never dream of deploying a knight-heavy army in MTW. Archers and cav are good, but the legions can happily go it alone if need be. Maybe it could be tweaked, but I am happy with it as is.

On the difficulty level, I would say that as Julii, it was pretty uniform (easy) until the civil war when it was harder. I did not find it got easier to beat enemies - on medium, a modest Roman army could win comfortably throughout. I did not need more men or money, so I did not really use them - just ploughed them back into maintaining my empire or diversifying into addiional fronts. As Scipii, the non-barbarian factions as enemies make the game more fun - especially as you do not have an obvious front (e.g. Gaul for the Julii) to focus your efforts on. I've ended up with small expeditions all over the place, each of which is rather interesting to manage. Strangely, the AI Julii let the Gauls build up so they were actually rather formiddable when I tackled them later on.

The best parts of the game are when you run up against overwhelming odds - unlike MTW with the 16 unit limit, numbers in RTW can really tell and I have been whipped when my lean stacks blundered into maxxed out AI ones or even worse, double AI stacks. If I could improve the game any, I think it would be in getting the AI to concentrate its forces more - particularly getting it to combine attacks with multiple stacks (I've had occasions where .
I've beaten off two armies in a row in one turn whereas they would have been deadly if one had supported the other.)

[Red Harvest]

I wonder if the people who don't like RTW out of the box are usually one or more of the following:

(a) want to do Multiplayer
(b) don't like to use the pause button
(c) want a very challenging game (v.hard/v.hard)

If I wanted one or more of the above (which I don't) AND wanted a thoughtful historical game (which I do) I could see why I would not be happy with the vanilla RTW.

Reading the flipside of this (for fun, don't take this too seriously ), IF your criteria are correct then that means the pool who would be satisfied with the vanilla version is quite small since they would require all of the following traits:

a) SP only, b) like to use pause, c) don't want a very challenging game d) don't want a historically based rendition of army composition and warfare.

I'm not saying it is that way. It is just a bit amusing when you consider what this implies for demographics.

[Bhruic]

BhruicDo you use the pause button? I am just not finding the battles disintegrate into a quick central melee - I am playing just like I did with MTW, flanking and all. The run speed of my flankers offsets the kill speed of the central melee.

I don't use it often, but I will if necessary. I just find that it's extremely difficult to make any sort of useful tactical decisions in combat.

On the balance of arms, I think an infantry heavy Roman army is fine - by contrast, I would never dream of deploying a knight-heavy army in MTW. Archers and cav are good, but the legions can happily go it alone if need be. Maybe it could be tweaked, but I am happy with it as is.

That is merely a testament to the incompetence of the AI. Your legion-heavy army would be slaughtered if attempting that against a real opponent. Not that I play MP, but I'm sure I could manage to do a peasant-only fight vs the AI. Does that mean that peasants are nicely balanced and nothing needs tweaking?

On the difficulty level, I would say that as Julii, it was pretty uniform (easy) until the civil war when it was harder. I did not find it got easier to beat enemies - on medium, a modest Roman army could win comfortably throughout. I did not need more men or money, so I did not really use them - just ploughed them back into maintaining my empire or diversifying into addiional fronts. As Scipii, the non-barbarian factions as enemies make the game more fun - especially as you do not have an obvious front (e.g. Gaul for the Julii) to focus your efforts on. I've ended up with small expeditions all over the place, each of which is rather interesting to manage. Strangely, the AI Julii let the Gauls build up so they were actually rather formiddable when I tackled them later on.

I find the Romans tedious to play, so can't comment much on them. I have yet to find any faction that is remotely difficult to play. The only issue is how hard it is to expand in the first year or two.

The best parts of the game are when you run up against overwhelming odds - unlike MTW with the 16 unit limit, numbers in RTW can really tell and I have been whipped when my lean stacks blundered into maxxed out AI ones or even worse, double AI stacks. If I could improve the game any, I think it would be in getting the AI to concentrate its forces more - particularly getting it to combine attacks with multiple stacks (I've had occasions where .
I've beaten off two armies in a row in one turn whereas they would have been deadly if one had supported the other.)

I have yet to lose a non-naval battle in RTW (well, not true, I should say a battle that I went in to trying to win, I've sent a few units off to die simply because I didn't want them any more). I've faced 5:1 odds and won. The fact is, I almost never do any fighting that isn't sieging or sallying. And there is no reason to. It's actually easier to fight an enemy in the city than not. And sallying forth is an almost guarunteed means of winning.

Bh

[econ21]

Reading the flipside of this (for fun, don't take this too seriously ), IF your criteria are correct then that means the pool who would be satisfied with the vanilla version is quite small since they would require all of the following traits:

a) SP only, b) like to use pause, c) don't want a very challenging game d) don't want a historically based rendition of army composition and warfare.

I'm not saying it is that way. It is just a bit amusing when you consider what this implies for demographics.

Dunno, personally I guess most RTW are SP only, do use the pause and don't want to give a +8 attack bonus to the AI as I understand v.hard does. But that's just my hunch, maybe I'm wrong.

BTW: The interest in history was not one of my reasons for disliking RTW out of the box - I share common ground with the critics and modders on that, but it's a mass market game and I'll take what I can get (it's not like us historical wargamers are spoilt for choice).

[pyhhricvictory]

The only thing that I wish was different in SP was the AI using larger stacks. Everytime I play a game, I get an alliance with whomever my neighbor is and they invariably send 1-4 unit stacke into my territory to siege my capital. I want to see the grand battles that we were promised.

I do like having to fight the higher tech enemies, I have yet to degenerate into my topline troops fighting a bunch of peasants and spearmen like MTW. .

[CBR]

I prefer my battles on medium difficulty although AI is easy most of the times. I guess the strategical AI could be better. I also want the fewer but more epic battles in RTW as we were promised heh


CBR

[Red Harvest]

Dunno, personally I guess most RTW are SP only, do use the pause and don't want to give a +8 attack bonus to the AI as I understand v.hard does. But that's just my hunch, maybe I'm wrong.

BTW: The interest in history was not one of my reasons for disliking RTW out of the box - I share common ground with the critics and modders on that, but it's a mass market game and I'll take what I can get (it's not like us historical wargamers are spoilt for choice).

Simon, I was trying to convey that last post was tongue in cheek. No, we definitely are not spoiled for choices.

I don't play MP and as you say most players are SP (MP is always over represented in online forums for SP/MP games.) I'm using pause more than I would like because of the lack of control and particularly the bass ackwards friendly fire problems (fire at will encourages wanton slaughter of your own men.) The heavy archer kill rate and charge bonuses (coupled with fast kill rate and movement speed) box me into playing at a speed that is not satisfying to me.

I want a challenge as I suspect most players do, or a I lose interest in a hurry. The battlefield AI in RTW is less challenging than MTW. I don't like the crazy +7 attack bonus on VH, but even that is insufficient to give the AI a chance, esp. vs. cav and archers (or an elephant or two.) If I recall correctly, MTW gave both defense and offense boosts plus morale on expert. This made units tougher, but didn't increase the kill rate as much. It also made the AI units better able to hang in there. If I had some choices, I would up the AI defensive skill by some 2 or 4, and improve the AI attack by 2 or 4. As it is, the high AI attack stats make most infantry unusable by the player (although 120 man phalanx units can be used well in line formations once you learn to march past the enemy line rather than engage.) The cav with their charge bonuses, flanking ability and speed are able to overcome the problems of the infantry.

In MTW facing an equivalent tech army of the same size, with the same level of general (on expert) could be a very tough fight unless the player had a way to exploit the terrain, killed off the general early, etc. I've been routed from the field by the AI many times that way. In RTW that doesn't happen, even against superior tech and larger armies.

[zhuge]

Agree with Bhruic that in many cases you can open up a rear/flank charge with cavalry Vs enemy infantry due to their speed.
I got hit once by a Germania army with 10 full units of Spearmen, some Screeching Women and more than 1 enemy General unit.
Lured the Generals to suicide on my Hastati, took out the Screeching Women with my General's unit and started peppering the slow moving Spearmen with my Hastati and Velites. Despite being exhausted/very tired, the General's unit along with some Equites (30-40 in all) wiped out each Spearman unit in turn by just ramming them from the rear and causing them to rout while they were chasing after an infantry unit. Incurred very few losses to my own cavs when doing so. Casualties can really hit the roof with organized charges and with things as they stand, it isn't too hard to set one up.

Perhaps the charge factor needs a little tweaking. Or perhaps spearmen need to react more quickly and turn around to meet a potential threat instead of blindly chasing a unit they cannot hope to catch.
IMHO, some slight adjustments would be nice and the same goes for archers.

[zhuge]

I want a challenge as I suspect most players do, or a I lose interest in a hurry. The battlefield AI in RTW is less challenging than MTW. I don't like the crazy +7 attack bonus on VH, but even that is insufficient to give the AI a chance, esp. vs. cav and archers (or an elephant or two.) If I recall correctly, MTW gave both defense and offense boosts plus morale on expert. This made units tougher, but didn't increase the kill rate as much. It also made the AI units better able to hang in there. If I had some choices, I would up the AI defensive skill by some 2 or 4, and improve the AI attack by 2 or 4. As it is, the high AI attack stats make most infantry unusable by the player (although 120 man phalanx units can be used well in line formations once you learn to march past the enemy line rather than engage.) The cav with their charge bonuses, flanking ability and speed are able to overcome the problems of the infantry.

Would be nice indeed to have a bit of a defensive bonus and tone down the attack bonus a little. As it is, having no defensive bonus and a very high attack bonus encourages the use of archers in the game even more as melee confrontation carries a good risk of casualties on VH. If part of that VH attack bonus was given to armor instead, archers would be less effective and
kill rates would slow down a little with a more moderate attack.

In MTW facing an equivalent tech army of the same size, with the same level of general (on expert) could be a very tough fight unless the player had a way to exploit the terrain, killed off the general early, etc. I've been routed from the field by the AI many times that way. In RTW that doesn't happen, even against superior tech and larger armies.

Agree that casualties tended to be higher in previous games in the scenarios you've mentioned. There are a lot of different parameters though, like unit size, camera view, etc... apart from obvious things like battle difficulty and unit stats, so experiences could differ quite a bit even when comparing between SP players who use pause, myself included.

[econ21]

In MTW facing an equivalent tech army of the same size, with the same level of general (on expert) could be a very tough fight unless the player had a way to exploit the terrain, killed off the general early, etc. I've been routed from the field by the AI many times that way. In RTW that doesn't happen, even against superior tech and larger armies.

I am not seeing that yet - although I confess I'm not as experienced as I would like as I've had a fortnight of time out when RTW blew up my laptop.

Maybe I am just rather an unadventurous tactician compared to some people here - I tend to line up my units and either advance or stand. I don't try to lure out the AI or try very grand flanking movements that might make it unable to cope. In such a straight forward, head-on contest, I feel that RTWs battlefield AI is at least as good as MTWs. My impression is that on attack it forms a more coherent line of attack, moves more en masse and is more in earnest than in MTW where it would often come in peacemeal, lose heart and stand there getting hammered by your archers. On the defence, I am not seeing a noticeable difference in the two games (except the dumb AI behaviour in wooded walled towns and in the forum). The problem of the AI coming in waves of 16 also seems to have gone and there are times when bad strategy means I can get swamped by unexpectedly large AI numbers. I kill enemy generals less - generally only after their army has broken. The AI troops also seems of better quality than in MTW on early.

If there is a problem with RTW being easier than MTW and especially STW - which I agree it is - I suspect it is not so much on the battlefield as on the campaign map. With the risk style MTW and especially STW maps with a few "big" border provinces, the AI could easily get forces to match your own. On the more dispersed RTW map, it does not seem able to concentrate its troops sufficiently within or between provinces. It also seems inclined to make attacks that could not possibly succeed - unlike MTW and STW when it only picked fights it should win on autoresolve.

I agree with you about the difficulty adjustment being strange - focussing just on attack. It's a good idea putting some onto defence and armour - I wonder if CA have considered it?

[Bhruic]

Well, if you don't take advantage of any of the tactical options open to you, I'm not sure how qualified that makes you to judge the tactical competence of the AI. I don't say that in a negative way, I'm certainly not in a position to comment on MP tactics, because I don't play MP.

I can give an example or two about the sort of tactical idiocy I'm talking about. The AI had lined up in its typical inf|archer|cav line. I flanked around the right with a unit of cavalry. The AI did nothing. I charged their archer line with my cavalry. The archers all fled. The rest of their units did nothing. They just say there and let me chase down and kill their archers.

Another time, same basic setup. I had a fairly heavy inf line, with a couple cav. I circle my cav to the rear of their lines. They all turn around and start to chase my cav. My inf line charges into their unprotected backs, and a chain rout occurs.

Both of these are problems with the AI response. In MTW, I remember spending many a battle simply maneuvering for tactical advantage. And if I made a blunder along the way, the AI was quick to exploit it. In RTW, that doesn't seem to be the case. The AI very rarely responds to anything you do, and when it does, it seems to be precisely the wrong approach. It only gets the most basic things correct (charge the enemy line), and that's about it.

Bh

[Red Harvest]

Simon,

I would like to fight the AI more like you describe (and I am as I'll get to a bit later.) It is very hard to get the AI to fight in a coherent battle line in my experience (at least when I try to do it.) The Gauls are probably the best about maintaining a good line and attacking en masse, although they sometimes piecemeal it too.

When the AI has phalanx units it rarely keeps a coherent line--CA could really help the AI with some sort of "welded phalanx" system. The phalangites start crossing wildly as I close with them and my straight forward attack quickly becomes a mass, where either cav or infantry smashes into their exposed rear and flanks. The AI does some crazy things like charging velites into my phalanx units It also tends to suicide the general if I send archers/slingers forward. It will charge them as if the general was just another cav unit.

In my most recent campaign I decided to play as Julii and raise and field armies in pseudo legion form. It is proving a bit more entertaining. I am also using historic pre-Marian tactics. These are things I hoped CA would implement in some fashion, but I understand that it would be hard to make work coherently. It is tough to simulate since I have to use "stand-ins" early on for Principes and Triarii. So I keep the lowest experience Hastati in front, while higher experience are in the next row as Principes, and I use various units (spear/phalanx mercs if I can get them high exp. hastati if not) in the rear to represent triarii. The triarii line is not committed unless the AI is trying to flank and the hastati/"principes" are already engaged.

I'm treating a "legion" as being composed like a standard roman legion plus ally legion of the time: 2 velites/skirmishers, 2 hastati, 2 principes, 1 or 2 triarii/spear, 1 equites, plus general. Even that is a bit more horse than what Romans typically fielded, but they did hire/make use of allied cav. A "two legion" army (which was typically two Roman legions plus two ally legions) is essentially double the above with my choice for the extra slot. I use an only Roman legion (no allies) of 1 velite, 1 hastati, 1 "principe", 1 "triarii"/spear etc, 1 equite for emergency situations or to engage brigands. Eventually, I will use townwatch and base archers in cities as garrisons.

I have modded to increase horse upkeep costs (since they are ridiculously low, encouraging all cav armies.)

[econ21]

Bhruic, I am not saying I am totally lacking in any tactics - I use terrain, unit match ups, turning flanks etc. It's just that I refrain from doing things totally outside the box that the AI probably can't cope with. I fight Waterloos rather than Jena-Auerstadts, if you like.

For example, I would not try to put a single cavalry unit behind an AI army and try to destroy it (well, not unless I only had a single cavalry unit as my army and then it would not work). Wouldn't work in real life although I could just about see it working in a computer game (I used to play Norm Koger's computer wargames and the way the AI or rather "programmed opponent" would go for its objectives, more or less ignoring your army's unorthodox maneouvres, was glaringly obvious. For example, in an Isandlwana scenario, a British rocket detachment could cede to a massive Zulu wing their programmed objective and then blast it with impunity as the Zulus either held it or moved on to their next objective).

For what it's worth, I tried running a single cavalry unit behind a Gaul army just now. The Gauls sent out a cavalry unit to intercept it, supported by some infantry. Threatened to get messy until I sent my cavalry reserve to counter-charge. Thereafter the Gauls, who were heavily outnumbered, made off to escape in the direction they had launched their interception. They got butchered, but somehow it felt right - a breakout seemed the best option (at least most of their cav made it). This was only one attempt but I'll try to repeat it in other battles and see what happens. [If you are saying you tied up the AI line and then sent the cav behind it, that's a different matter and my bread n butter MTW tactic. But I don't think you are saying that.]

I also find it strange that the battlefield AI would be dumbed down from previous games. I know it's a new engine, but the battles are so blatantly the same kind of thing, it seems strange that CA would unlearn what it did for STW and MTW.

Fought the way I fight, the battles in RTW just feel "right" so far - more so that MTWs battles with its omniprescent spearwalls, arbalests, neutered knights, ahistorical "sword" units, AUMs, Byz infantry and kats. I do have to confess I have been avoiding the Egyptians thus far - never even seen one of their units on the battlefield!

I too could spent hours outmaneouvring the AI in epic MTW battles. I totally agree that for a single battle experience - eg for a Trebia - then the slower pace of MTW is much more satisfying. But when fighting a long campaign, the brisker paced battles of RTW get the job done much more to my liking. Fighting a campaign in RTW compared to MTW is like travelling to China by air rather than sea. One is tough, but eminently doable - the other requires extraordinary character to see through to the end.

[econ21]

Red Harvest, it's true most of my impressions are influenced by my Julii campaign. Maybe I am just mean, but I always tried to field minimum sized Roman armies to get the job done and the battles against the Gauls just felt "right" to my non-specialist eye. The Germans and Dacians were fun too -similar to, but more dangerous than the Gauls. The British chariots were perhaps a little too good, but great fun to encounter (I've heard the Egyptians archer ones are less fun). The civil war was interesting - perhaps the only time the AI had sufficiently large stacks for my taste.

As the Scipii, the Carthaginians were a sad excuse for an enemy. They really need a big initial boost - CA should make them, not the Egyptians, the main rival to Rome. The Greeks were interesting - the armoured hoplites were fearsome head-on (my hastati got stuck in a street facing them - not pretty). Man-for-man, head-on, they were obviously far better than the Gauls. But I did experience the careening phalanxes you talked about. At the time, I attributed it to my archery and brilliant flanking tactics. But it may be AI incompetence as you say!

[Bhruic]

I'm not trying to convince you you are wrong to like it, I'm just pointing out that I don't. I find the AI to be less of a challenge. If you find RTW preferable to MTW, that's cool. Maybe it fits your playstyle better than it fits mine. Most of my dislike is in the area of AI decision making, which I hope will see some valuable patching soon.

Bh

[SwordsMaster]

IMHO, the phalanx thing is due to the right shift added to pathfinding problems so the AI units somehow get stuck onto one another and try to disengage AND react to te player at the same time and in all ends up in a mess...

The carthaginians are too weak, agreed.

The Egyptians are the most annoying faction. specially for the romans, i think altho it was quite hard to get´em with the greeks too. too fast and too many missiles.

[The Hun]

Can not say game and unit speed is ok then say you use pause. Pause stops the action for you to issue orders and if you need to do this things are too fast. Try Total Realism, no need for pause at all

[Slyspy]

I'm disappointed with RTW for three reasons:

1) It is too easy. There is no challenge from the AI. The main enemy you face are the clunky battlefield controls.

2) So many problems are carried over from the previous games (in some cases despite being solved by patches). For example suicidal generals, moving in groups, non-user definable formations, no inter-battle save option (for those with limited playing time), friendly fire, boring drawn-out end game etc etc.

3) New features which are excellent ideas but badly implemented (mainly due to AI inability) such as sieges, family members, financial reports which show nothing clearly, strategic travelling times, some new units and so on.

Things that I'm not fussed about include the unit speeds (MTW was very slow) especially since the RTW timer slider is so clunky and, shall we say, some economies with historical facts.


I no longer play. I may try the realism mod, though my enthusiasm is low at the moment.

PS
Incidently my first impressions, even from the demo, were good.

PPS
I also use the pause button alot, mainly because of the poor control system.