Rome: Total War Hindsight...

[Lehesu]

Was there ever a consensus on the game by the die-hard Total War community? Not talking about the people that joined the Org because of Rome or the people that spend all their time in there. I'm talking about the old-school Shogun/Medieval players. I personally tried the demo and disliked it, than forgot about the game, waiting to read some reviews by real fans of the Total War genre.

[Efrem]

In short,


Shogun RULZ

Medieval SUX

Rome Is the greatest stratagy game of all time.

[Paul Peru]

Medieval SUX

Yes, that's the general consensus - NOT!

OK, in spite of the lateness of my join date, I consider myself a die-hard mtw player. (I tried stw as well, but after mtw it wasn't that exciting imo)

I largely agree with frog-person.
The difference is that I've played dozens of mtw-campaigns, not to completion, but to "the point of no further challenge". Probably about 10-15 vanilla ones and more than twice that number with different mods (and about 5 vanilla VI ones).
Now, after 3 campaigns, rtw feels somehow old/stale.
I'm not sure why, but it's clear that the AI needs fixing, both campaign and battle.

[frogbeastegg]

The frog view in brief:
Some of the changes I like (e.g. the speed [until infantry start running!] I found the demo way too fast but the normal game feels fine [until the infantry start running!])

Some of the changes I hate (Let me move my army in one go and maintain facing!)

Some of the nasty changes are easy to mod away (green arrows die with one text edit)

The new engine has plenty of good advantages aside from the obvious graphics. I feel that the battles are more chaotic than MTW, more like STW because the units tend to mix up as they fight instead of remaining as two distinct clumps.

The new engine also calculates fewer 'factors' (archers can all fire in 10 deep formations without issue and FF is ludicrous) in combat. This means RTW is simpler than the previous games. Gah!

Overall I am finding historical tactics and expectations yield good results.

I love cavalry. I also like archers and missile units doing damage again, although the elite archers could perhaps use toning down. The normal archers remind me of STW.

Many of the unit skins/models have me wincing because of little (or not so little in the Egyptian's case) errors. If anyone can tell men why all the mail shirts are neatly slit open at the front so they don’t protect the groin and lower stomach I’d be very interested to know. I’ve never seen evidence for armour like this; even medieval hauberks had the split placed lower down, and these guys are meant to be Roman. Roman mail has always had a complete skirt in every source I’ve seen, except for the occasional side split on cavalry mail, so if someone can point me at the source for this I’ll be a happier frog.

Faction wise RTW is the best; each faction is unique and individual with strengths and weaknesses. It’s not a repeat of the identikit parade of STW or the virtually identical Catholic factions of MTW.

Balance wise, well all games need tweaking. It could be worse but it could also be better.

The campaign is fun; I've played 2 short campaigns to completion and several others which I dropped. I have now stopped while I wait for a patch, but this is more than I ever got out of MTW

In MP the lobby sucks, totally and without any slight hint of redemption. In-game chat is also fiddly.

However if you do get a MP game going it's quite good fun. I do play with people I know; this means less chance of having to fight a 16 archer army or something else dumb. I didn’t play MTW MP much and I never touched STW MP so I can’t really compare.

Technically RTW is doing nicely on my PC however arrows, just plain, simple arrows lag me to death in MP.

The AI in battle is prone to perform at a steady level of dumbness with the occasional flash of brilliance or moronicness.

Bugs, yes there are bugs but they are nor horrific game stopping bugs. I haven't had a single CTD with the vanilla game. However many of the bugs are rather annoying and this is why I am waiting for a patch. I’m quite happy; I like the game but it is a shame there are issues. RTW is one of the greats and tiny things that wouldn’t matter in another game really hurt in RTW, purely because it could be near perfect if only …



This is more a colusseum topic, so over it goes.

[R'as al Ghul]

I play the Total War games exclusively since S:TW.
Somehow I love them all for different reasons.
Shogun is my favourite era but it has limited troop diversity.
Medieval was great in that it brought a huge unit diversity, many different factions, bigger map, slightly better battle-controls.
Rome beats them both in respect of the campaign map. There're so much more possibilities of troop movement etc. The battles are quite fast but I still play without any mods attached. Speed of units is fine but as froggy says the infantry run speed is too high. I like the fact that archers are more deadly, as in Shogun.
The only real issue I have with all the games is that the battle-AI is too weak. That's still the case in Rome. On the campaign map Shogun and Medieval AI's do better in that they lead their armies with tough generals. Fighting an 8* Spanish General with a full stack silver weapon army on expert could be a close battle in Medieval. Unfortunately this doesn't happen as often as in M:TW. It's more common that you fight small skirmish battles against captain-led armies (no bonus for them). Some battles are challenging but it doesn't occur that often. Factions like Parthia or Numidia are worthwhile because of difficult starting positions.
I would definitly recommend to buy it. I haven't stopped to play since I got my copy.

R'as

P.S.: The demo is crap and doesn't represent what the real battle-engine offers.

[Didz]

Being a TOTALWAR fan I have every one of the TW titles.

My own view is that something went wrong in the development of RTW.

STW had its problems with things like suicidal faction leaders and the Hojo Horde which were partially resolved by patches.

MTW built on that foundation adding seiges and simplistic naval warfare but suffering from some unit balance problems. However, it retained the lesson learnt in STW and generally played better than STW. The biggest let down in MTW was the absence of the movie clips which were a real pleasure to watch but were replaced by boring and bland parchment effect scrolls.

RTW has seen massive improvements in graphic's, seige mechanic's, skirmishing and diplomacy but seems to have lost the earlier lessons learned about suicide leaders and friendly fire control. As such RTW is a step backwards in terms of unit behaviour which isn't helped by the fact that many of the new features like group formations and seige operations are actually bugged and don't work reliably.

Hopefully, all this can be fixed by patches but it begs the question as to how and why the third evolution of a game engine can resurrect issues which were identified and resolved years ago.

[Doug-Thompson]

The strategy game is superb.

Tactically, I think the attempt to combine a claim of historically accurate battles with an attempt at mass-market appeal was an ambitious mistake.

If I'm right, the implications are pretty dire for the future of would-be realistic historical games. No one will be able to afford to develop them because there won't be a big enough audience.

As I've said before, all the factors that drive the "realist" core users nuts are pretty obvious attempts to make the tactical battles more "fun" and "exciting" and less time-intensive. Consider: infantry that's too fast. Kills rates that are two fast. Timers that are too short. The overpowered, dramatic cavalry charges with "flying" horses that act like projectiles. Elephants that are very hard to kill. I even think the friendly fire problems and loss of the spear-unit rank bonus are related. The changes nerf the time-old tactic of putting archers behind a spear wall, making battles more "fluid" and "exciting."

After all that, Activision's attempt at mass market online appeal suffered from multiplayer system bugs so severe, it required an almost immediate patch.

As a single player, I'm very pleased with the game. I like the strategy. As a horse archer player, I love the changes made here. It's the first game where HA worked right.

I'm not looking forward to the patch nearly so much as to the expansion kit. It will make more factions playable -- as several players have already done on their own -- and make numerous fixes and tweaks.

Instead of easy, normal, hard and very hard levels that just add combat modifiers, CA should provide "easy," "realistic," "very realistic" and "uncompromisingly realistic" levels that add complexity, lower kill rates, etc.

[Didz]

Tactically, I think the attempt to combine a claim of historical accuracy battles with an attempt at mass-market appeal was an ambitious mistake.

I agree. Any company planning to market a historical wargame should not allow its product to be corrupted by those who wish to introduce un-historical gimmicks for mass market appeal.

I think a clear choice needs to be made right a conception.

If you are producing a historical wargame then historical accuracy is paramount otherwise you are just going to piss-off your target market and earn yourself a shit load of bad press from people who bought the game expecting it to be a historical simulation and took less than two seconds to spot that your development team and marketing guys just conned them out of £30.

If you are not producing a historical wargame then basically stop fecking about, drop the pretences at historical accuracy and go for the full fantasy option with all the super cool units like flying pigs, fire breathing dragons and wizards.

Trying to tip-toe some imaginary line between these two options is dumb, the game is too inaccurate to appeal to the guru's and too boring to appeal to the click-fest kiddies.

Personally, I am desperate for Napoleon Totalwar as its my favourite historical period. However, have no doubts that if it hit the shelves and proved to be a pile of un-historical crap my wrath would know no bounds. It would definately be the last CA game I ever purchased.

[Praylak]

Tactically, I think the attempt to combine a claim of historical accuracy battles with an attempt at mass-market appeal was an ambitious mistake.

If I'm right, the implications are pretty dire for the future of would-be realistic historical games. No one will be able to afford to develop them because there won't be a big enough audience.

Well said, and worth quoting again. We seen this happen with StarfleetCommand, and many other series. Denial of what made their original vision a notch above all the rest, only in the end to give way to greed. Its a human fault, guess I can't blame them.

I like RTW and some new fatures, but its a soulless flash in the pan. I say that because once you get pass all the ooh and ahh, you see right through it. I can't see playing it two years from now. MTW, STW those are masterpieces. Now that CA has made all that money making a game for the warcraft crowd, will they return to their roots?

[D. Boon's Ghost]

I am not nearly as knowlegeable as most people here, concerning the TW series. I have, though, been a fan since M:TW.

It's my opinion that Rome was meant to appeal to a much broader audience than either of the previous games in the series. I won't say that R:TW is 'dumbed down', but it does seem to shift the Total War series into a more action-oriented genre of strat games.
Vanilla (and patched) Medieval was simply the greatest computer-based board game I have ever played. I'm not sure how many hours I must have put into that one - it's an obscene amount, though.
Rome, on the other hand? It's the best looking board-based video game, no doubt. And I think that's the main difference, to me: Medieval was a board game on the computer, while Rome is an arcade game that wants to feel like a board game.
Rome is great, don't get me wrong. It's just a tad too click-festy for me to look forward to playing it all that often. As frogbeastegg mentioned - I've finished 1 full campaign, and dropped about 4 or 5 more. Eventually, it got to the point where I lost the inspiration/passion to continue playing. Even worse, I started eyeing that Medieval box and contemplated reinstalling it.

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya sez... CA should heed Vanya's Software Manifesto:

"Always add, never subtract."
-- Vanya

Reading some of the comments here, it seems to Vanya that features were removed to dumb things down. Pity. Vanya have much fun with all three games.



Sadly, though, Vanya no longer can field the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom, since RTW has no gun units. Another great pity. Vanya weeps, for He has no guns to discharge into enemy backs. Just imagine what RTW friendly fire would be like if youz could have STW lines of musketeers or arquebusiers firing through your lines into the silly enemy pig-dogs?



Vanya sez... CA should add Roman Praetorian Arquebusier Cohorts to the game. And, don't forget about the Armored (linen armor, not metal) Camel Cataphract Cannon Beduins. And Naked Fanatics that are actually, ahem, naked. Better yet, Naked Fanatic Noble Womenz units... fielding arquebuses! GAH! The glory! The mayhem! Vanya is getting too excited... must run...



GAH!

[Lord Ovaat]

You know, it's kinda funny, but when I think about MTW, I can barely remember the vanilla version. Played it a lot, but what made it great for me were some of the mods I used, most notably, Med Mod. Still love the homelands concept. I've thoroughly enjoyed playing RTW, even with all the bugs, and am glad I bought it. I, like Froggy and some others, am waiting patiently for the patch/expansion. But I have a feeling that in the long run what will make this game great will be the mods. The engine is there. It's the best I've seen. Must have the game to play the mods--and probably the expansion. I'll never regret buying it. Let's get real. I've played this particular game just about every day for an least an hour or two for nothing more than the original cost of the game. Now, is that a bargain, or what?

PS: If any publisher relies strictly on MP with this type of a game, and/or excessively dull historical accuracy, they'll go broke. Let them hit a middle ground and make a profit. The modders will polish for the die-hards. But, and this is a big but, most of the real problems with RTW can't be modded. They need to be patched, and certainly will be. I have more faith in CA than any other developer I've personally experienced. And Activision stands behind their work, also.

[lonewolf371]

Eventually, it got to the point where I lost the inspiration/passion to continue playing. Even worse, I started eyeing that Medieval box and contemplated reinstalling it.

I feel your pain...

[Slyspy]

My opinion on RTW, for what its worth, is that it is a wasted opportunity and I wonder what went into that extra year of development it was supposed to have. It is full of good ideas but is very badly implemented. To have problems identified and fixed in the earlier games appear in this one is unprofessional. To fail to tailor the AI, which is essentially the same as before, to the new features is just wrong and makes it much easier. In effect there is, IMO, no real game or enjoyment to be had from RTW. It has all of the failings of its predecessors and any potential innovations are ruined by failings in their implementation.

I will be going back to EUII for strategical play and MTW for tactical stuff soon enough I feel. I hope that a patch will fix some of the problems with RTW but realistically I fear not. CA's patching has not been that great previously (IIRC one patch, expansion, another patch) and this game needs alot of work IMO.