Heart of the Matter , Is RTW good value for $?

[Shambles]

CA did a really good job, a great job, but forgot about the DEADLINE, and then rushed the parts of the game not done at that time. (Okay, maybe the amount they wanted to do couldn't be done by the deadline.)

Hopefully, the expansion will allow them to finish off the little things, fix some bugs, and expand the AI. For all my bitching, I can understand these guys wanting to hold tight until September and then hope the "storm" passes once the XP is out. I think it's a flawed business strategy in this case, but I can see the thinking behind it.

I think one of the problems with CA is they think only MAJOR problems count. Add up enough minor issues, dose liberallly with poor service, and you will make your customers upset.

Fingers crossed on the XP. Then I can go back and edit my review.

I see some people think its Right for them to deliberatly leave bugs in the game,
Then charge you extra to fix them.

No wonder They realeas unfinished games if your attitude is Never mind Il pay more money to fix it,

This is a joke
obviously some people have more money than brain cells

[mxlm]

To compare Rome with MTW (one of the greatest strategy games of all time) is a joke. Even if you ignored all the bugs in Rome, the fact remains that the battlefield AI is a steaming pile of plop.

...And Medieval's isn't?

The sole aspect of MTW's AI that was superior was the strategic AI. It actually used concentrated forces. Because it has to. Because that's how the strategic map is designed

But the battlefield AI? Heh. I picked up the battlepack a few weeks ago, because I'd heard on these boards, so often, that MTW was better.

And, erm, it isn't. First battle I played, the AI proceeded to march its melee infantry right up to my line of four longbow units...and dress its lines. While its troops were falling by the dozen with each arrow volley, it took the time to adjust its facing, make some minor changes to its formation, and so on. By the time it stopped, the infantry had already begun to break under the arrows. Not one of the AI's units reached my archers.

Yeah, that sure is stellar AI, right there *cough*

[SoxSexSax]

...And Medieval's isn't?

The sole aspect of MTW's AI that was superior was the strategic AI. It actually used concentrated forces. Because it has to. Because that's how the strategic map is designed

But the battlefield AI? Heh. I picked up the battlepack a few weeks ago, because I'd heard on these boards, so often, that MTW was better.

And, erm, it isn't. First battle I played, the AI proceeded to march its melee infantry right up to my line of four longbow units...and dress its lines. While its troops were falling by the dozen with each arrow volley, it took the time to adjust its facing, make some minor changes to its formation, and so on. By the time it stopped, the infantry had already begun to break under the arrows. Not one of the AI's units reached my archers.

Yeah, that sure is stellar AI, right there *cough*

I'm not going to argue with what you "found" but I am going to say that I have played MTW for hundreds of hours and know full well how much better its AI is. Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

[sunsmountain]

Even if you ignored all the bugs in Rome, the fact remains that the battlefield AI is a steaming pile of plop.

That relative 'fact' is easily countered by the fact that the graphics of MTW look like a streaming pile of plop. Literally. Not to mention twice the cultures, twice the factions, twice the diversity in units, etc.

Buy RTW.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm not going to argue with what you "found" but I am going to say that I have played MTW for hundreds of hours and know full well how much better its AI is. Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

I have played MTW also for hundreds of hours and I don't think the AI was better. The AI in RTW has just more options to mess up. That's why it seems worse.

[SpencerH]

The AI in MTW was not brilliant. Whether the AI in RTW is truly better or worse is hard to judge since the battles are over so fast. As with MTW, the only close battles I've had have been fighting against overwhelming forces.

[player1]

The reason why RTW is not enough challenging is because bugs don't allow it to be more challenging.

If harder battle difficulty AI, would cheat as designed (having higher attack bonus), it would make battles more challenging.

If AI wouldn't go into passive state after loads, you would get more interesting campaign game.



Anyway, just these two things could greatly increase challanege rating of this game, without any improvement AI.

If these two things get fixed in expansion, I would buy it.

[Butcher]

That relative 'fact' is easily countered by the fact that the graphics of MTW look like a streaming pile of plop. Literally. Not to mention twice the cultures, twice the factions, twice the diversity in units, etc.

Buy RTW.

Yes, we know MTW has twice the cultures and unit diversity, and the graphics are not as good, but having re-installed it and played it again, it is a much more enjoyable game than RTW is AT THE MOMENT.
Rome has a lot of potential, but for me, the most important factor of FUN isn't there.
I am about to lose as the Poles in a High GA game to the damn Almohads. They own half of Europe (literally), it is going to be impossible for me to beat them, but I will try.
There has never been this much sense of 'hopeless fun' in RTW.
MTW has it's drawbacks yes, but it is fun to play, which for me, graphics or no, is the most important thing.

[Kekvit Irae]

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank. They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

[SpencerH]

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank.

and you havent seen similar behaviour in RTW...

They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

Flanking attacks did happen in MTW. IMO the AI in RTW does attempt to flank more often. All it means, however, is that the first AI units to be routed are the AI's cavalry.

[SoxSexSax]

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank. They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

I am frankly amazed at what I am reading in this thread. How anyone can keep a straight face while saying RTW has a better AI than MTW amazes me. I have played both for HOURS and I KNOW which one is better. By default, the AI in RTW uses the same formation for open terrain battles EVERY TIME! Check the formation file in the data folder, it is HARDCODED to always prefer one specific formation. And you claim it's AI is better? Go away and learn your stuff boy.

[Spino]

Is RTW a good value for the money? It depends on what kind of gamer you are.

If you're a casual gamer or a relative newbie to strategy games or someone just looking for some cheap thrills and eye candy then I suppose RTW is worth the money. The initial 'wow' factor is quite high and there's lots of things to do initially. If you aren't looking for a serious challenge or have an allergic reaction to difficult strategy games then RTW is for you.

However with regard to veteran strategy gamers I'd have to say that RTW is simply not worth the money. I bought RTW the day of its release and paid roughly $50-55 for it. Given the outstanding bugs, issues and lackluster AI that exists even after two patches I honestly feel I overpaid for this game. Once the initial 'wow' factor wore off and I recognized RTW's lack of challenge and depth I wished I had bought it on sale or at a bargain bin price. It all comes down to longevity and I feel that RTW simply doesn't possess the replayability factor that MTW:VI had, even with extensive modding. In fact I think the better mods out there for MTW:VI did more to improve gameplay for that title than any of the current mods have been able to do for RTW. When it comes down to it RTW simply doesn't offer the kind of challenge and deeper gameplay veteran strategy gamers are looking for.

Regarding the AI. Yes the AI in RTW makes some of the same mistakes as the AI in MTW but overall I'd have to say the tactical battles in the latter were more challenging. The sheer number of lopsided victories I've won in RTW on Hard (and not the by product of 'gamey' or unorthodox tactics) far exceed those I achieved in MTW:VI at the same level of difficulty. RTW was in development for roughly four years and the tactical AI seems no better than it was in Shogun and certainly worse than that found in Medieval! As far as I'm concerned this is the most disappointing aspect of RTW and the one area that CA seemed to completely ignore. I can understand the strategic AI being somewhat lackluster in its execution since the campaign game has been completely changed but the tactical battles are what the Total War series are all about and to see CA offer up a tactical AI that is, for the most part and with few exceptions, worse than its predecessors comes as a rude shock, especially given the time and development that went into creating Rome.

[DisruptorX]

If you can pick up RTW for 20 bucks usd or the equivalent, you will get your value. The game is deeply flawed, and the campaign is a boring mess, but there is one thing that the game does do right, and that is seige battles. Really, when I played it, I only defended or attacked castles, because this is the only fun part. Seiges are amazing and very well done. Otherwise, the AI is a joke, the campaign is hollow and a joke, and the Egyptian faction is a joke.

If you can get it cheap, buy it, otherwise, stick with MTW.

If anyone does not take my word that the AI in RTW is beyond attrocious, I present visual proof. Sorry for the H-scroll, but I feel that this is worth seeing, even if it is inconvenient.





and as you can see by the total troop count in the second image, those two images are indeed from two seperate battles.

[saddletank]

Buy R:TW then install patch v1.2 then install Rome:Total Realism. It's great. I haven't touched M:TW in weeks since getting R:TW. I have played 2 M:TW campaigns as Turks and French, plus three M:TW VI campaigns as Picts, Irish and Vikings. Then I played three R:TW campaigns as Julii in a vanilla 1.2 and as Carthage and Egypt in two R:TR campaigns.

I would say that the AI is perhaps very slightly poorer in R:TW but the R:TR install makes the armies you encounter much better balanced, which forces you to construct better balanced armies. On the whole, despite the lousy pathing during sieges I would say R:TW is very slightly the better game. And the eye candy is great.

[Kekvit Irae]

Go away and learn your stuff boy.

My suggestion is that you take on a lighter tone. Insults are not tolerated lightly in this forum.

[mxlm]

Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

Start of an English campaign, but was against a Welsh rebel force of...hell, I don't even remember the composition. Several polearm wielding units and a peasant or two. That's what I get for trying to garrison a newly conquered province reeeeaaally lightly.

My point wasn't that MTW's AI isn't "better"--if you say it is, I'll take your word. However, it simply isn't good, and can be downright horrible.

Which doesn't mean the game isn't fun. It just isn't as massively superior to RTW as numerous posts on these boards had led me to believe. I've enjoyed RTW more than I have my initial experiences with MTW (though MTW is certainly fun). Maybe that'll change, maybe not.

And STW, well...RTW is certainly better than that was. Of course, since RTW is the third game in the series started with STW, it damn well should be.

[Kambei]

Interesting how the newbies (like me) think it is the greatest thing since lunchtime and the old lags grumble loudest. I'm pleased to hear there may be an expansion pack; I have spent HOURS trying to install patch v1.2 to no avail. Hurry up with a CD fix, CA!

[econ21]

Yes, RTW is good value for money. I was just clearing away my games yesterday and was surprised by the sheer weight of the RTW box - the CDs, the manual, the map.

It is a very substantial game - the amount of factions you can play; the length of the Imperial campaign (how many hours to win? I'd guess 40+); the incredible variety of units and army styles (phalanx, legion, cav, horse archer, chariot, barbarian horde etc); the excellent tactical battles; the impressive strategic map; the decent building/economic game; the gorgeous graphics; the historical simulation etc etc. There's easily five times the content of most rival strategy games - in some cases, I'd say 100 times more content.

A lot of the bugs are just a consequence of the compexity of the game. Ditto the AI limitations.

When people damn the game, I'd like to know what contemporary strategy games they consider so superior. I'm certainly not playing any.(I'm reduced to playing shooters and replaying oldies like Jagged Alliance 2.)

And if the say STW or MTW, I say they are just spoilt!

[Bhruic]

It is a very substantial game - the amount of factions you can play; the length of the Imperial campaign (how many hours to win? I'd guess 40+); the incredible variety of units and army styles (phalanx, legion, cav, horse archer, chariot, barbarian horde etc); the excellent tactical battles; the impressive strategic map; the decent building/economic game; the gorgeous graphics; the historical simulation etc etc. There's easily five times the content of most rival strategy games - in some cases, I'd say 100 times more content.

And content makes a good game? Sometimes it's the simple games that are the best - often for that very reason.

A lot of the bugs are just a consequence of the compexity of the game. Ditto the AI limitations.

Then maybe they shouldn't have made it so complex? Complexity for complexities sake is not a good idea. And excessive complexity that you can't properly account for (ie, you end up with too many bugs/flaws) is not good either.

When people damn the game, I'd like to know what contemporary strategy games they consider so superior. I'm certainly not playing any.(I'm reduced to playing shooters and replaying oldies like Jagged Alliance 2.)

And why would we be limited to contemporary games? And why should we have to name something better? Are you suggesting if your only choice for food is sour grapes, spoilt meat or stale bread, that because you happen to pick the stale bread, that makes it good? The fact that you'd choose to go back and play something like JA2 would seem to indicate you don't actually believe that, so why impose that limitation on us?

And if the say STW or MTW, I say they are just spoilt!

So if we've had a couple good games to play, that's all we are allowed? We now have a quota on them? We aren't allowed to expect a company to continue to put out the same quality games?

Bh

[Razor1952]

@ Bhruic

I have to agree with S Appleton. I give very high marks to the development team for aiming so high.

"Better to have loved and (maybe) lost than never to have loved at all" Not quite appropriate but I guess you have my drift.

[econ21]

Bhruic, I find games are rather like movies or books. No matter how good they are, you don't keep endlessly replaying them but move on to something else. It's quite legitimate to ask what's the book of the year or what new movie to watch this month. Right now, I'd rate RTW higher than any other strategy game since MTW.

For example, in a moment of weakness, I bought "Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War" - it's a great, polished RTS made with a lot of love but I played it precisely one week, stopped when RTW came out and never got the urge to fire it up again. I also bought LOTR: BFME and never got beyond the first screen (I'll return to it but am in no rush). Going a little further back, Silent Storm was technically admirable but seemed to lack soul. With Civ3, I could not get past the ancient wars which involved moving scores of warrior units one square a year in a brain numbingly dull fashion.

Typically you move on from games when you've burnt out or when you've "cracked it" (or mastered it). The complexity and variety of RTW means that point can be delayed despite the limitations. I've had hours of fun with it - I fear to estimate how much, but even a 10 year PBM reign takes up all my free time on a weekend. So I'd rate it as a good value - probably better than any strategy games which I have not already played given my tilt (I like historical war games that are accessible).

Critics of the game obviously have a different opinion, but I'm genuinely interested to know what recent strategy games they spend their time playing.

[Colovion]

Critics of the game obviously have a different opinion, but I'm genuinely interested to know what recent strategy games they spend their time playing.

Many critics of the game aren't in a monogamous relationship with their game genres.

[doc_bean]

Many critics of the game aren't in a monogamous relationship with their game genres.

They are certainly having a quite ugly divorce with Rome...

[Colovion]

They are certainly having a quite ugly divorce with Rome...

We still want to be friends, there's dependants.

[Magraev]

I believe Simon A. makes an excellent point.

All the emotions shown by true fans are a result of huge expectations and only a very good game. That doesn't change the fact that it's a very good game, but most (myself included) hoped it would be a great game.

I'm sure that the level of complexity and number of features in the game is a source of unforseen bugs, but they should still be fixed once discovered! CA can quickly loose their goodwill if they don't.

I still play the game more than any other (after a break from 1.0 to 1.2), and I think i got my moneys worth, compared with other games I've bought.

[Bhruic]

Bhruic, I find games are rather like movies or books. No matter how good they are, you don't keep endlessly replaying them but move on to something else. It's quite legitimate to ask what's the book of the year or what new movie to watch this month. Right now, I'd rate RTW higher than any other strategy game since MTW.

I agree with the first half of your statement. It's the second half that I don't. There have been very few strategy games released of late (in fact, very few games at all, at least of any quality). Would I rate RTW higher than them? Probably. Does that mean I think it's a good game? No, it just means I think the other ones are worse.

As I said before, having to choose between multiple "bads" does not make your choice "good", it makes it "least bad". To me, that's what RTW (in its current state) is. Least bad.

Bh

[Red Harvest]

@ Bhruic

I have to agree with S Appleton. I give very high marks to the development team for aiming so high.

"Better to have loved and (maybe) lost than never to have loved at all" Not quite appropriate but I guess you have my drift.

I suspect it was lust, not love. We lusted for the beautiful exterior that was Rome. Then we got to know her...a pleasant girl...but she couldn't carry on an intelligent conversation, and in the morning without her make up, foundation garments, and perfectly coifed hair...well...we lost interest all too soon.

[Colovion]

It's not that we had false expectations, it's that her father portrayed her to be something which she was not.

Or alternatively, I feel like I've been given a Leah when I was promised a Rachel. DAMN YOU LABAN!