rate the game

[clayton ballentine]

what score do you give this game 10 being the highest and 1 being the lowest

[clayton ballentine]

what do you say about RTW or MTW i

[ichi]

I gave a 7 to STW WE and MTW VI, Rome would get a 4.

ichi

[Uesugi Kenshin]

9.5 for STW, though that may partly be nostalgia speaking. 9.4 for MTW:VI and an 8.3 to RTW. No matter what I am just too caught up in making an empire and following my core family members to care too much about the problems. Besides when I get frustrated I switch to an FPS or a mod and de-stress.

[clayton ballentine]

Rome would get a 4.

ichi

a four

[Shambles]

STW
Easy 10 Becous i love it

MTW
Gets 8 Becous its realy Good. And campaign is tougher than STW In the VI
Would have had 10, But i had to buy VI to make it tougher than shogun

RTW
3 ish and im being kind there cos i uninstalled the game and Refuse to play it as it sux
It only gets points becous of its gfx and the few additions they made to rome,
Becous its really is unplayable, If you have any of the other 2 games,
You will just play the other 2
As the AI Is appauling,
They never bothered finishing the game,
And they riped me off for almost £50 for something I wouldnt even use to rest my cup of coffe on

[Drisos]

Hello, clayton ballentine! Nice to see you in sword dojo.

A ten for STW. I'd say both for MTW and RTW a one because these games made STW lose so many players.

[ichi]

a four

LMAO

[viermaaldomi]

a 10 , both for STW and MTW.I haven't played rome yet (I'll buy it when they release the BI expansion pack)

[Razor1952]

You guys are a bit harsh.

I rate STW:WI , MTW:VI and RTW overall the same mark say 8

.

STW:WI gets its mark because I love the simplicity of the campaign (clearly defined strategies can be used) battle mode is fun but graphics hardly topnotch.

MTW:VI because some of the campaign things are good strategy fun(like acumen/leadership/titles) but together with RTW suffers from needless complexity fro micro-management. Battle AI the best of the 3 , graphics OK but not stunning

RTW(I only play mods) because the graphics are awesome fun and the field battles are great extravaganzas, but I'm not so keen on continual sieging and fighting my way through city streets where pathing becomes a bugbear.


So all equal for different reasons. Personally I'd love to play STW with RTW graphics. That is a campaign map which is not degraded by needless detail for optimal management , field battles with awesome graphics.

[Drisos]

Personally I'd love to play STW with RTW graphics. That is a campaign map which is not degraded by needless detail for optimal management , field battles with awesome graphics.

me too, actually, but I think STW is already great.

The SJ:TW is exactly what you mean, same idea(japan, sengoku jidai) RTW grafics. I think I'll give that one a try when it's finished.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Stw: 10
Mtw: 0
Rtw: 0

[Byzantine Prince]

You guys are waay to harsh on the sequels. If I had to choose between playing RTW and any other game besides STW and MTW I would play RTW in a second. All TW is great. STW although dated has its own charm.

STW: 9
MTW: 10
RTW: 9

[clayton ballentine]

i like RTW way better than the STW and the MTW

[Irinami]

I rated STW a 7.

It is a good model, but when you get down to the simulation and wargaming aspects it starts to fall short, and certainly lacks in the historical accuracy regards.

6 Daimyo clans, "Rebels and Ronin" being one of them, seriously detracts from it to me. To my understanding, the concept of armies of samurai is at best pinned upon a loose (and poor) usage and/or mingling of the terms "samurai" and "bushi," and the idea of them being uniform is often (but not always) laughable. Some of the units themselves are laughable--having "No-Dachi Samurai," for just one example, is like having "Pistol Fallschirmjaegers" in a WWII game. Yes, many FJ's did have pistols, but that was far from their only--or even primary--weapon.

A lack of independent unit AI is quite questionable, as is the lack of any ability to specify "the big picture." A commander who must babysit his units is laughable for any disciplined, trained force (it would be understandable for ashigaru units to lack independent thought save for fleeing).

Generals' loyalties and politicking would have greatly improved the Strategy aspects. The abilities to 1.) disengage, 2.) about-face/change what the unit's "front" is, and 3.) split forces, would have made for a more believable and, to my understanding, historically accurate wargame. The absence of naval combat of any sort (yes friends, it did play an important role) and the absence of actual marine assualt is disappointing, but understandable.

Instead we have an excellent game centered upon battlefield tactics using a rather Greco-Roman filter to view the military structures of the Sengoku-Jidai era. While lacking in specifics, including some very important specifics, in the end it models the period well and in a fashion which, while a bit too fast-and-loose for the serious wargaming/military simulation crowd, is enjoyable to anyone with interest in tactical wargames or in the setting.

How's that?

[Quietus]

In terms of popular internet review standards (relatively speaking):

STW - 9.5
MTW - 8.2
RTW - 9.2

[Drisos]

Stw: 10
Mtw: 0
Rtw: 0

me too!

[2ddragon]

Stw: 10
Mtw: 0
Rtw: 0

My annoying next door neighbour had Rome and I played it and it sucked - the battles are lousy.
Had the MTW demo - made me want to throw up - i just hate it tbh.
STW is still the best