Is RTW really that bad

[Budwise]

I am more of a FPS fan myself but I fell in love with MTW because I love the Medieval era of time where battles lie in numbers and you can see your enemy and know who your fighting.

I never bought RTW because to be quite honest, I NEVER FOUND THE ROMAN PERIOD interesting WHATSOEVER. Kinda like how I see ancient Egypt or ancient asian culture, a complete waste of my studying time.

Athough I don't like the period though, I always thought about buying the game and infact lost three bids to it on eBay, outbidded on the last minute or outbidded with more than I wish to pay for it. Now, I read here and its pretty much common knowledge that the game sucks more than Michael Jackson in a boyscout meeting.

Well, is their any redeaming qualitys in RTW. I know that I am posting this in the MTW thread but I want veteran TW players and not ones that focus on eyecandy.

[Soulfly]

It's not a bad game, in fact, if you can look past the stupid AI and the countless bugs, it's a very good game but with oh so much more potential. I just got very bored of it after one campaign. Its main pitfall for me is the exclusion of the RISK board. I loved this in Medieval and really, really did not latch on to the new Board. Maybe it's the fact that armies are so sparse on the board, and they tend to miss each other alot because there's so much room to move, that I barely have any non-Siege battles. Siege can be fun, but when 70% of my battles are sieges, it gets to be a tedious routine.

Of course, there are many great mods coming out for the game, and I never played the vanilla version of the game (downloaded RTR right after I got the game), but these mods will never fix my main gripe with the game - the Board. And, unfortunately, eye candy really doesn't do it for me. Graphics are not a factor at all when I buy a game.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

For me Rome is just not as addictive as medieval was and is. When i first played Shogun and then medieval i just couldn't leave the computer but Rome just didn't have the magic for me. I still love playing it and its a great game but i feel CA went for graphics over gameplay.

[Mongoose]

For the first 6 months i had it...it was great...now i have to force myself to play it...

I was at the point where i was spending 10 minutes a day on it and i had to force myself to do it...then i stoped.

Not really sure why it got so boring, though. I think it was the AI.

I don't have MTW but i assume it had a worse AI (Since it's alot older) so i would guess that it was even more boring.

[Martok]

For me Rome is just not as addictive as medieval was and is. When i first played Shogun and then medieval i just couldn't leave the computer but Rome just didn't have the magic for me. I still love playing it and its a great game but i feel CA went for graphics over gameplay.

You've pretty much summed up my feelings on all 3 games, although you probably still enjoy Rome a lot more than I do--I barely play it anymore.


To mongoose: The AI in the first two games is actually much better than in Rome, both on the strategic level, and in battle. In both Medieval and Shogun, the other factions are generally better at developing their infrastructure and training their more advanced troops (although both games still could've been better in the latter area). And the combat AI in both previous games is far more competent than in Rome. In Shogun and Medieval, the AI forces me to actually fight for my victories, which makes battles far more enjoyable--what's the fun in fighting a battle where you're virtually guaranteed to win? In Rome, combat was a cakewalk; the only battles I ever lost were ones where I was ridiculously outnumbered (by at least 3-to-1 or worse). Most battles in Rome can be won by a simple frontal assault, whereas in Shogun and Medieval you often have to use actual tactics to beat the AI--which I find to be a most welcome change.

[_Aetius_]

I never bought RTW because to be quite honest, I NEVER FOUND THE ROMAN PERIOD interesting WHATSOEVER. Kinda like how I see ancient Egypt or ancient asian culture, a complete waste of my studying time.

Roman history leading into Byzantine history is some of the most interesting and important periods in european history, if you dont like Roman history its hard to see how you could like history at all.

RTW is a massive disappointment alone its a 7/10 at best but due to all the hype it got it doesnt even deserve 5/10 total letdown.

[JR-]

For me Rome is just not as addictive as medieval was and is. When i first played Shogun and then medieval i just couldn't leave the computer but Rome just didn't have the magic for me.

agreed.

[King of Atlantis]

Considering mtw was my favorite game ever i would have to say rtw was a let down. Way to many battles are sieges. But rtw is still a great game, but it doesn't have the replay value. I played mtw of and on for about two years and never got old cause it had a way of making you feel your in history but rtw just doesn't have that. I have stopped playing it and waitng for some good mods to come out. With all of that said i wouldd still buy it. It is certainly worth its money.

And one thing to rember, mtw was a lot worse until its expansion came out. The expansion really added a lot of features that made the 100 times as fun, so if you dont want to buy it now wait and see what people say about the expansion.

[Zarax]

Exactly my thought, i think we should wait for EB before pulling the plug on RTW... Another thing i found quite annoying is the fact that RTW is more difficult to mod on the basic things... The unit management system is just awful, and even properly changing ownerships is a pain compared to MTW.

Other than the AI what i can't really stand is the lack of depth on factions outside the roman ones and its replacement with often fantasy units... Plus the fact that many of the ones in the games are quite redundant and doesn't really add fun to the game (try the MTW mod in my sig to see what i mean).

[Martok]

And one thing to rember, mtw was a lot worse until its expansion came out. The expansion really added a lot of features that made the 100 times as fun, so if you dont want to buy it now wait and see what people say about the expansion.

I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, the Viking Invasion expansion pack improved MTW in a lot of ways, but Medieval was still a fun game even by itself. I honestly doubt Barbarian Invasion will be able to do the same for Rome, as the game has too many fundamental flaws--especially the poor AI and faction imbalance.

And hey, if it turns out I'm wrong about that, I'll be more than happy to admit it, believe me. But until I read the reviews and see what other Org members have to say about it, I won't even consider purchasing Barbarian Invasion. Shogun and Medieval are both superb, but Rome has made me very leery of buying anymore Total War games.

[King of Atlantis]

I know mtw was good without the expansion but the expansion really added alot to the game. CA seems to left out a lot of stuff from rtw so that they could make more money on an expansion. The one thing i would like to see in the next total war game is the return of the risk board. It is a lot less realisticc as a feature, but in turn it makes for more realistic gameplay

*faster(realistic) troop movements
*battles in the province instead of constent siege.

[Martok]

Ah, well than I stand corrected. Sorry for misinterpreting your words; my bad!

I have mixed feelings about returning to the old Risk-style map, but I know where you're coming from. As you pointed out, it's not as realistic as Rome's 3D map, but you're also right in that Medieval's gameplay was probably better because of the Risk-style map.

I like Rome's map because it offers a lot more possibilites as far as placing armies, forts, watchtowers, etc. Unfortunately, this makes Rome's AI (which of course isn't the brightest to begin with) have an even more difficult time coping than it would otherwise. At least with Shogun and Medieval's maps, the AI has far fewer locales on which it has to form a battleplan. On Rome's map, there are literally thousands of different battlefields the AI has to deal with.

Now I actually prefer Rome's army movement system, although I do believe they should be able to cover a lot more ground per turn than they do now. (An army can only make it a couple hundred miles per season?? Come on!! Unless you're traversing mountainous terrain the whole way, even the slowest army could move 500 miles in a month.). It's always seemed a little silly to me that an army in Medieval can only move one province per turn, no matter how small it is. That said, I also agree I've fought far too many city battles on Rome's 3D map; castles seiges don't happen nearly as often in Medieval, which I think is as it should be.

In the end, while both maps have advantages and drawbacks, I think I'd ultimately prefer the Risk map. It's simpler to manage my provinces and my armies on the 2D map, and it's definitely easier for the AI to manage its provinces and armies! If getting rid of the nice-looking (and strategically open) 3D map improves the gameplay overall, then so be it.

[Satyr]

Well, I think the answer to the map issue is pretty simple. Keep the 3D map but have the same response (battle ensues) whenever an army crosses into a province. Thus you can keep the beauty of the Rome campaign map and also have a situation that the AI can handle whereby armies always meet when a province is invaded (and all armies in the province meet the invader).

I can play a battle in RTW and more or less only lose the men killed by friendly fire. This often leads to 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1 kill ratios. In MTW a great battle would have about a 5 to 1 kill ratio (especially if playing with a Mod that turned peasants off). What's more, there are lots of battles that are really close, especially when the AI (which moves last) unexpectedly reinforced. I don't think I ever lost a battle in Rome once I learned how to play. I lose battles all the time in MTW. Also having many different factions to choose from in MTW is really good because it keeps the game fresh. I think that if CA can provide a decent AI and can put speed sliders on both the campaign and battle maps in BI then I would give Rome a second chance. Otherwise I will just wait and see if they can regroup and get it right in the next game because RTW really did miss the mark.

[Budwise]

Excuse me, but what the hell does CA stand for? Like I said, I don't play RTW so I don't know the acronyms

[Zarax]

CA stands for Creative Assembly, which is the Total War series developer.

@kiwitt: if you liked AOK you might want to try the mod in my signature, it tries to bring a bit of the old gameplay style inside MTW...

[Productivity]

Re. the first post, yes, yes R:TW is really that bad. The AI is horrendous, I've given up on my game as Spain. I can't feasibly play more than about five turns at a sitting, so the save/load bug kicks in. I've watched the Julii try to take one settlement from Gaul for the last~35 turns. The gauls are down to about 60 men in there, against maybe a couple of thousand romans. But they never take it and they never will. Whats more, until they take that settlement, I know they aren't going to come for me, which is leaving me free to smack the Scipii around in N. Africa.

This talk of smacking the Scipii around in N. Africa leads me to my second point. I have taken Carthage in my game, but am surrounded on all sides by the Scipii, and their fleet is stopping me from getting reinforcements in. Every turn, they march up, siege Carthage and I go to sally out. Inevitably they have taken ~1000 men to siege my 1200 man army in Carthage, and their army again gets smacked around. I've done this for 10 turns in a row now. It always plays out the same way. You would think they would actually save up their troops, and maybe siege me one time with an overwhelming force.

When I sally out, the AI does a quick calculation and realises it's outnumbered and withdraws away from the walls. Fair enough, let me come to it. It inevitably draws up a battle line, and then as I approach said battle line, it will spontaneously decide that it needs reorganization. This means that my battle line inevitably hits the AI's when it is in the middle of a reshuffle, and it turns into chaos, where my superior numbers always win. If it could just pick a line and stick with it, it might stand a chance. As it is, the legions can't throw their pila because they are usually moving, they get moral penalties because I tend to hit them in the flank (I'm actually hitting them in the front, but since the AI has decided to run it's central troops out to the wide areas, they are running sideways to me) and within about 20 seconds the whole line collapses and I win the battle. A trained monkey could take my job. If it wasn't for Australian quarantine laws, I might get one to do so, it certainly would be more efficient than having to do it myself every time.

The AI breaks the game. It provides no challenge whatsoever.

[edyzmedieval]

First of all, many things at RTW are completely upside-down!!!!

1.) AI sucks!
2.)Spain was called Iberia!!!
3.)You can win a battle with only the general!!!
4.)TONS OF BUGS!!!!
5.) AND MANY MANY OTHER ANNOYING THINGS....

[econ21]

Out of the box, RTW has a number of flaws. The basic one for me being that it is just not challenging enough. The combat/movement speeds are also a bit souped up if you are not fond of the pause button.

However, it is still very recognisably the same kind of game as STW and MTW, so I don't understand how people can like those early games and not see redeeming qualities in RTW. The heart is still the battles. You have essentially the same choices about deployment and tactics as in the earlier games. The tactical engine has not been dumbed down in any way in my observation. The strategic level is also similar to the earlier games - the economy may be better than MTWs broken trade model - and the more free form campaign map opens up some interesting possibilities.

Recently, I tried the Rome Total Realism mod and it transmutes RTW into something very close to an ancient MTW. This has renewed my interest in the game and also illustrates my point that RTW is very much the same kind of beast as STW and MTW. I even tried the Roma mod for RTR and saw how someone has transformed an unchallenging SP game into something that most of us MTW vets can't handle.

Of course, RTW improves on a number of features in STW and MTW. I like the Senate better than the Papacy - having missions and rewards is a nice way of giving direction in such a potentially open game. I think the different faction armies are more distinctive and play in more different ways (eg legion, phalanx, barbarian, horse archer), whereas MTW and STW tended to produce clone armies. The graphics are obviously better. With the slowed down combat of RTR, I now really enjoy zooming in combats and watching the clash of arms. The campaign map feels much more like a real wargame than a gamey Risk thing. Sea warfare is better done, while sieges are greatly improved. The balance of arms is potentially more interesting - cavalry and missiles are ahistorically more powerful than in MTW - although I think some modding (such as RTR) is needed to get that right.

I think RTW has the potential to really attract those interested in ancient historical warfare. The EB and RTR v6.0 mods with new units skins and orders of battle are a joy to contemplate - the previews are more informative than most books on the subject. [Strangely, I have not found equivalently rich and ambitious historical mods for MTW]. I guess this is irrelevant to the original poster, but personally, if it is well done, I find military history of any period fascinating.

[Martok]

First of all, many things at RTW are completely upside-down!!!!

1.) AI sucks!
2.)Spain was called Iberia!!!
3.)You can win a battle with only the general!!!
4.)TONS OF BUGS!!!!
5.) AND MANY MANY OTHER ANNOYING THINGS....

Hmm, I can think of a few other things.....such as all the "fantasy" units in the game (Arcani, Gladiators, etc.)--yes, they're fun to play with, but certainly not historically accurate. And what about the fact that certain factions (especially the Romans and Egyptians) are way overpowered? Or that you can't play as other factions until you've won as the Julii, Brutii, or Scipii?

That last feature really bugs me; I don't think I'll ever understand why Creative Assembly did that. It would have been like forcing Medieval players to win as the Byzantines, Egyptians, or English in order to unlock the other factions.

That said, I still have great respect for CA, and I really do admire what what they were aiming for whey they developed RTW. Unfortunately, that still doesn't change the fact that IMHO, they dropped the ball with Rome. I simply hope they're able to correct their mistakes in the next Total War game.....

[Volstag]

It's not a bad game. It has a ton of potential... but, sadly, potential doesn't necessarily make for good gaming. The engine is absolutely fantastic. Massive kudos to CA on that regard.

That being said, however, the biggest detractors to (vanilla) RTW: glitches/bugs and the fact that it's relatively easy. Fixing the former might take care of the latter but, as it stands, there isn't a whole lot of challenge. Contrast that with a typical game of Civ III (for me): there will be games, and occasions within games, where I'm not sure if I'll be able to win, or not. There'll be occassions when I desperately do NOT want to go to war with certain civs, etc. There'll be occassions/games where I'm at the bottom of the leader board, trying desperately to claw my way to the top. In short: games where I'm periodically/perpetually getting my ass kicked.

In RTW.... that really hasn't happened. I've had a couple scares, but, generally speaking, it's not that difficult to obliterate everything in your path (but since I generally only get to play for 1 to 1.5 hours at a time, this might be a symptom of the save/load "feature")

-V