Is RTW really that bad

**King of Atlantis** · 06-18-2005, 21:20

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** · 06-18-2005, 23:19

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** · 06-19-2005, 01:20

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

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** · 06-19-2005, 02:09

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** · 06-19-2005, 07:04

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** · 06-20-2005, 19:21

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.