Is RTW really that bad

[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.

[Mongoose]

Roma mod is only hard because it nerfs the romans. Add that to the way that the AI cheats in the first place and the enemy are super soldiers.

If you modded it to let you play as the greeks it would be painfully easy.

*EDIT*

Have you tried the BKB or XL mod for MTW?

[Satyr]

Simon Appleton, if you understand that the heart of the Total War games is the battles, then I don't understand why you can't see what is broken in RTW. There is NO CHALLENGE. What is the point of a game that takes no effort to win. Maybe that is ok when you are 8, but soon after it loses all appeal. I would hesitate to suggest that maybe you are a lousy general, but that is the only way RTW would seem ok.

[econ21]

Simon Appleton, if you understand that the heart of the Total War games is the battles, then I don't understand why you can't see what is broken in RTW. There is NO CHALLENGE. What is the point of a game that takes no effort to win. Maybe that is ok when you are 8, but soon after it loses all appeal. I would hesitate to suggest that maybe you are a lousy general, but that is the only way RTW would seem ok.

You are right (not necessarily about the lousy general bit ...). There is no challenge to a competent general in the battles out of the box. But it is fairly easily corrected by mods. The Rome Total Realism mod makes the battles about as challenging as MTW. The Roma mod makes them insanely challenging IMO (ok, you might be right about the lousy general bit).

[Mongoose]

You are right (not necessarily about the lousy general bit ...). There is no challenge to a competent general in the battles out of the box. But it is fairly easily corrected by mods. The Rome Total Realism mod makes the battles about as challenging as MTW. The Roma mod makes them insanely challenging IMO (ok, you might be right about the lousy general bit).

Like i said before...any game is hard if you nerf your own soldiers badly enough.
Roma mod is good, IMHO, but it's not harder. It's more unbalanced.

And i am not quite sure how the RTR battles are supposed to be harder...the AI is the same.

Maybe your playing as the romans...they are nerfed alot in RTR...

[econ21]

Like i said before...any game is hard if you nerf your own soldiers badly enough.
Roma mod is good, IMHO, but it's not harder. It's more unbalanced.

And i am not quite sure how the RTR battles are supposed to be harder...the AI is the same.

Maybe your playing as the romans...they are nerfed alot in RTR...

Yeah, I'm playing the Romans in RTR. In your second paragraph, you seem to be implicitly defining "harder" as "harder because of better AI", whereas "harder because my troops have weaker stats and/or the AI has more troops" would also seem to qualify in my opinion.

Yes, I agree RTR seems harder in part because it tones down the Roman stats a little - or at least boosts the Greek civ. units a lot. The Romans also lose archers and powerful cav, which both were extremely (and ahistorically) potent against the AI in vanilla. Their heavy inf. can still get the job done, but you do have to try a little harder.

Perhaps more importantly, all non-Roman factions seem to have significantly larger armies and capacity to rebuild armies too. In vanilla, as Romans, you tend to have or two big opening battles against an enemy faction, then it's a mopping up operation. In RTR, I'm always pleasantly surprised when I stumble into another full strength army when I thought the faction was on its knees.

In terms of improving the cleverness of the AI, there are clearly limits to what the modders can do. However, I have not found myself so frustrated with the battlefield AI in RTR as I did in vanilla. In fact, I find it no more objectionable than I recall the AI in STW and MTW being (let's face it, it was never that great). Clever modders can make some ingenious compensating adjustments. For example, the powerful Greek type units in RTR nicely compensate for the AIs abysmal handling of the phalanx formation. In the Roma mod, I think the designer changed the starting formations (and maybe build priorities?) of the AI so they are a little harder to fight. I like the way in the Roma mod, your weaker Roman stats mean it pays to worry about things like an elevation advantage[1]. In MTW and STW this was tactics 101 - get on a hill or maneouvre the AI off one - but in vanilla RTW, I started not to bother. In Roma, it really pays and even in the RTR mod, I'm starting to do it.

[1]Or an even more extreme example, one RTR vet even advised me to flank from my left as the enemy units got shielding bonuses from the right!

[Mount Suribachi]

Simon Appleton, if you understand that the heart of the Total War games is the battles, then I don't understand why you can't see what is broken in RTW. There is NO CHALLENGE. What is the point of a game that takes no effort to win. Maybe that is ok when you are 8, but soon after it loses all appeal. I would hesitate to suggest that maybe you are a lousy general, but that is the only way RTW would seem ok.

The basic one for me being that it is just not challenging enough

edit: Simon replied while I was typing

[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.....

[Zarax]

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.

Well, about most units you're right, but gladiators were actually sometimes deployed on the battlefield historically...

What also disappoints me is a lack of a decent mercenary roster...

For example you should be able to recruit barbarian swordsmen (not scutarii, the gallic ones!) as mercs (Hannibal did!) as well as other things around.

Another thing that pissed me off is the protectorates: you should definitely be able to use (most of) their units, as historically they gave a number of units to the "protector" army!

[_Aetius_]

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.

Generally your right RTW is an advancement on earlier games and has raised the bar to what future games of this type should strive to meet.

However, RTW was built up with such unbelievable hype that even though we were bound to be let down abit, it feels we were letdown monumentaly, in simple terms I just dont enjoy playing the game. MTW was always fun and interesting ive never seen a game that can be so fresh after such a long time, RTW just didnt catch my interest in the slightest.

Its not just the bugs and glaring errors whatever is missing it seems to be the feeling of accomplishment, it doesnt feel like MTW did, I looked forward to playing MTW whereas RTW the first thing that comes to my head when I think about it is its a chore to enjoy. I never had to make life easier on the AI on MTW to feel abit challenged, but so many players have to do things they shouldnt have to do to make the game even relatively enjoyable on RTW, RTR is a definate improvement that is for sure.

That in itself is a problem though, if modders can make the game relatively tolerable why the heck couldnt the makers? Is it so hard to spot how stupid parts of the game were when it was tested?

The roman period is to me the most interesting part of history with the expansion BI its going into a personally even more interesting period of history to me, so its not the period that didnt interest its the fact the game doesnt do it justice, its hard to pinpoint exactly why Im just not interetsed in RTW but it just doesnt feel right.