Is RTW really that bad

[Krauser]

Strategy in Warcraft 3 (or Starcraft, or CnC, or any game like that) is a lot different though, because of the way the game is setup. Terrain makes a bit of a difference, but it's not a real case of who holds what ground or who's defending or whatnot, it's more of a case of who can click on what unit fast enough to kill their superunit(s) faster and then force him to react to you. In RTW, you can setup ambushes on a tactical scale, by hiding in trees or behind hills where the enemy can't see you, come around from behind and nail them, or divide their troops. It's rare that you see things like that in a traditional RTS, just because of the way the levels are setup.

Yeah, but I think War3 requires more of a mix in armies than RTW. There are units in RTW that are strong enough to take on an army by themselves. This comes back to the bad AI. If the AI was really good I think there would be a need for a good mix of units but right now you could just build a bunch of heavy infantry and last easily. I think War3 is more strategic because there are more different types of units and you are forced to have a mix because there is no 'one' unit that can take everything. I agree that RTW is a different kind of strategy. The terrain makes a pretty big difference in RTW but not much at all in War3. As far as units go though, War3 has many different kinds of units each having a few special abilities to think about plus resources are harder to get so there are more factors to think about. Save up for a more powerful unit but possibly be caught off guard or churn out cheap units that die quickly. Through the course of the game one also needs to consider when to upgrade to that more powerful unit lest you get behind technology wise.

Back to the point, he was saying that War3 has almost no strategy. I disagree with this. I believe, if anything, they have equal strategy. RTW has more realistic strategy. How to manuver troops and where to place them. When to charge and when to stay back. War3 just has a lot of varied units where the strengths of each need to be used in order to be successful. Terrain and placement of troops doesn't matter much but there are so many different kinds of units and abilities that a lot of attention is needed to see what units the enemy has, what units would be best to counter them, and how to use those units best in combat(when to use their abilities).

Sorry for long post hehe

[CMcMahon]

That's mainly true, but you have the same problem with a lack of variety in WC3. Let's see, once you get her fully upgraded, and get your archers fully upgraded, you can use just a Priestess of the Moon and a sh1tload of Night Elf archers and wipe out just about anything. The same goes with tons of (semi-)upgraded wyverns for the Orcs.

Now that I think about it, pretty much the only time I ever really used tactics in WC3 was with massed wyvern attacks. Fly in from behind, take out as many people as I can, go to my healers that are in a corner somewhere, heal up, rinse, and repeat. With everything else, it's was always a matter of trying to keep ranged weapons at bay until the enemy infantry is dead.

[Norxis]

Look, I'm of the opinion that RTW is still the best of all three games. Graphics aside, many of the features of the game make it significantly better than MTW. I haven't been at the forum for that long, but there was still problems/faults with MTW too! Some annoying/strange things about MTW that in my humble opinion are better in RTW are:

1) arbitrary allocation of vices/virtues - ie, the coward one! Its not that cowardly in my opinion for your general who's army is getting annihilated and has fought to the extent that he's had chevrons increase to retreat, but the moment your general retreats in that game - bang! he's a coward! ANNOYING!
2) one little thing which I'm sure some other people did once or twice in MTW was the naval systems assisted conquest of the eastern world - in one turn!! It was quite easy to build up a massive military force and after destroying every muslim ship in the mediterranean conquer the entire north coast of africa, the middle east and turkey - IN ONE TURN!!!!!!!!!! not that easy in RTW thanks to the better naval system (and don't complain about, boo-hoo, it takes me several turns to get a fleet from england to antioch - deal with it) better than conquering the east in one foul swoop!
3) no diplomacy, whatsoever, and diplomacy didn't mean a damn thing - sure RTW isn't the best, but its still better than MTW, at least you can get squeeze money out of defeated enemies.
4) the whole annoying marriage issue in MTW, either get your heir a foreign princess (which wasn't possible once your powerful), or have the rest of your royal family ever after as drunks, fools and/or inbred!
5) the slow cumbersome battles.
6) not being able to deploy your own troops in attack.
7) sieges being so boring/useless that you autoresolve every single one of them.
8) on characters again, even though you get command stars a little too easy in RTW, at least you can develop someone from 0 stars to 10 stars, not that easy in MTW (unless you owned constantinople).
9) hardly any faction diversity in MTW, especially with the catholics!
10) little things we all exploited like the early period turkish ransoming of the egyptian sultan...... several times.......

As someone who only plays computer games relatively rarely, RTW does offer a challenge (if any computer game is ever reaaaaallllyyyyy challenging.....). As other people here have said, the publishers are making their games for people like me, not the hardcores who have played the TW series far to much and know exactly what nooks and crannies to exploit to make the game easier. In my opinon, if you want a challenge, go and climb mount everest or write a book or whatever, if you want a bit of simple fun, play a computer game, like the noble and fun RTW! so rome total war, is it that bad: I think not!

[Colovion]

Look, I'm of the opinion that RTW is still the best of all three games. Graphics aside, many of the features of the game make it significantly better than MTW. I haven't been at the forum for that long, but there was still problems/faults with MTW too! Some annoying/strange things about MTW that in my humble opinion are better in RTW are:

1) arbitrary allocation of vices/virtues - ie, the coward one! Its not that cowardly in my opinion for your general who's army is getting annihilated and has fought to the extent that he's had chevrons increase to retreat, but the moment your general retreats in that game - bang! he's a coward! ANNOYING!
2) one little thing which I'm sure some other people did once or twice in MTW was the naval systems assisted conquest of the eastern world - in one turn!! It was quite easy to build up a massive military force and after destroying every muslim ship in the mediterranean conquer the entire north coast of africa, the middle east and turkey - IN ONE TURN!!!!!!!!!! not that easy in RTW thanks to the better naval system (and don't complain about, boo-hoo, it takes me several turns to get a fleet from england to antioch - deal with it) better than conquering the east in one foul swoop!
3) no diplomacy, whatsoever, and diplomacy didn't mean a damn thing - sure RTW isn't the best, but its still better than MTW, at least you can get squeeze money out of defeated enemies.
4) the whole annoying marriage issue in MTW, either get your heir a foreign princess (which wasn't possible once your powerful), or have the rest of your royal family ever after as drunks, fools and/or inbred!
5) the slow cumbersome battles.
6) not being able to deploy your own troops in attack.
7) sieges being so boring/useless that you autoresolve every single one of them.
8) on characters again, even though you get command stars a little too easy in RTW, at least you can develop someone from 0 stars to 10 stars, not that easy in MTW (unless you owned constantinople).
9) hardly any faction diversity in MTW, especially with the catholics!
10) little things we all exploited like the early period turkish ransoming of the egyptian sultan...... several times.......

As someone who only plays computer games relatively rarely, RTW does offer a challenge (if any computer game is ever reaaaaallllyyyyy challenging.....). As other people here have said, the publishers are making their games for people like me, not the hardcores who have played the TW series far to much and know exactly what nooks and crannies to exploit to make the game easier. In my opinon, if you want a challenge, go and climb mount everest or write a book or whatever, if you want a bit of simple fun, play a computer game, like the noble and fun RTW! so rome total war, is it that bad: I think not!

It's interesting to see a post that solely justifies the current game's backsteps and shortcomings by pointing towards supposed past problems.

"...remove the plank from thine own eye...."

[Norxis]

As opposed to other people who nit-pick about every fault (no matter how minor) of the game after spending seemingly endless hours of research into the different aspects of the game! Only to then spend further hours expressing their extreme distaste to this game on a rome:total war forum. my advice to all the people that think RTW is REALLY that bad - play tennis, now thats fun and it gets you out into the fresh air!

[Enjoi_BlackHawk]

I rember fondly playing M:TW as the italians and do a "neo-roman empire" (that and i can get rid of the papacy quick) but the risk board just isnt as fun as the board is know in R:TW i rember in syria my huge twothousand (or was it twenty thousand?) army attacking the Muslim army (forgot the faction names) and had them flanked well when battle commenced we all fought head on, resulting in this huge running battle (all generals killed do to stupidity) and units that wouldnt stop pursuing, only to get whacked at the other end.....at least in R:TW you can flank armies on the board...

[Colovion]

As opposed to other people who nit-pick about every fault (no matter how minor) of the game after spending seemingly endless hours of research into the different aspects of the game! Only to then spend further hours expressing their extreme distaste to this game on a rome:total war forum. my advice to all the people that think RTW is REALLY that bad - play tennis, now thats fun and it gets you out into the fresh air!

Haha. You're describing yourself in context with MTW. It's been said; the fact remains that when MTW was hacked by critics - how many people ceased playing the title? Not many. RTW? Take a look at the history of the community and you'll be in for a severe reality check. And no, I don't play RTW, thankyouverymuch - haven't for months.

[Gaius Magnus]

I don't get these people who play M:TW and say they have a harder game then R:TW, both of them are easy. I mean I was brand new to the Total War series when I started M:TW and I was kicking the AI around on hard and expert in just a couple of days. Does noone remember the vast peasant/archer/spearman armies? How easy it was to lure the enemy into traps? How dumb the AI could be at times(I remember in the Almohad PBEM I was in, I killed the Spanish king with arrow fire while he sat there, unable to figure out what to do).

It took mods to get any sort of real challenge beyond the artificially induced mass rebellion trigger. Jihads and Crusades were a joke since 90% of the time they had no good general and would become rout fests. The Mongol hordes just needed you to kill their leader, then keep up mass routs and you could kill/capture 10,000+ in a single battle. Added to all this was the ease of mass hiring mercs to scare the AI into retreating or to use as expendable troops in sieges.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying I didn't like M:TW. I loved it, as I love R:TW. But M:TW was barely and just barely harder then R:TW when it came to battles, and it was brain dead when it came to the strategy map. R:TW like M:TW is slowly getting better as the mods are worked on, mods like R:TR and hopefully EB as well as Senjoku Jidai(sp?) and Zhao Total War in the future. I win a good portion of my battles in R:TR with the same ratios I did in M:TW mods, and often times the battles are harder(fighting phalanx civs with barbarians or such).

Oh and Simon, you should check out the MedMod for M:TW. Although it does focus alot on balancing things it also changes the lineups to be more historical as well as the factions. WesW and the people who have contributed to the mod have done an amazing job on it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I played STW and MTW before playing RTW.

I vividly remember the problems of the AI in MTW, such as reshuffling their stack right as I approached, or sitting just out of their range with Pavise Arbalesters, causing them to run back and forth in a small area until they were exhaused. I remember defeating the Mongols with a fraction of their strength even though they just showed up one turn with multiple stacks in each of my Eastern provinces. Oh, and the ever popular 'MTW Parade' where the AI would send units in a long string one-at-a-time.

Oh yes, and I also remember the Peasant Armies. Wow, those were challenging.

I just don't understand the desire to return to the boardgame style map. That's what Risk and checkers are for.

I think RTW is a great game and I will continue to play it. (I also enjoyed STW and MTW) I have now begun playing RTR 6.0 and it is a great mod.

I really don't understand why some people spend so much time on an RTW forum complaining about a game that they don't like.

[kongxinga]

Boy am I glad that I was right about sitting this incarnation of TW out. It seems most of the vets found the game dissappointing. The demo raised enough doubts for me to wait before purchasing, and after the game was released the fact it got high reviews from gaming sites, and complaints from hard core players just set off more warning bells ringing. When has a serious wargame ever gotten good marks from a mainstream review site? The large number of complaints after so many months is probably enough for me to pass a verdict on this game, although I might pick up the bundled pack in the end if BI fixes the complaints.

Oh and to the original poster. If you found Roman, Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Asian (that's a word I loathe. Asia is too big a place to generalize) history boring and not worth your time, that is most likely due to you not having studied them deeply enough. It is also better not to disparage other people's history, as some people may take offence.

I might have to migrate to Legion Arena and Legion 2 by Slitherine. The funny thing is that there is already a lot of TW vets there already. Now if these low budget games get better gameplay then RTW ......

This is a perfect example of the stagnation, leadership and coordination problems of larger corporations. For example, if IBM was not that closeminded, there will really be no Bill Gates today (may be good or bad according to your POV).

[Slyspy]

The attraction of the Risk-style map is that the AI actually functions on it. The free space of the RTW map merely highlights the AI's weaknesses.

I too remember those aspects of MTW. In fact I was astonished to find many of the same problems (features?) in RTW as well. That is why I consider the uncluttered simplicity of STW to be superior to both the sequels.

The AI has barely changed since STW while the game itself has changed a fair bit, and that is why RTW is flawed and a waste of potential.

RTW is no longer on my hard drive.

[Silver Rusher]

I think that whilst the AI is quite bad, the advent of mods for the game will bring more and more replay value every time one comes out. EB looks like it will be a treat for us, doesn't it?

The way to enjoy RTW is to use your imagination. Imagine being some Macedonian general, and attempt to recreate the Macedonian empire to its fullest. Once you star using your imagination and stop playing the game for the sake of completing it in the smallest time, it will become a fun and enjoyable game.

[FURRY_BOOTS]

I think that whilst the AI is quite bad, the advent of mods for the game will bring more and more replay value every time one comes out. EB looks like it will be a treat for us, doesn't it?

The way to enjoy RTW is to use your imagination. Imagine being some Macedonian general, and attempt to recreate the Macedonian empire to its fullest. Once you star using your imagination and stop playing the game for the sake of completing it in the smallest time, it will become a fun and enjoyable game.

Deffo!!! i role play this game as much as i can, abiding by certain rules you give yourself, ie, 1 general per army, slows the game down & makes it harder, im actually enjoying this game again, with the aid of rtr 6(gj guys)

[VikingOfThule]

I used to be addicted to MTW when my cousin bought it. I fell in love with it and being that he was borderline retarded I got to play it most the time. The megalomania, the sheer scale and depth of the game had me hooked. I had very high expectations for Rome, and they were greatly surpassed. I cannot play MTW anymore no matter how hard I try because RTW made it obsolete. Wonderful game.

[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.

[Puzz3D]

The way to enjoy RTW is to use your imagination. Imagine being some Macedonian general, and attempt to recreate the Macedonian empire to its fullest. Once you star using your imagination and stop playing the game for the sake of completing it in the smallest time, it will become a fun and enjoyable game.

I agree, but there's a problem because my suspension of disbief is shattered as soon as the battlelines meet. I'm immediately thrown back in front of a keyboard looking at an unbelievable sequence of events as the battle unfolds. At this point, RTW screems at me from the screen, "I'm only a silly game!". The goofball antics happening on the screen seem out of place because I don't play the game to get comedy relief. I've read interviews given by CA where they joke about the comical, unrealistic elements in the game as though they are great features.

[LittleRaven]

Rome: Total War is easily one of the best games to hit the market in the last two years. A little perspective is in order here.

No, it will not make you coffee and massage your feet. Obviously there is room for improvement. But to call it anything less than a fantastic achievement is simply ludicrous.

It's not the best game of all time. Whether it's the best game of the TW series probably depends on your taste. In many ways, it completely blows its predecessors away. However, it's also much more complex than Shogun or Medieval, and that does make the shortcomings of the AI, which has always been the weakest part of the TW series, even more obvious. It has it's share of bugs and quirks, though that was true of all the old ones as well. It's also pushed the TW series into really cool territory that's never been seen before. After Shogun, I thought the castle sieges in Medieval were great. Rome has made all that obsolete in a moment. I can't wait to see where things go from here.

All things considered, you'd have to be crazy to miss out on this game. Not only do you get the vanilla game, which is a pretty phenomenal value for $50, but you get access to more mods and skins and units than you can shake a stick at. CA deserves massive kudos and money for the bang up job they did on this game, and polite reminders of the things they still need to fix. After all, we all want them to make more.

[Crusader4thepeople]

Rome: Total War is easily one of the best games to hit the market in the last two years. A little perspective is in order here.

No, it will not make you coffee and massage your feet. Obviously there is room for improvement. But to call it anything less than a fantastic achievement is simply ludicrous.

It's not the best game of all time. Whether it's the best game of the TW series probably depends on your taste. In many ways, it completely blows its predecessors away. However, it's also much more complex than Shogun or Medieval, and that does make the shortcomings of the AI, which has always been the weakest part of the TW series, even more obvious. It has it's share of bugs and quirks, though that was true of all the old ones as well. It's also pushed the TW series into really cool territory that's never been seen before. After Shogun, I thought the castle sieges in Medieval were great. Rome has made all that obsolete in a moment. I can't wait to see where things go from here.

All things considered, you'd have to be crazy to miss out on this game. Not only do you get the vanilla game, which is a pretty phenomenal value for $50, but you get access to more mods and skins and units than you can shake a stick at. CA deserves massive kudos and money for the bang up job they did on this game, and polite reminders of the things they still need to fix. After all, we all want them to make more.

I agree completely. Id played Medieval for a long time and was considering getting rome but was reading so much bad stuff about it. but i gave it ago and it blew me away. Seriously dudes put everything into perspective, rome is a brilliant game, and the variation of mods just blew me away. Ok the AI is worse than in Medieval Total War but so what. The beuty of the game blew me away and the shere effort put in by creative assembly is awesome. I mean you can look at your settlement on the map, your army is placed where it would be on the campaign map, the campaign map is in sync with the battle map ( i.e forests, bridges) and you can use the campaign map to your advantage. The sieges are awesome, you can use ladders rams and siege towers without a special unit for it. I dont care if one unit ever existed, the TW series has taught me more about history then most of my complete book collection.

So please put it into perspective dudes it might not be perfect, but its an awesome game

[Red Harvest]

Rome: Total War is easily one of the best games to hit the market in the last two years. A little perspective is in order here.

I disagree. It's not the sort of game that I will go back and play for kicks/immersion. It is not a game that hooks most of us (historical/strategy gamers--NOT RTS.) It isn't a challenge on the battlefield. The other TW series games are better.

[Doug-Thompson]

I'm just a fool for almost any game with horse archers in it.

But seriously, folks, the strategic game's movement system and other features are a marvel. I look at R:TW as a very good game that clearly within reach of becoming a great one — which makes its shortcomings harder for many folks to take.

The bad word of mouth from the hard-core base and the massive modding done on the game are sending clear signals to CA. If anything, I think the criticism is much too harsh. I'm going to give Barbarian Invasions a whirl.

How can I not love a game with Huns? (See first sentence.)

If BI messes the Huns up, I'll get the mod.

[LittleRaven]

I disagree. It's not the sort of game that I will go back and play for kicks/immersion. It is not a game that hooks most of us (historical/strategy gamers--NOT RTS.) It isn't a challenge on the battlefield. The other TW series games are better.

Maybe. But even if you believe that, Medieval was released in 2002. Shogun in 2000. What games were released in the past two years that were better than Rome? Are you seriously going to maintain that it's not one of the best games since 2003?

I can appreciate that you don't like it as much as its predecessors. I agree that in some ways it is weaker. (I don't think the AI is actually worse, but the system is more complex, so it seems worse.) But the game has its strengths as well. It's a very promising start for a new engine and I'm very hopeful about where the series could go from here. And at $50, it's still a heck of good entertainment value.

[LittleRaven]

But seriously, folks, the strategic game's movement system and other features are a marvel. I look at R:TW as a very good game that clearly within reach of becoming a great one — which makes its shortcomings harder for many folks to take.

Bingo. Last night I fought a battle on a road near the sea where I had built a guard tower. Not only did I see the road and my guard tower on the battle map, but I could see my fleet in the distance! Holy crap! The potential here is enormous.

For what it's worth, I do think that Rome misses it's full potential. Battles ARE too fast. The AI IS lacking. And the grouping bug is REALLY REALLY annoying.

But even firing at 90% power, Rome is a huge, HUGE step forward for the series and the genre in a lot of ways. There's a lot to like, and very good reason to be excited about the future.

[edyzmedieval]

RTW is quite bad.

The AI sucks, tons of bugs but the big plus is the graphics.
MTW is better made, although bad graphics.

[sunsmountain]

At least 5000 Gamespot members disagree with you. Most newbies notice nothing of the AI.

It's only STW and MTW seasoned vets that notice and compare it at all.
I have yet to find the first RTW-owner who thinks it's crap without owning MTW/STW.

[Doug-Thompson]

RTW is quite bad.

The AI sucks, tons of bugs but the big plus is the graphics.
MTW is better made, although bad graphics.

I see why people would think that, edyzmedieval, but I think it's wrong to look at RTW as a prettier, dumbed-down MTW.

I've been a major whiner about graphics wagging the gameplay dog on many forums, including this one. What I like about the strategy map is not the looks, but the mechanics.

For example, just today I sent a Roman general with an all-mercenary cavalry force deep into the steppes. They surrounded an enemy capital city, which was lightly held, and besieged it. The enemy faction leader and his heir are inside, as my agent informed me before the raid.

After the siege began, the Roman general hired some mercenary infantry to build the rams and such. My plan is to take the town next turn, killing the two leading members of the royal family, then exterminate the capitol city population and demolish all the buildings I can, then leave.

You couldn't do those sorts of things in MTW.

Which means that you can beat up on the poor old AI on the strategy map even more than on the battle map. RTW greatest new feature is also the one that most highlights the deficiencies of the AI.

To repeat for emphasis, the MUCH better strategy map with the MUCH wider array of options makes it that much easier to beat up on the poor old AI. RTW's greatest new feature made the game too easy.

I've yet to see the the AI ever launch an amphibious invasion. Come to think of it, does the AI ever hire mercenaries?

The much richer array of strategy options all go to the human player's benefit.

I'd like to see on-line play of the strategy game. Relatively short, limited campaigns. Now that would be tough. And I'm not even an on-line player.

[econ21]

I've yet to see the the AI ever launch an amphibious invasion. Come to think of it, does the AI ever hire mercenaries?

I am re-playing Rome Total Realism v6 as Roman on VH campaign. The Greeks have bought a fair number of mercenaries (Samites, Etruscans etc) early on. They have also landed several large (one full stack) armies in south Italy to try to reclaim their lost cities.

In the previous game, right up to the 50th province (and accompanying CTD ), the Ptolemics and the Seleucids were repeatedly coming at me with powerful stacks, bolstered by mercs, sometimes shipped by sea. I was fighting perpetual to and fro sea battles while Greece, Macedon, Numidia, Carthage and Iberia were also warring against me. It was great fun - best end game of a TW game I've played.

I think some of the apparent AI deficiencies in vanilla are actually just reflections of weak AI starting positions. Aside from the Romans and Egyptians, most factions in vanilla start rather weak. Given them a lot of money (by VH campaign & rich provinces) and some decent starting armies plus good recruitable units, and you get a more competitive game.

[Doug-Thompson]

Sounds like I'm going to have to go with the Total Realism mod. It sounds great.

I'm going to take advantage of my computer crash though. I'll have a fresh (except for patches) install of RTW. No "no horse jumping" mod. No fix for horse archers post patch. I'll install BI right over RTW and have a pure vanilla sample to work with.

[Red Harvest]

Maybe. But even if you believe that, Medieval was released in 2002. Shogun in 2000. What games were released in the past two years that were better than Rome? Are you seriously going to maintain that it's not one of the best games since 2003?

I can appreciate that you don't like it as much as its predecessors. I agree that in some ways it is weaker. (I don't think the AI is actually worse, but the system is more complex, so it seems worse.) But the game has its strengths as well. It's a very promising start for a new engine and I'm very hopeful about where the series could go from here. And at $50, it's still a heck of good entertainment value.

Lower the bar enough and squeeze the range enough and you can claim anything you want about it or any other game. I compare RTW to similar style games that I have and its own siblings. As for better games, Civil War Bull Run is much more interesting on the battlefield and at about $20 IIRC when I bought it, soon after release. It is actually an opponent worth playing. Haven't bought many others lately, I wasted a bunch of time on RTW, can't say that the game itself was satisfying. I did expand my knowlege of period warfare and history greatly trying to figure out why the game didn't give the right feel. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of a game...it made me want to acquire more history books instead of playing. In that regards it has been an extremely expensive purchase.

[LittleRaven]

Lower the bar enough and squeeze the range enough and you can claim anything you want about it or any other game. I compare RTW to similar style games that I have and its own siblings.

I'm lowering the bar by saying Rome is one of the best games in the last two years?

Holy cow. That's one heck of a standard you have. A game can't be a success unless it's what, the best game of all time?

Rome blows away it's siblings in lots of ways. The strategic map opens up options that never existed under the old games. The expanded family tree and traits system is a huge step over the Medieval system. The new engine allows battles on walls and in towns, something we could never do before.

I appreciate that you don't particularly enjoy these advancements, or at least that other problems overshadow your enjoyment of them, and that overall you prefer the old system. That's fine. I quite understand how someone could prefer Shogun or Medieval or Bull Run to Rome. What I can't understand is people saying Rome is a terrible game. It isn't. Not by any reasonable standard whatsoever. And I should know, because I spend entirely too much of my life playing computer games. (and hanging out with people who spent even MORE of their lives playing computer games) MOO 3, now there was a terrible game, and a disappointing sequel to boot. Age of Sail II, yeesh. Or heck, even Black and White, which was a technical marvel and a complete dud as a game. Trust me, in the wide world of computer gaming, Rome is a masterpiece, even considering the footsteps in which it must follow.

[Veresov]

My unhapiness with RTW is that it is not challenging. The AI in battle is very easy to beat even with mods! It also has the very bad save/load bug that breaks its strategic game.

At this time I am not sure I want to buy expansion after reading that very little of the game is going to change. I am not talking about added features but instead CA fixing the problems with this engine. I can get a very good mod - Darth mod or RTR for free.

[Red Harvest]

I'm lowering the bar by saying Rome is one of the best games in the last two years?

Holy cow. That's one heck of a standard you have. A game can't be a success unless it's what, the best game of all time?

It doesn't make my list unless it is something I want to play again; RTW isn't, unlike its siblings. I have many old games that can't hold a candle to RTW based on looks, but they are ones I still like to play (and I'm still doing scenario development on one from 1998.)

Rome blows away it's siblings in lots of ways. The strategic map opens up options that never existed under the old games. The expanded family tree and traits system is a huge step over the Medieval system. The new engine allows battles on walls and in towns, something we could never do before.

It has the *potential* to blow them away, but it fails due to sloppy execution. That potential was why I spent time on RTW in the first place. The gameplay isn't as satsifying in RTW for me.

The strategic map looks great, and has potential, but the AI is so weak strategically that it doesn't really carry over into gameplay. The AI doesn't employ its armies well, so it adds an extra dimension of weakness to gameplay. It also results in some weak tactical maps. I could go into some detail here as to why this is so...I'm working on something related at the moment, concept development trying to figure out how to work around this, just back burner project I've been thinking about. MTW handled it by making detailed maps that used the border crossing to determine which ones in a pool could be generated. RTW is using a sort of smoothed surface of the entire strat map as a starting point, and this does not allow as much of a realistic countour/vegetation effect as is really needed. The RTW battlefield terrain doesn't come into play sufficiently when compared to STW or MTW.

Unfortunately, the traits system is so badly bugged that it is a hindrance to the game. It gives you 10 star generals in no time by double counting, etc. It could have been a step forward, but a badly bugged implementation made it a step backward gameplay wise. I would prefer to play without the current RTW traits.