I guess it is time to ask...

**Divinus Arma** · 11-03-2005, 03:20

So would most agree with the if-you-like-rtw-buy-it and thumbs-asessment?

btw: thanks for the hefty info brutus. Your point on 3-5 full stacks x # of hordeing (sic?) factions was well made.

**econ21** · 11-03-2005, 14:24

Yes, personally I think it is a good expansion and it seems to have been well received here (better than RTW which got slammed by a lot of patrons).

Since you can get the patch independently of the expansion, it's not a must buy in the way that VI was. Given that, what you are buying is just the new campaign, but that is better than the VI and MI ones IMO. It's a biggie - almost on the same scale as RTW itself in - 100 years, many different factions. It's harder, because the factions are more "good to go" with decent armies/tech/economies and hording, as discussed, makes for unpredictable challenges.

You might want to read the BI PBM thread in the Throne Room for some taste of an ERE game. TinCow did great holding off the Huns and Goths, but he had the advantage of mainly defending bridges and even then lost one battle when attrition just wore his army down (the Hordes have a lot of archers, so you do lose men however well you play).

The balance of arms seems to have changed a little - I am not sure to what extent this is just BI or the patch. Cavalry have been toned down a little, as have missiles but all three arms (cav, missiles, infantry) still have a role to play. The player getting very high star generals seems less common too - at least as Romans, because your fighting generals quicky become useless due to disloyalty.

BI also seems to have caused rather less offense to the historically minded than RTW did, although there are the odd few naff units. Playing WRE and ERE, trying to hold the line against the barbarian hordes certainly felt pretty authentic to me.

**Trithemius** · 11-04-2005, 00:53

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

BI also seems to have caused rather less offense to the historically minded than RTW did, although there are the odd few naff units. Playing WRE and ERE, trying to hold the line against the barbarian hordes certainly felt pretty authentic to me.

Except that it tends to go better than it did? :)

**econ21** · 11-04-2005, 02:38

Originally Posted by Trithemius

Except that it tends to go better than it did? :)

Well, with the player as Romans, yes. But I guess when the player is a barbarian, the boot is on the other foot. I wonder what would happen if the computer just played itself?

**Trithemius** · 11-04-2005, 04:51

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Well, with the player as Romans, yes. But I guess when the player is a barbarian, the boot is on the other foot. I wonder what would happen if the computer just played itself?

I'd probably get annoyed and turn the game off and play Civ instead?

I've never seen the AI make good use of forts, so I assume that the Roman factions would be overwhelmed pretty quickly. I don't know if it specialises its production areas either, which I find helps a lot when playing the Romans on higher difficulty levels.

**Divinus Arma** · 11-04-2005, 05:07

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Yes, personally I think it is a good expansion and it seems to have been well received here (better than RTW which got slammed by a lot of patrons).

Since you can get the patch independently of the expansion, it's not a must buy in the way that VI was. Given that, what you are buying is just the new campaign, but that is better than the VI and MI ones IMO. It's a biggie - almost on the same scale as RTW itself in - 100 years, many different factions. It's harder, because the factions are more "good to go" with decent armies/tech/economies and hording, as discussed, makes for unpredictable challenges.

You might want to read the BI PBM thread in the Throne Room for some taste of an ERE game. TinCow did great holding off the Huns and Goths, but he had the advantage of mainly defending bridges and even then lost one battle when attrition just wore his army down (the Hordes have a lot of archers, so you do lose men however well you play).

The balance of arms seems to have changed a little - I am not sure to what extent this is just BI or the patch. Cavalry have been toned down a little, as have missiles but all three arms (cav, missiles, infantry) still have a role to play. The player getting very high star generals seems less common too - at least as Romans, because your fighting generals quicky become useless due to disloyalty.

BI also seems to have caused rather less offense to the historically minded than RTW did, although there are the odd few naff units. Playing WRE and ERE, trying to hold the line against the barbarian hordes certainly felt pretty authentic to me.

Thanks for the info. And the brie?