I've played RTW (v1, v1.1 and then v1.2) to death with most of the factions (including a modded-down Egypt) since it was released. As others have said, it just becomes too predictable and a case of how much you can steamroller before you bore yourself senseless.
Actually found VH / M (strategy / battlefield difficulties) to be more challenging than VH / VH. Simply because the battles lasted longer, and the AI didn't route almost immediately. Also, I've never figured out why (after defeat - if any survive) enemy armies somehow manage to rout / withdraw back to their own or an allied province. Countless times they've done this, just seems completely unrealistic for them to pull this off, especially if it was their armies who launched the attack (having moved prior to the assault).
Haven't played Medieval or VI so can't compare them to RTW or BI. I've got a brand new copy of the Battle Collection on the shelves - just a question of timeUnlike most here (I'm guessing
), I actually started my total war collection with RTW. Then played a bit of BI, completed a Roxolani campaign which was a good test on VH / VH. At least VH battle difficulty is now Very Hard
I've recently bought Shogun: Warlord's Edition and am now playing that. The battles are completely different - at last the AI actually has a chance of getting one over on you! Shogun's graphics aren't the best tbh, but who cares, the gameplay is top-notchAlso, the length and - as many others have mentioned in other posts - the atmosphere of battles in Shogun are what really makes it superior IMO to RTW, but it depends on how you look at a game. Whether you prefer one which is historically accurate, or has superior tactics and planning involved, or you just simply prefer slaughter and carnage on the battlefield.
CA have given the player a good choice in how they want to play RTW, such as the auto town managers, auto-resolve battles etc.
Ahem,![]()
![]()
Bookmarks