RTW: Worth Buying Yet?

[Zild]

After reading the many negative comments on these forums after RTW came out, I decided not to buy it unless the eventual expansion patch - I mean pack - made it worth buying.

How good / bad would you guys say RTW is with BI expansion?

Do CA deserve my money, or must I continue not to buy the game out of protest (and having other things to spend it on!)

[econ21]

Yes, it's worth buying although for me it is the mods - specifically Rome Total Realism - that made it a "must have", rather than the expansion. The forthcoming Europa Barborum mod also looks very tasty.

From your perspective, I guess it depends on what criticisms made you abstain from buying it.

My main criticism was that the game seemed rather unchallenging, at least as Rome. BI improves on this - you have to contend with hordes, often 5-6 full stacks of fairly decent, balanced armies. The level of challenge is a bit random (whether the hordes target your faction or not) but is better than vanilla. It also seems much harder to gain command stars in BI than vanilla, so you are not so superior to the enemy. There are also tweaks to the tactical and strategic AI, so - for example - it seems less common to encounter leaderless armies and armyless leaders. Generally speaking I've had more respect for the AI in BI than I recall from vanilla - especially the strategic AI.

A second issue I had with the game was that the battles were rather fast paced - move and kill speeds are high. The expansion has slowed the kill speeds a little, I think by raising the defence stats of BI units. Playing BI, I was not bothered with the speed issue any more, but then I am a player who often pauses the game. [I still prefer the slower RTR speed though, where you can savour the action more.]

The third issue I had with RTW was that cavalry and missiles seemed rather too powerful for a period renowned for its heavy infantry. I think BI has improved this alot and feels pretty much "just right" - cavalry and missiles are very useful, but you could not rely on either alone (a horse archer army might still work though). I gather the BI patch has improved phalanx-cavalry interactions too.

Finally, I was a little bothered by some of the fantasy units in RTW (the Egyptians, the wardogs etc). These are not so obvious in BI and it generally feels pretty realistic to me (as long as you don't look too closely at the Roxiolani, which look like a girls' football team).

However, before BI came out, the above concerns about RTW had also been largely met by the Rome Total Realism mod - it slows down the combat, improves the campaign challenge, has a good balance of arms and has pretty historical OOBs. But whether it is thanks to RTR or BI, I think RTW is definitely worth getting - I can't understand folk loving STW and MTW but not seeing the similar virtues in RTW.

[IceTorque]

It's definately woth getting, this is the only game in this genre.
I too have made public many complaints about TW, But have learned to appreciate the many improvements it has, there is another patch being tested now so it will only get better. And like simon says some of the mods are truly awesome, giving it an almost new game feel.

[Brutal DLX]

At the moment, before the 1.4 patch, I cannot recommend the game as such. There have been vast improvements from 1.0, but still the game feels lifeless on the strategy map, with many odd occurences due to the diplomatic system; and the "fun level" of the battles largely depends on the player taking initiative in one way or another.
I'm not a mod player, apart from the modifications I do to the game myself, so my opinion is only given for the "vanilla" version of the game. Certainly, the ingredients for a great game are there, but it's not bug free yet, and the devs still haven't found the right way to bring the parts of the game together to realise its full potential.
I would wait for the next patch, the patch of the expansion pack so to speak, and then decide whether or not to buy, as it's unlikely the vanilla game will be patched significantly again after that.

[Rilder]

well unlike alot of people i had no problems with the original 1.2 game, i actually prefered playing it to 1.3-1.4 , BI, the battles to me seemed just right and slower then everyone thinks, sure i got RTR and that rocks but RTW 1.2 was fun as hell to me it just confuses me to hell what everyone hates about this awesome game, i mean i hear stuff about the diplomacy being crappy, well if you want diplomacy go play Civ 4 but RTW has a more dynanmic diplomacy then everyone thinks., i mean if you wanna ally with someone you have to TREAT THEM LIKE AN ALLY even before you sign an alliance treaty, in wars i tend to treat my foe Honorably and when i want a ceasfire they tend to agree

So i say, do not listen to the people who think RTW is bad go and get it and forge your own opinion!

[AquaLurker]

If you like lousy AI, win multiples heroic battles in campaigns, smoother 1.2 multiplayers with cav/rome spamming winning tactics in tactics. Just buy and enjoy RTW.

If you like lousy AI, win lesser multiples heroic battles in campaigns, lagalots 1.3/1.4 multiplayers with more balance units and better balance in multiplayer BI tactics (not in RTW 1.3). You should get BI.

If you like lousy AI, win alot of battles in campaigns, great looking skins, better balance for units. Download the good mods.

If you think CA is doing a good job in customer service...is CA doing a good job in customer service?

Well think about it before you buy the game, you will never be short of games just cash and time.

[KSEG]

Don't buy it.
You allready have a negative view toward the devs and the game, so you'll probably not enjoy the game, and it will be a waste of money for you.

Edit:
Bias wasn't a good word.
I'll use view instead.

[HarunTaiwan]

Many of the criticisms are true.

But it is somewhat interesting to play the game for maybe a month.

It's not too challenging, though.

Wait till it's cheaper and then buy it.

[Jambo]

Here's a brief take on RTW and TW in general which I posted over at another thread at .com. There are bits in here which are probably relevant to the OP's question:

I think the TW series really has to evolve a little now to maintain progress and keep interest. From my perspective, as a heavily involved TW player, beta tester, etc, the "total war" aspect is beginning to feel slightly stale. There's only so much constant battling on a 3D landscape one can do before it gets boring especially when each battle can take anywhere between 20 min to an hour to complete and usually for very little gain on the map. It was worse in MTW where turns could take 2+ hours to complete in the late game. The AI is understandably fallable on the battlefield and therefore the challenge really lies in the strategic side - and there really isn't enough depth in the strategic side to maintain the interest around the battles. It's all geared to the next battle, the next conquest and that to me feels shallow without plot and personality.

Personality of a sort was introduced via a neat vice and virtue system. This is great at the start of a campaign when you only have to keep track of 4 or 5 governors. Late game when you've got 15+ governors, it becomes impossible and tiresome to keep track of them, let alone work out personality for the 15+ traits some of them may have acquired. The personalities late-game therefore need to be more quickly discernable. Maybe some kind of graphical representation would help? More importantly these sadly have no effect on the AI. The AI won't play a faction based on the leader's traits and there isn't any discernable difference between the way the factions act overall from a diplomatic point of view. In a sense they are generic and faction personality only exists through their unique units and unit/building choices.

Prior to release, my great hope for Rome was based on the talk of the improved strategic side and the new and engaging diplomatic system. Initially the diplomatic system looked great, however, other than being given a makeover with more options, the diplomacy still feels like it did in previous titles. The options are transparent, there's no indication to faction personality and how they perceive others. Everything is either black or white, or at least it appears that way to the player - it's alliance or war (sometimes both even in the same turn!). There's no depth to the options; they either agree or tell you where to go until the next turn. There's no bartering or counter offering. Military access is impossible to attain (without protectorate), protectorates themselves are difficult to achieve and then broken too easily when arranged. In this area I feel Rome has been a big disappointment. The end result is still the same - you're either at total war or about to be. There's no satisfaction to be gained from negotiating deals, treaties, protectorates or whatever. The diplomacy is simply a vehicle to serve the impressive battle engine.

My conclusion - I think the balance is wrong between the battles and the strategy. Understandably, CA have done it this way because the battles are Rome's showpiece. With a flawless AI this would be acceptable, but as this is impossible and impractical I think it would have been better to make the the big battles less common and more decisive. In any given campaign there's too many battles and not enough strategy.

Then there's the siege warfare. Again great on the eye but clearly very difficult to code. The imperial campaign is dominated by siege battles and the AI consistently fails to defend its cities adequately. In the end the supposed epic battles commonly consist of one large army assaulting a huge castle with only one family member defending. What an anti-climax to siege battles we were expecting to be involved in from the Rome movies and trailers...?

This may sound like I hate the game. Surprisingly I don't. It's still the market pace setter in this area and BI did a lot to improve the original Rome - one example being the removal of provinces thereby lessening the number of siege battles and the amount of units at one's disposal. The diplomacy is still far from engaging and perhaps even less so in BI - protectorates, alliances, etc are still superfluous to achieve victory and failing to suggest an acceptable action now means no more discussions till the next turn and a penalty for your diplomat. Given you've no idea what they're likely going to accept in the first place this makes diplomacy fruitless and rather pointless. Maybe they'd do well to remove the diplomat piece altogether and follow a civ IV style. Finding and remembering to move the non-combat pieces can also be a frustrating exercise.

So there you have it. At least from one seasoned TW player.

Regards