Is Alexander worth getting?

[Hollerbach]

I've played every TW game and expansion up to and including BI, however I didn't play them in order. The first thing I ever saw in the TW universe was the Medieval demo. I must have played that one battle dozens of times! I then happened to see a copy of Shogun in a local game store, bought it and played that for about 6 months, despite Medieval already being out. I then played Medieval, and then the Vikings expansion.

Then Rome came out and after upgrading my machine to run it, played that for a long time. I then happened across a copy of Mongol invasions in a bargain bin. Even though the Shogun world was a big backwards step from Rome I really enjoyed playing through the Mongol campaign, from both sides.

I never got round to getting Alexander, and now MTW2 is out. My Mongol experience tells me that the older TW games can still be great fun even once newer stuff is out.

Can anyone who has played Alexander then let me know if it's good? I'll probably wait till MTW2 comes down in price a bit, I'm still happy playing BI and never really got into multiplayer, so I can wait. But does Alexander offer anything significant to play?

As a more technical question, does Alexander update the main original Rome campaign at all in the way VI updated the main campaign game?

[Aleric]

If you look inside the game files for Alexander it's just a mod with some extra files. On gameplay it's worth getting as it's different to the rest of the games as you have 100 turns to do what you have to do. The historical battles are unlocked as you go so for instance if you win at one you get another etc etc. I got it and like it.

[naut]

Alexander, hmmm.

I mean its fun to trace Alexander (or unlock the barbarians and play as them). But it is essentially an overglorified mod.

[Hollerbach]

Thanks for the responses, so I'm guessing that it dosn't update the main Rome campaign at all then?

Come to think of it, I don't recall that BI did that either (though the BI campaign itself is obviously a large addition to gameplay, beyond a glorified mod)? Am I wrong on this?

[MSB]

In making your decision, Hollerbach, you may want to see this thread.

[econ21]

I was favorably inclined towards this expansion before it came out. Alexander's campaigns seem a wonderful subject for a mini-TW game. Normally, players can achieve things on a TW map that real generals or leaders can only dream about. But the opposite is true with Alexander - he did so much in his few years, that CA have had to change the turns to years scaling to give you a chance to match him (you have a 100 turns covering about about a dozen years).

I have only tried the SP campaign - not MP or the historical battles. The game does not upgrade your standard RTW or BI game. Overall, I can't recommend it, although I saw enough promise in it to create a mini-mod[1] to overcome a couple of my biggest peeves with the game (marked with a *).

The good:

1) The campaign is pretty challenging. You are going to face multiple full stacks of enemies and face severe logistical constraints (due to the distances involved). The first few turns especially you may struggle, until you can start looting enemy cities. I've seen multiple reports of people losing - it seems like one of the harder TW campaigns.

2) The representation of Alexander's army and the Persians seems pretty decent. As Macedon, lacking bows, slingers and swords, you will end up using Alexander's historical tactics - the phalanx as an anvil; the Companions - esp. Alexander himself - as your hammer. And you will get broadly historical results (i.e. you will crush the Persians even when outnumbered). The Persians seem a fun polygot mix of units, often hybrid archer/melee units but are unfortunately are not playable in the campaign.

The bad:

*1) The flaws of the vanilla RTW battles are exemplified in this campaign: the Persians tend to insta-rout when they hit your phalanx line; the action is frenetic - Alexander's unit of Companions can destroy an enemy unit in the blink of an eye.

2) The battles tend to be rather easy, but repetitive. Your enemy is time and (player) fatigue rather than the Persians per se.

3) You don't get to fight the Indians in the campaign even though units have been created for them. The Persians are also non-playable - only the Macedonians can be played.

The ugly:

*1) To survive economically and deal with loyalty problems you have to exterminate the Persian cities. For the most part, this is ahistorical and just feels wrong.

2) The game seems to have much more lag than RTW. Battles get stuttery, even after turning off shadows and lots of options.

3) There is an annoying change to the controls which means it can be hard to jump to a unit you select.




[1]My mini-text mod is here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ewpost&t=70575

Basically all it does it slow down and draw out the combat RTR/EB style; and provide a way of looting cities without exterminating their populations:

[Kekvit Irae]

It's one of the few Total War games where the historical battles are better than the campaign, for sole virtue of you will be banging your head on your desk over and over again in frustration over losing yet another battle. The vast majority of historical battles in MTW/RTW/M2TW were easy, but Alexander will put you in your place. You need to be exact, precise, and lucky to win the historical battles.

However, the campaign itself is good. Unfortunately it's FAR too short. If Alexander dies (in any form, such as old age), the game is over. You need to be quick and fast, just like the real Alexander, if you want to conquer the world.

If you (like me) really love Total War and want to try all aspects of it (or just want the computer to kick your butt in the historical battles), buy Alexander. If not, I'd hold off on buying it, as it's just Rome in a pretty skin with far fewer factions to conquer.

I guarantee you will forever hate river battles once you play the expansion, and will cringe the next time you will have to cross one in Vanilla/BI.

[Spart]

As my father taught me in the restaurant business: " there is the customers version of well done, the waitors versions of well done and the many chefs on duty versions of well done". So what I am trying to tell you is that You might fall in love with it, you might hate it, but as we are not you we cannot give you a proper answer.
Also we do not know the inner workings of your mind. To me it is never a question of asking a person if you should buy a product, you either want it or not, it is your money for you to spend on what you will (or you could drop a hint of what you want for your birthday). Ultimately the call is up to you.

[Roman_Man#3]

you sound like a philosopher.

[Andres]

Well, well, can't wait to see this on the next product I buy:

DISCLAIMER : As my father taught me in the restaurant business: " there is the customers version of well done, the waitors versions of well done and the many chefs on duty versions of well done". So what I am trying to tell you is that You might fall in love with it, you might hate it, but as we are not you we cannot give you a proper answer.
Also we do not know the inner workings of your mind. To me it is never a question of asking a person if you should buy a product, you either want it or not, it is your money for you to spend on what you will (or you could drop a hint of what you want for your birthday). Ultimately the call is up to you.