First there was Shogun, and it was awesome.
Then there was Medieval, and it was atmospheric.
Then there was Rome, and it was disappointing.

Naturally, I was younger when I first player Shogun, and my earlier experiences in computer strategy games was pretty much limited to AoE2:AoK, C&C:TS and HoM&M3:RoE. So, Shogun was a huge step in the "right" direction. Intuitive gameplay, challenging opponents (I actually *gasp* lost some of my campaigns!), sense of historicity and great atmosphere (the music especially).

Medieval was a sequel, but it was in many ways very similar to Shogun. It had a great atmosphere, a dark medieval ambience that really fit the game. However, the game was much easier than Shogun. You had to go to Very Hard settings to get some challenge to the gameplay and the game was out of balance in many ways. A single Cataphract unit could take hundreds and hundreds of enemy warriors while losing a handful soldiers. My friends used to use armies made up of a general and 19 units of a certain kind, depending on the faction, on Very Hard and steamroll through every opponent (eg. Militia Sergeant or sth). However, the atmosphere was still good and it was just orgasmic to declare war by literally throwing, say, seven armies in your opponent's province with that "thump!" sound.

Then came Rome. The gameplay had changed considerably with 3D campaign map and the fact you maneuver your armies. While this was all fine and dandy, it was rather annoying that moving armies was slower. The biggest thing was the lack of atmosphere, though. The menus, music and graphics seemed... cleaner. More polished. And this was before you got into your first battle. While the sceneries looked fantastic and cities looked much better than in earlier releases, the units too seemed... plasticy. Unrealistically shiny armour, every single warrior in uniform... uniforms. And so on. And the battles themselves, then? The units did at least look impressive marching in order in their now 3D glory in the beautiful sceneries. However, once the first blood was drawn... It was as if a stopwatch started. Every single battle ended before they really began. Oftentimes if your cavalry was ahead of your main force the infantry wouldn't make it; the enemy would be in flight before most of your army had met the enemy. In case your infantry did clash with your opponent's you only had to slightly concern one enemy unit to cause a mass rout. Enemy generals would run into your pikemen, et cetera, et cetera.

The game was even easier than Medieval. There was no atmosphere to talk about. The units looked plasticy and unrealistic. There was no real sense of historicity, with the stereotyped factions and fantasy units (pyjamamen and Roman battlefield ninjas FTL) - and factions! The map was definitely not depicting the world in 270BC. It was quite perplexing. On one hand, the game was definitely improved, with strategic maneuvaribility and truly 3D battles and indeed quite magnificent graphics. However, somewhere in the process of game's development, challenge, realism, historicity, atmosphere and - for me, at least - fun had been left behind. To me, R:TW was like a Hollywood movie, (y'know, beautiful people, easy entertainment and lots of explosions), with little to no substance.

In my opinion, thus, R:TW sucks.

I played maybe 4-6 campaigns for a bit, but I just couldn't care about my empires. I let my R:TW collect dust on some self from there on... Until I found EB. Challenge, realism, historicity, atmosphere and fun were again to be had. Without EB, R:TW wouldn't had been worth the money I put in it. If only diplomacy and AI were moddable...