Rome Total War verdict ?
Rotwang
ton of mods to make it work ???
Chief
Chief
"Rotwang" <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> wrote in message
news:L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
James Cobb
"Chief" <gmk...@no.spam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:10nnl9t...@corp.supernews.com...
Nats
for that already. Many people complain about it becuase it isnt what many
were hoping for exactly - but that doesnt stop it from being the best
strategy game around and likely for the next year or so.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Rotwang" <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> wrote in message
news:L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> So is it worth buying or should I wait till it hits the bargain bin and DL
> a
> ton of mods to make it work ???
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.779 / Virus Database: 526 - Release Date: 19/10/2004
Julian Barker
Nats <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>Its a good game. It does require a bit of slow down but the mods are around
>for that already. Many people complain about it becuase it isnt what many
>were hoping for exactly - but that doesnt stop it from being the best
>strategy game around and likely for the next year or so.
>
I am very disappointed by it. I still play MTW but find the way the AI
in RTW is so poor, and the strategic game is so shallow, that it is
difficult to keep interest.
The huge number of mods already, mainly aimed at making the game more
fun, more like real life, and easier to control, show how bad this is.
--
Julian Barker
"Many battles have been fought and won by
soldiers nourished on beer,and the King does not
believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be
relied upon to endure hardships in case of
another war."
Frederick the Great, 1777
Eddy Sterckx
news:L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be:
> So is it worth buying or should I wait till it hits the bargain bin
> and DL a ton of mods to make it work ???
Just one mod needed : the Rome-Total Realism mod gets favourable comments.
Get it while it's hot :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bill
answer, some like it, some don't. Do a little work, read all the threads
and then draw a conclusion, it's all there. Can't spoon feed ya' you know.
"Rotwang" <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> wrote in message
news:L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Andrew
"Old Salt" <old...@usintouch.com> wrote in message
news:2h6on01eanerdq4cc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:47:55 GMT, "Rotwang"
> worth the money, also I didn't find the units moving to fast as others
> have. This game is most definitely a time killer, quit your job if
> you got one, you will see the sun rise to many nights playing this
> one.
You should add the slow down MOD. You'll find it much more enjoyable.
Andrew
like this type you'll hate it. If you're a FPS guy don't buy it.
"Rotwang" <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> wrote in message
news:L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Adam Parker
> ton of mods to make it work ???
Beautiful battle graphics, an almost useless 3d perspective strategic
map and an AI that fully controls your reinforcements badly without
the option to take command yourself. Stand on the battle field, do
nothing and the AI will lose. Cap it all off with a Senate that sends
you away on "missions".
Summary - a total mishmash of RTS, RPG and turn based gaming concepts,
taking the strengths of other titles and totally messing them up.
It sat on my PC for a few days and now sits back in its box and off my
HD. With 2 predecessors (the first still bugged) to learn from and
make shine, RTW looks and feels like a game without soul or purpose.
For the ancient era invest in Matrix's new turn-based Tin Soldiers
Alexander and implore its designers Koios Works, to create a Rome
title asap. Two handfuls of scenarios packaged with TSA and an out of
place refit "buying" sequence at battle's end in the campaign, reflect
its only curiosities but the genre is definitely war, the feel true
war gaming and the challenge - hard!
If you merely want a TV show to watch on screen, buy RTW - or invest
in History Channel's Decisive Battles series.
Adam.
Eddy Sterckx
> For the ancient era invest in Matrix's new turn-based Tin Soldiers
> Alexander and implore its designers Koios Works, to create a Rome
> title asap. Two handfuls of scenarios packaged with TSA and an out of
> place refit "buying" sequence at battle's end in the campaign, reflect
> its only curiosities but the genre is definitely war, the feel true
> war gaming and the challenge - hard!
I'll second that - one warning : Alexander *really* looks and plays
like a tabletop wargame except that you get FOW and an excellent AI.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
by troops, improves morale for longer battles, removes daft units, and adds
a whole set of new realistic units amongst many other things.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Old Salt" <old...@usintouch.com> wrote in message
news:04ion0576314vutte...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:55:16 -0700, "Andrew" <s...@oppo.com> wrote:
>
>>You should add the slow down MOD. You'll find it much more enjoyable.
>
> Will check it out.
Nats
the game from fresh, patch it with the official 1.1 patch and then install
the mod. I tried installing it over an existing modded game and got loads of
graphics glitches and inconsistencies that went away completely after a
fresh install.
IMO the realism patch is worth installing just for the slingers and the
accurate roman legions you get from the start. The ability to use archers
comes much later in the game as it should. Also it really improves the
ability of the infantry pikemen and the like to cope with cavalry.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956EEEA74B03Eed...@195.130.132.70...
Giftzwerg
<rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> says...
> So is it worth buying or should I wait till it hits the bargain bin and DL a
> ton of mods to make it work ???
If you're looking for GREAT BATTLES OF CAESAR with modern graphics, look
elsewhere; RTW is a foul melange of painful click & twitch tactical
battles and an empire-building overlay that's about 500 times less
interesting and immersive than ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS.
The truly sad thing about this title is that - had the designers given a
flying fuck about the topic - they could have produced a truly great
effort. Unfortunately, their knowledge of ancient battles appears to
have been gleaned from an ill-remembered screening of SPARTACUS, and the
tactical employment of the various units is straight rock-paper-
scissors; it's only necessary to click and twitch hard enough to ensure
that your units hit the guys they automatically kill, and avoid the guys
that automatically kill them.
It's really this stupid.
Wait for the bargain bin.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry ? and that
is all we need to know."
- Victor Davis Hanson
Giftzwerg
nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...
> You should also check out the realism mod which adds slow down, less damage
> by troops, improves morale for longer battles, removes daft units, and adds
Don't give Salt the "removes daft units" mod; we'll never hear from him
again...
Hermann
Try http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/index.php?mod=111
Their homepage, http://www.rometotalrealism.com/, has "Bandwidth Limit
Exceeded" (which I guess is as good review as anything).
Eddy Sterckx
>>Their homepage, http://www.rometotalrealism.com/, has "Bandwidth Limit
>>Exceeded" (which I guess is as good review as anything).
>>
>
> Thanks.
It's only 5 MB - if your mailbox is up to it I could mail it to you - just
let me know
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956FCC2B439A0ed...@195.130.132.70...
Eddy Sterckx
@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
> The Realism Patch Version 2.2 is 10Mb!
Man, this is going fast - I'm talking about "Gaius Julius & ZaPPPa - Rome:
Total Realism v1.0" dated october 7th ...
I'll better wait another month so I can download the 5.17 version :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
The speeds should have been changed slightly - take a look at the unit speed
file in the data directory to see if they have, they used to be set at 1
mostly and should be set at around 0.8 now. Doesnt make a massive difference
but just enough to enable your velites to throw their javelins properly. The
battles should last much longer as well without routing unless your men get
hit in the flank or whatever.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Old Salt" <old...@usintouch.com> wrote in message
news:377rn0le231vd80di...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:08:45 GMT, Eddy Sterckx
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's only 5 MB - if your mailbox is up to it I could mail it to you - just
>>let me know
>
> Got it, and tried it. So far so good. Thought I don't see
> any difference in speed of the units, they seem to move at the same
> speed as before, not that, that was any problem for me.
R. Cohen
> ton of mods to make it work ???
I think it depends on how much you liked MTW and how much you like the
time period. I'm playing with the slowdown mod. I definitely
enjoying it but MTW was the better game.
Nats
over a modded game and found that I got graphical glitches eg with the small
scale map, and also got the wardogs etc still turning up in the building
info panels. When I reinstalled it clean I got rid of all of these problems.
Yes it seems to be much better with the patch.
Incidentally just watched the film Troy today and am looking forward to
trying out a custom battle with Trogans against
Spartans! :-) Great film. Glad to see hollywood didnt mess this one up so
much.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Old Salt" <old...@usintouch.com> wrote in message
news:l6ftn0lkeg4go1aq2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:43:26 +0100, "Nats"
> <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You have to install clean to an official v1.1 patched game.
>
> Didn't have to do that.
>
>>
>>The speeds should have been changed slightly - take a look at the unit
>>speed
>>file in the data directory to see if they have, they used to be set at 1
>>mostly and should be set at around 0.8 now. Doesnt make a massive
>>difference
>>but just enough to enable your velites to throw their javelins properly.
>>The
>>battles should last much longer as well without routing unless your men
>>get
>>hit in the flank or whatever.
>
> Oh there is a big difference, and for the better. Units don't
> break so fast, and the javelins units do run away, turn and threw
> there javelins at the persueing units. Also like the way they stay
> inside of the box, so one has to use more then one inf unit to corner
> them. Over all a much better game with this patch.
Nats
reinstall - just press exit to get out of it straight away.
The only thing wrong with the Realism Patch that I have found actually is
that you cant play online anymore - most of the games are being played
without it unfortunately. I believe the next patch due shortly is due to
remedy this by allowing multiple installs on the same system.
Unfortunately their website is down due to bandwidth being exceeded so I
cant say how long it will be before the new v3 patch comes out.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Old Salt" <old...@usintouch.com> wrote in message
news:3bgun050m762p5d9d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:41:14 +0100, "Nats"
> <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I got graphical glitches eg with the small
>>scale map, and also got the wardogs etc still turning up in the building
>>info panels. When I reinstalled it clean I got rid of all of these
>>problems.
>
> Ok, will do a clean install.
R. Cohen
> You dont have to install it clean to get it to work - I tried installing
> over a modded game and found that I got graphical glitches eg with the small
> scale map, and also got the wardogs etc still turning up in the building
> info panels. When I reinstalled it clean I got rid of all of these problems.
>
> Yes it seems to be much better with the patch.
>
Does the patch also include the changes to slow down the battles?
Julian Barker
R. Cohen <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote
>"Nats" <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<clmg9q$1dt$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> You dont have to install it clean to get it to work - I tried installing
>> over a modded game and found that I got graphical glitches eg with the small
>> scale map, and also got the wardogs etc still turning up in the building
>> info panels. When I reinstalled it clean I got rid of all of these problems.
>>
>> Yes it seems to be much better with the patch.
>>
>
>Does the patch also include the changes to slow down the battles?
>
Yes.
--
Julian Barker
"Many battles have been fought and won by
soldiers nourished on beer,and the King does not
believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be
relied upon to endure hardships in case of
another war."
Frederick the Great, 1777
V'ger
Funny thing. I'm most certainly an FPS sort of guy. Been playing and
loving them since they first existed. Still, I have DOOM 3 and R:TW on my
computer and I quit playing D3 shortly before the end due to boredom and am
completely hooked on R:TW. I freely admit I'm probably an odd duck that
way; liking those two types of games. 8)
(Though I did mod it somewhat to my liking. Nothing to do with speed or
kill-rate or routing. I was just trying to make it so that large armies can
be funded and so that an empire as extensive as Rome was doesn't require
massive garrisons at its outtermost boundaries.)
Carpe Onagers,
V'ger gone
"Andrew" <s...@oppo.com> wrote in message
news:lrWed.78972$cJ3.64796@fed1read06...
V'ger
You deffinitely got a different game in your box than I did. I can't recall
a single battle that I would have won by just sitting there. Equally mad is
the idea that this is a click-fest. I have seen the computer, even on
normal, execute good tactical maneuvers, trying to outflank my troops,
overrun my archers and so forth. Yes, sometimes the AI is braindead, but
more often it does as well as a moderately competent human player would,
tactically speaking. The best thing I can say about the tactical engine is
that if you use good tactics you will mostly succeed, but if you use bad
tactics you WILL loose. And if you really do run through tactical battles
as a click-fest you will most assuredly loose.
I've played and loved their two previous efforts, but this one is my
favorite. Personally, I can't believe that people who are posting the
experiences you present are playing the same game I am. (Or most of the
others I see posting on the several R:TW boards.)
It's certainly not a perfect game, but CA has made serious and signifigant
improvements to every aspect of the game since M:TW. There's a great deal
to like and love here. Not to mention the seriously active modding
community that has already delivered mods suited to almost every taste.
Your mileage will vary,
V'ger gone
"Adam Parker" <joa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:15c7eac1.04102...@posting.google.com...
Nats
news:TT1gd.10197$5i5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hello,
>
> You deffinitely got a different game in your box than I did. I can't
> recall
> a single battle that I would have won by just sitting there. Equally mad
> is
> the idea that this is a click-fest. I have seen the computer, even on
> normal, execute good tactical maneuvers, trying to outflank my troops,
> overrun my archers and so forth. Yes, sometimes the AI is braindead, but
> more often it does as well as a moderately competent human player would,
> tactically speaking. The best thing I can say about the tactical engine
> is
> that if you use good tactics you will mostly succeed, but if you use bad
> tactics you WILL loose. And if you really do run through tactical battles
> as a click-fest you will most assuredly loose.
>
> I've played and loved their two previous efforts, but this one is my
> favorite. Personally, I can't believe that people who are posting the
> experiences you present are playing the same game I am. (Or most of the
> others I see posting on the several R:TW boards.)
>
> It's certainly not a perfect game, but CA has made serious and signifigant
> improvements to every aspect of the game since M:TW. There's a great deal
> to like and love here. Not to mention the seriously active modding
> community that has already delivered mods suited to almost every taste.
>
> Your mileage will vary,
> V'ger gone
I agree with this. Its a strange type of game that will appeal to different
people thats what makes it quite interesting. Its not a purely strategic
game and its not purely an action game. This mix will not appeal to
everyone. MTW isnt bugged to me - I played that game for years. The same
goes for RTW - it isnt bugged as such. These days people go mad if it isnt
quite what they had in mind and called games bugged for no reason. RTW is
playable without crashes - that to me is an unbugged game. Anything else
requiring a change to the gameplay is purely personal taste and will differ
wildly.
For example I love the game and have played it both vanilla and patched
using the realism patch. I like it both ways but at the moment am playing it
vanilla becuase I like to play online. But I also like some of the
introduced elements from the realsim patch. I hope that CA will patch the
game to suit many of the elements of the realism patch but there are some
parts of that mod that I dont like - for example removal of some of the
units like the British chariots, gladiators etc. Im all for playing a game
that is fun at the end of the day and realism can sometimes go too far which
results is a boring game to play. The gauls for example if played
realistically would be pretty damn boring due to their lack of varied
units - I can see exactly why CA put in some of the stranger units for this
reason.
So I have a definite view on how I would like to see the game patched
officially as does everyone else. Doesnt mean that I see the game as being
bugged though.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004
Adam Parker
>
> You deffinitely got a different game in your box than I did. I can't recall
> a single battle that I would have won by just sitting there. Equally mad is
Hi V'ger. Oh there was the time across a river where my Julian forces
were outnumbered by the Gauls 2:1 - 3000 Gauls (including 1500
reinforcements) vs less than 1500 of Rome's finest.
My infantry deployed to the front protecting the bridge, knowing how
predictable the AI was, I deployed my cavalry 360 degrees to the rear,
with a unit to each flank - basically a big doughnut. No Gauls to see
from the rear of course - but this great shocking AI was very, very
predictable.
The Gauls launched to the bridge. One Roman unit held them off
occupying the bridge itself just like the worst of RTS games (which of
couse RTW now is). The Gauls backed off in horror! I pulled my
infantry back to lure them in. The Gauls saw their great, tactical
chance! And my infantry enveloped them causing them to flee - forever.
Something odd though, during all this I kept hearing the shooting of
arrows behind me. Then I remembered my cavalry! Turned the map around
and there were 1500 Gauls basically dead. My Cavalry held off the AI's
grand rear approach out of the mist, all on its own.
Without my lifting barely a finger, I'd won the day. Great challenge!
As for RTW's "click fest" complaint - that wasn't me. Just the bulk of
the gaming public by the looks of things. Oh I've the same game in the
same box as you and mine's still in it. Didn't mention the CTD yet did
I?
Adam.
Nats
> were outnumbered by the Gauls 2:1 - 3000 Gauls (including 1500
> reinforcements) vs less than 1500 of Rome's finest.
>
> My infantry deployed to the front protecting the bridge, knowing how
> predictable the AI was, I deployed my cavalry 360 degrees to the rear,
> with a unit to each flank - basically a big doughnut. No Gauls to see
> from the rear of course - but this great shocking AI was very, very
> predictable.
>
> The Gauls launched to the bridge. One Roman unit held them off
> occupying the bridge itself just like the worst of RTS games (which of
> couse RTW now is). The Gauls backed off in horror! I pulled my
> infantry back to lure them in. The Gauls saw their great, tactical
> chance! And my infantry enveloped them causing them to flee - forever.
>
> Something odd though, during all this I kept hearing the shooting of
> arrows behind me. Then I remembered my cavalry! Turned the map around
> and there were 1500 Gauls basically dead. My Cavalry held off the AI's
> grand rear approach out of the mist, all on its own.
>
> Without my lifting barely a finger, I'd won the day. Great challenge!
>
> As for RTW's "click fest" complaint - that wasn't me. Just the bulk of
> the gaming public by the looks of things. Oh I've the same game in the
> same box as you and mine's still in it. Didn't mention the CTD yet did
> I?
>
> Adam.
You can imagine how difficult it is though programming this kind of AI -
computer AI is not able to view a battlefield movement and think to itself
ah I bet the enemy are drawing me into their cavalry which is probably
hidden over there in those trees. Humans can do this in a blink but we are
of course far far smarter than any computers around. I mean even chess
programs have difficulty beating humans and in that game there are fewer
alternatives and strategies than in a game like this.
I would agree though that holding troops back to get massacred by archers
rather than storming your line even though its suicide, just to take down as
many troops as possible, is the kind of thing that should be programmable. I
think the main thing is that the AI can formulate its own strategies but
cant react at all to yours. Neither are they able to fall back and regroup
etc is they are losing before routing etc.
But hey its only a game! They AI does play pretty well on the campaign map
so lets be glad for small mercies. OK so the battles dont play very well -
theyre still enjoyable when you get a tactic that works well. And you can
always imagine that you have just beaten a worthy opponent even if you
havent!
If you want a strong opponent you have to play online but that goes for
every game around, until someone somewhere creates a decent artificial
intelligence for games in general and then sells it to companies. Theres
certainly a need for someone to do it!
JimFor
>computer AI is not able to view a >battlefield movement and think to itself
How does the AI compare to the AI used in similiar situations. The AI in the
Great Battles series? The AI in Sid Meier's Gettysburg? The AI in Waterloo?
The AI in the Battleground series? Etc.
Giftzwerg
jim...@aol.comNOSPAM says...
A click & twitch game isn't about "the AI," but depends upon the
willingness of the gullible buyer to mistake the artificially frenzied
pace of the battle (and the near-worthless AI's ability to be very
stupid very quickly...) for an appropriately difficult experience.
RTW's AI is stupid beyond compare.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"It is a strange glitch in human logic to always assume
that the laws of unintended consequences only apply
to your side and not to your enemies. History is full
of losers who got exactly what they wanted."
- Jonah Goldberg
Nats
problem. If you are new to strategy games you will probably get trounced.
Pretty much the same as any other game around these days.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bece7886...@news-central.giganews.com...
Julian Barker
Nats <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>If you play sensibly and know general tactics then you will beat the AI no
>problem. If you are new to strategy games you will probably get trounced.
>Pretty much the same as any other game around these days.
>
The big problem for me is that whilst in MTW I could fight an enemy
approximately equal to me and defeat it with good tactics, tricks like
ambushes etc, I would almost always win after a close fought and tough
battle.
In this game the enemy comes straight forward every time and outflanking
or even concentrating on half the enemy army whilst the other half sits
fighting one or two of your units is far too easy.
In MTW you always had to look out for enemy units hidden in woods etc. I
have yet to see the AI in RTW do anything but form up in one big mass.
I have given up playing as it is too easy to win even when completely
outnumbered. The only two battles I have lost have been in battles where
I have routed every enemy unit but been beaten by a single unit of
elephants that just destroyed my entire army after the rest of the enemy
had fled the field or died.
In one battle I had eleven units of horse archers shooting at a unit of
elephants until they all ran out of ammo - the elephant unit took no
casualties at all, and despite being exhausted defeated all my horse
archers when they surrounded and charged the elephants. Even then the
elephants ended the battle at full strength.
I have never played the original version, and only played after CA toned
the elephants down in the 1.1 patch!
Nats
battlemaps - you had more forests and hills to play with etc In RTW Im not
sure if the battlemaps are any larger but theyre certainly flatter and less
varied. Maybe its the larger scale of the battle etc that makes them seem
smaller but certainly with MTW you had more opportunity to hide and use the
terrain.
In fact the only thing I dont like about MTW is the way enemy armies when
defending always retreat onto hillsides or up mountains. Otherwise it was a
great game and the battles were probably more fun I think.
I have to say that RTW is not growing on me after playing for a month or so
in the same way that MTW did.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Julian Barker" <Jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dyS5ZHDe...@gerbillus.gerbils.co.uk...
R. Cohen
> R. Cohen <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >"Nats" <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<clmg9q$1dt$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >> You dont have to install it clean to get it to work - I tried installing
> >> over a modded game and found that I got graphical glitches eg with the small
> >> scale map, and also got the wardogs etc still turning up in the building
> >> info panels. When I reinstalled it clean I got rid of all of these problems.
> >>
> >> Yes it seems to be much better with the patch.
> >>
> >
> >Does the patch also include the changes to slow down the battles?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
Another question about the patch. When are the Marius reforms. It
seemed in the original game it was around 218 bc or so. Has this
changed?
V'ger
OK, so you pick a BRIDGE defense as your example of poor AI? That's "cherry
picking" to prove your point. THEN you fault the AI for not continuing a
bloody and hopeless assault. Then they adapt to your "apparent mistake in
leaving the bridge undefended and launch an assault and you fault them for
that. Oh, and BTW, if I understand correctly, you fault them for fixing
your attention to your front while assaulting your rear, albeit
unsuccesfully? Hmmmm ...
A. While their behavior didn't win the day, the AI certainly showed
consideration of its actions and responded to you in a reasonable fashion
(so far as what we're going to see from ANY computer AI anytime soon).
B. You MOVED your men in a signifigant tactical fashion. Since the major
point of your argument was that you could win by sitting there and not doing
anything, you've disproved your own point.
So far as the bulk of the gaming public, I invite you to visit any of the
fan forums dedicated to the game (twcenter.net, totalwar.org) or gamefaqs
boards and find this silent majority of detractors. Heck, I don't even see
the silent mass of detractors here. I see a handful.
If you don't enjoy the game, fine. But don't post tripe that is
demonstrably false.
BTW, I do empathise with you or anyone who have paid mucho $ for a game
which they bought with great expectations only to be disappointed. I would
suggest before you toss the game that you might want to try the Rome Total
Realism mod at twcenter.net. I haven't played it yet as I'm still finishing
my Scipii game, but I've seen a great deal of good feedback about it and it
would seem to address some of the issues you have with the game.
I rest your case,
V'ger gone
"Adam Parker" <joa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:15c7eac1.04102...@posting.google.com...
Nats
Its not that the game is terrible its just that we were expecting so much
more than it is. I strongly feel that MTW is the better game of the two and
if it was updated in terms of AI and graphics I would drop RTW in a second.
But at the moment RTW is the better looker and did address some of the
problems in MTW like defensive armies retreating onto hills all the time -
which gets a bit boring after a while. But whilst addressing these problems
they also removed a lot from the MTW gameplay like variation, and introduced
loads of new problems like mad generals. And they still didnt address the
same problems inherent in MTW like armies sitting in front of archers
getting picked off, the AI not retreating when beaten, surrenders etc. They
havent actually added all that much thats new other than what is graphics
related IMO.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07/11/2004
Patrick B
> In article <L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Rotwang"
> <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> says...
>
> > So is it worth buying or should I wait till it hits the bargain bin and DL a
> > ton of mods to make it work ???
>
> elsewhere; RTW is a foul melange of painful click & twitch tactical
> battles and an empire-building overlay that's about 500 times less
> interesting and immersive than ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS.
>
> The truly sad thing about this title is that - had the designers given a
> flying fuck about the topic - they could have produced a truly great
> effort. Unfortunately, their knowledge of ancient battles appears to
> have been gleaned from an ill-remembered screening of SPARTACUS, and the
> tactical employment of the various units is straight rock-paper-
> scissors; it's only necessary to click and twitch hard enough to ensure
> that your units hit the guys they automatically kill, and avoid the guys
> that automatically kill them.
>
> It's really this stupid.
>
> Wait for the bargain bin.
You know, what I find funny is that I can't dispute a single thing in
this post and yet I love RTW.
It's just fun. You can play a short campaign in 2-3 evenings and get
a good flavor of the period.
I even like the quick pace of the battles. The strategic game doesn't
get bogged down by the tactical one. I liked that old XCOM game but
the slow, turn based tactical battles drove me nuts after a while,
having an hour of tactical battles to fight for every minute of
advancement in the strategic situation.
There are really only a couple of things that actually annoy me about
the game and I wish were done differently:
1. Elephants are way too strong. Even patched down, they are still
too strong.
2. It is way too easy to escape naval engagements. Naval battles are
almost never decisive. Even in a "clear defeat" the losing side
usually escapes with 90% of its fleet intact. I know know much about
naval combat in the era so maybe this is realistic, but it's
frustrating.
3. The city development pacing is off. Everything works off
population, and population grows as a percentage of current
population, and the requirements to reach certain city development
levels don't scale up as fast. So it can easily take 40 turns for a
small town just to become a regular town. But then going from a large
city to a huge city only takes a few turns as it is growing by several
hundred people every turn. It seems to me it ought to take
progressively longer to reach each stage of development, not
progressively shorter. The result on one hand is that you can finish
an entire short campaign without ever seeing a city grow beyond
medium, and never get to see any of the more interesting units. Then
on the other hand, in a long campaign, once you get over the initial
hump, you max out far too quickly and spend half the camapaign fully
developed and just fighting squalor and overpopulation. I think the
city development levels could use some tweaking, so the low end takes
a bit less time to reach, and the high end takes a lot longer.
R. Cohen
> Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1be6ad507...@news-east.giganews.com>...
> > In article <L8Qed.288676$KV4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Rotwang"
> > <rot(ne)wang2000@yahoo(spem).com> says...
> >
> > > So is it worth buying or should I wait till it hits the bargain bin and DL a
> > > ton of mods to make it work ???
> >
> > If you're looking for GREAT BATTLES OF CAESAR with modern graphics, look
> > elsewhere; RTW is a foul melange of painful click & twitch tactical
> > battles and an empire-building overlay that's about 500 times less
> > interesting and immersive than ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS.
> >
> > The truly sad thing about this title is that - had the designers given a
> > flying fuck about the topic - they could have produced a truly great
> > effort. Unfortunately, their knowledge of ancient battles appears to
> > have been gleaned from an ill-remembered screening of SPARTACUS, and the
> > tactical employment of the various units is straight rock-paper-
> > scissors; it's only necessary to click and twitch hard enough to ensure
> > that your units hit the guys they automatically kill, and avoid the guys
> > that automatically kill them.
> >
> > It's really this stupid.
> >
> > Wait for the bargain bin.
>
> You know, what I find funny is that I can't dispute a single thing in
> this post and yet I love RTW.
>
I have to admit I am enjoying the game quite a lot as well. I have
installed the "realistic" mod which adds a lot to the game.. I'm now
playing at Macedonia.