rome total war

[Rosbjerg]

I was suprised at how easy Germany was .. once you have their infrastructure up and running you get some severly bad*** units .. I mean those chosen axemen really kick some serious a$$!!

[Monte Carlo]

Most of the unlockable factions have at least one killer unit...Germany has two (Night Raiders and Gothic Cavalry).

 

The grognards a playing no-hoper factions that you have to unlock manually, like Armenia, Spain and Scythia for a real challenge. Funnily enough, none of those are as annoyingly tough as, say, Gaul and Carthage.

 

Of course, the Roman factions are easiest....Marius event = military powerhouse. Urban Cohorts are like Panzers trundling all over the other ancient-era uber-units.

 

Cheers

MC

[romeo_longsword]

I love all the total war, I have to say though, Rome is not as well done as MTW, but the graphic engine bring it up in the level that looks pretty and therefore become very popular.

 

The AI on ROME is totally rubbish, you will soon find you almost feel that you have been fighting the same battle againest the AI.

 

This is not only a personal expeirence, but a common point spotted by many TW fans, although the 1.2 patch has improved the AI a little, but its still very lacking.

 

Though online its still a very good game, the 1.2 patch make the horse archers carry the "not shooting arrow bug".

 

Hopefully the expansion will sort all of these things out, and have as much units as on Time Commander!

[chemchok]

Hopefully the expansion will sort all of these things out, and have as much units as on Time Commander!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can I take this moment to shamelessly promote a mod I'm contributing to?

 

Europa Barbaorum - we're completely reworking the unit lists, models, and textures, besides just about everything else that isn't hardcoded. It should be out in a somewhat finished state by summer; so it should give you something to enjoy before (and hopefully after) the expansion is released.

 

Here's some links to our weekly "press releases." Enjoy.

 

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44165

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43859

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43480

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43195

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42840

[Monte Carlo]

^ Good luck Chemchok with Europa.... I'm looking forward to it immensely.

 

As somebody else pointed out, the actual mechanics of Medieval are better, it just doesn't look as nice. As we discussed in the other RomeTW: What Next? thread, Medieval with the Rome engine would be sublime.

 

I patched to V1.2 this weekend, after getting a friend with broadband to download it for me and burn it. It has some substantial improvements, especially making the use of diplomats less cheesy. Before, you could do this:

 

1. Blockade Greek port, thereby declaring war.

 

2. Use diplomat to negotiate ceasefire for 10,000 denari.

 

- Next turn -

 

1. Blockade Greek port, thereby re-declaring war.

 

2. Use diplomat to negotiate ceasefire for 10,000 denari.

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

All in all, though, it remains for me the best game released since, well, Medieval. CRPGs are kaput, Kameraden.

 

Cheers

MC

[romeo_longsword]

chemchok, really nice screenshots, well done and good luck in its development.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Funnily enough, none of those are as annoyingly tough as, say, Gaul and Carthage.

 

Have you played Carthage prior to the patch?

 

Three units of armoured elephants could single-handedly decimate pretty much any army thrown up against them. I beat the game with Carthage easily, and virtually every army I fielded was outnumbered massively.

 

With the patch, though, they're nowhere near as effective.

[Zach Morris]

It's a toss up for Warhammer 40000 and Rome: Total war. Which one should I get?

[romeo_longsword]

It's a toss up for Warhammer 40000 and Rome: Total war.  Which one should I get?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have got both of the games.

 

It is a personal perspective, I think Warhammer is a pile of rubbish comparing with ROME, even though ROME is one of the worse one out of the total war development.

 

The AI would just rush into you, the only understanding of landscape is that they tried to run to a higher point if they want to play defensive. The other Total Wars has nothing of this sort.

 

Of course ROME is also the most sucessful one from the total war development as well, but I think mainly the new graphic engine win this for them. After playing online with so many people, some of them has gone back playing MTW.

 

Anyway, Warhammer COULD be fun, but totally not worth the money, or even time comparing with ROME.

[romeo_longsword]

Funnily enough, none of those are as annoyingly tough as, say, Gaul and Carthage.

 

Have you played Carthage prior to the patch?

 

Three units of armoured elephants could single-handedly decimate pretty much any army thrown up against them. I beat the game with Carthage easily, and virtually every army I fielded was outnumbered massively.

 

With the patch, though, they're nowhere near as effective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey there,

 

I mainly play the game online, and using the elephants really could be quite effective even after the patch.

 

But when online, you are given a limited amount of money, while the elephants are so expensive, which could put you in a disvantaged position comparing with other players who play without them.

 

There are many players who would expolit the fear factor of the elephants, but fire arrows always able to counter that.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Hey there,

 

I mainly play the game online, and using the elephants really could be quite effective even after the patch.

 

But when online, you are given a limited amount of money, while the elephants are so expensive, which could put you in a disvantaged position comparing with other players who play without them.

 

There are many players who would expolit the fear factor of the elephants, but fire arrows always able to counter that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really have to give online play for Rome a try one of these times. I've always stuck with single player.

 

In single player, an elephant battle usually consisted of sitting at a distance pelting the enemy with arrows until you ran out, then charging them and watching the entire army break and run the moment the elephants hit....usually accompanied by light cavalry to chase down the survivors. It was strangely amusing to be repeatedly attacked by gigantic Egyptian armies and yet annihilate every one with literally not a single casualty on your side.

 

I agree, btw, that in regards to gameplay Rome is a dramatic step back from M:TW. It all just feels too quick and easy.

[Monte Carlo]

On elephants: They are one of the few things that make combat against the AI a bit more challenging, but yes, post-V1.1 they are easier to deal with. Libyan javelinmen in ambush are pretty useful, as are mercenary hoplites to soak them up whilst Roman infantry hurl their pila at them.

 

On comparisons with Medieval: Well, when you think about it there is more micromanagement in Rome with settlements and governors. There is no doubt, however, that on default difficulty settings that the AI of Medieval was far more brutal in the non-combat mode of the game. The sheer beauty of Rome, as has been pointed out, sort of carries it through (no matter how rewarding decimating the French from a hill with English longbowmen was, the sheer visceral kick of ramming a wedge of Cataphracts into the back of a phalanx and watching the enemy hurled into the air is much, much better).

 

Do you think that the suits at Activision leaned on CA to make the game a bit less, well, wargame-ish than Medieval to increase it's marketability? I do.

 

As I said, let's hope that the CA adapt M:TW using the Rome engine. Imagine lining up your cannon on the hills overlooking Constantinople....

 

Cheers

MC

[Rosbjerg]

Medieval and Shogun on the Rome engine ... (w00t) (w00t)

[romeo_longsword]

...

Do you think that the suits at Activision leaned on CA to make the game a bit less, well, wargame-ish than Medieval to increase it's marketability? I do.

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey there Carlo,

 

Why would you think that ROME is less of a wargame-ish? Why would it being less of a wargame would increase its market do you think?

 

Thanks

[Monte Carlo]

Well, point 1 (Less "Wargame-ish") is for two reasons:

 

Firstly, the Medieval combat was more challenging. It was more difficult in that the use of terrain, wooded areas and so required forward planning on a level not really equitable with Rome. Units were better balanced; look at archers for example (good at supression but not the scythe that even entry-level archer units are in Rome...let's not even enter a Longbowmen versus Cretan Archer debate!). Enemy AI was more agressive, enemy army composition was more challenging (don't get me wrong, some of the AI in army composition was utterly broken, for example the French would send an army of two peasant units and fifteen archer units agianst your elite force but hey).

 

Secondly, in Medieval the strategy element of the game was far more aggressive; enemy factions would use assassins, crusades and exploit your weaknesses at a level you simply don't see in Rome. If you left a garrison with two units of peasants and a general next door to a stronger faction in Medieval you can bet that you'd be asking for trouble; the oft-dormant AI in Rome means you can. To be fair, in Rome bribery via enemy diplomats is more prevalent and the V1.2 patch has resolved some of these issues.

 

 

---

 

Secondly, I think that CA got feedback that altho' the TW concept was really good, casual gamers were frustrated that they couldn't jump straight in AND KONKA TEH WURLD!!! Medieval really required a lot of thought every turn which is great for a grognard like me, but not so great for the more casual gamer.

 

And, respect to Creative Assembly, I think they did a good job of pitching a product that made that compromise: casual gamers want something reasonably challenging and fun, NOT the maelstrom of difficulty that playing, say, France or Germany was in Medieval.

 

Looking at the general feedback, Rome has won over multi-players, casual gamers, wargamers, modders and grognards. No small achievement. But have I re-installed Medieval and Viking Invasion on my new rig? You bet I have.

 

Hope that answers the question. Always nice to chat with a fellow fan.

 

Cheers

MC

[Ivan the Terrible]

My one gripe about Medieval: at points, for no reason whatsoever, your entire Empire (even with extra low taxes and having been conquered for quite some time) would suddenly slip into the red revolt risk. You'd find yourself facing about three resurgent factions with gigantic armies of the best troops available surging down on hopelessly outmatched garrisons across the map, while more regular and manageable Rebels tied down any reinforcements which might have saved the day.

 

My game as Russia was completely destroyed this way; I simply couldn't cope with every territory in the empire revolting at once for no apparent reason.

 

What it's faults, if I kept taxes down and a sizeable garrison in place, I could always manage revolts in Rome, and when a city rebelled against me I could understand why it happened and how to fix it.

[Monte Carlo]

Those rebellions in Medieval invariably happened when you had conquered 60% plus of the map and, also, when your King died and a lower influence heir took his place. This was a pain as in Medieval your faction heir was fixed (unless you killed the sucka off).

 

It takes a lot of planning, tax management and troop dispersal but surviving that late game wobble is possible. But I agree that it is a pain.

 

Cheers

MC

[Rosbjerg]

worst is when you play say Egypt .. which is one of my favorite factions.. then in 1220 the Mongols will come knocking, and by then I will usually be on the doorstep of Germany (and France through Spain) .. so it's war on 3 fronts..

if you then have conquered the 60% and your king dies immediatly after, well then you can kiss that game good-bye! :ph34r:

 

but France isn't that hard I think .. Poland, Germany and Denmark are the ones I have the hardest time with!

[romeo_longsword]

I remember now, thouse hared times were the good bits of Total War, now I remeber what ROME is missing, it is very easy indeed.

[Rosbjerg]

well Rome on the hardest difficulty can still present some decent challenges! but it's still nothing compared to the loyalty-factor on Expert in Medieval .. that's really what makes the game so hard ..

[Ivan the Terrible]

This was a pain as in Medieval your faction heir was fixed (unless you killed the sucka off).

 

That's what I preferred. It was astonishing how many of the King's less 'gifted' heirs were ready and willing to fling their cavalry units directly at an enemy line of spearmen without any support. Brave lads, all of them.

[Rosbjerg]

lol .. oh yeah done that too! haha ..

 

I've always been quite amazed at how gifted the Byzantine bloodline is .. I mean all of them min. a 5 star general and quite high in 'acumen' .. nothing compared to the dread level of the English Plantagenet bloodline though!

[chemchok]

Thanks Monte and romeo!

 

BTW, anyone else seen this:

 

Spartan: Total Warrior

 

04/03/2005

By: Jon Wilcox

 

SEGA / Creative Assembly Deal Signed

 

Sega of Europe confirm that they have signed a deal that will allow them to become a Total Warrior...

 

Sega of Europe has today announced that they have signed a deal with Total War developers Creative Assembly to publish the team

[EUIX]

The Total Realism mod expands the campaign map to the east, including all of Iran, into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.

[Aaron Contreras]

Spartan: Total Warrior

 

What the hell?! Are they gonna pull some sort've Dynasty Warriors thing? Or maybe Kessen 3 / KUF? Only games I can think of that make a bizarre combo like 'action-strategy' make sense.