Rome: Total War Gold Edition

[zer"0"]

So, R:TW gold edition was released. Read some reviews on gamespot.

Scored pretty well, - avg. 9.3 from user reviews.

 

Now, I was nearly sure of getting this , then I read a user review on another forum, where the guy basically called the game crap.

 

In doubt, I decided to ask the wise men of the Obsidian forums.

 

Never had the pleasure of playing a Total War game.

Usually, I don't buy a game when its released and wait for the inevitable 'gold' release or the bargain bin.

 

Favourite strategy = SMAC(Alpha Centauri).

Have played most RTS/TBS - DoW, Aoe, C&C, Star/Warcraft, Civ, Disciples except for Total War series.

 

Basically, opinions, thoughts, likes and dislikes on "Rome: Total War" and its expansion,

would be appreciated.

[Llyranor]

If you have a broadband, download the demos.

[Leferd]

The Total War series of games are the best Turn-based Strategy/Real-time Tactical hybrids in the market.

 

Rome Total War is however, only the second best in the series, behind Medieval Total War.

 

A good analogy:

Rome = KotORs

Medieval = Infinity Engine games.

 

Rome's tactical engine is based on a pretty looking 3D engine that brings about great cinematic combat.

 

Medieval's tactical engine is a very primative 2D/3D hybrid with sprites (reminiscent of the IE engine actually), of which the key to success is through the careful study of the Art of War.

 

Medieval's strategy engine virtually plays like a grognard's table-top boardgame.

 

Rome's strategy engine plays like a Computer Turn-based Strategy game.

 

Rome is a great game on its own right, but The Creative Assembly's hardcore fans have cried out over the "dumbing down" of the game for its appeal to a mainstream strategy audience. (see any similiar patterns here?)

 

Anyways, I would highly recommend Rome Total War and suggest that you play it for a bit and then check out this fine mod: www.rometotalrealism.org (which addresses the "dumbing down" issue)

[DemonKing]

Run, don't walk, to your local gaming store and buy it.

 

You won't regret it.

 

It's almost two games in one - tactical combat and a strategic turn-based city/empire management sim.

 

And for those the love Medieval - Total War: Medieval 2 will be out later this year.

[kumquatq3]

what is the gold edition? Just the expansion thrown in?

[Karimi]

Great game, must buy.

[zer"0"]

If you have a broadband, download the demos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish. Atm I am broadbandless.

 

what is the gold edition? Just the expansion thrown in?

Yah, basically includes patched version plus the expansion.

 

Rome is a great game on its own right, but The Creative Assembly's hardcore fans have cried out over the "dumbing down" of the game for its appeal to a mainstream strategy audience.

Ahh, so that is the reason for some critical reviews. Guess you can't please everyone.

 

So far I am getting mostly recommendations , so I guess it will be money well spent.

I am also intrigued at seeing how Creative Assembly pulled a hybrid TBS/RTS off.

 

Another reason of interest. Roman culture and history is just inspiring.

Is it at all based on historical merits? I.E: The units, campaigns etc. are they based on real Roman history?

Cause, you know that would be great. I am imagining something like; instead of Rome falling to the Huns I can maybe prevent this terrible tragedy. Or doing the Roman campaigns in old Britain or Andalusia or the conquer of Jerusalem and Egypt.

 

"Ave Ceasar!"

Edited February 17, 2006 by zer"0"

[alanschu]

How was Rome's combat dumbed down???

[baby arm]

You also might want to check out Legion Arena if you can find it cheap enough. Here's a review at Wargamer.

[Gabrielle]

Total War sounds interesting, I'll have to place it on my list of must have games.

[Yst]

It's almost two games in one - tactical combat and a strategic turn-based city/empire management sim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, and both games are wonderfully done. And you can play either one, or both together, as you like, whenever you like. Personally, I never autoresolve battles and only ever have taxes automanaged, so I go all out with it. I've twice conquered the entire map (once on Normal as Carthage, once on Hard as Parthia) without ever autoresolving a single battle. But some people seem to prefer to skip battles whenever at all possible, and simply play the empire sim aspect. Others automanage cities and play all battles. And it's great that you can do that.

[Pope]

RTW might be the best strategy game I've ever played.

 

Medieval 2 is looking pretty good too.

[Darth Somethingorother]

Once you go Total War, you'll never go back. Well, you might, but that's another story.

[mkreku]

Rome: Total War is the second highest scoring game (9.5/10) on Spel

[Enoch]

Tangent: for those such as I who bought and enjoyed the original, is the expansion worth buying? I've been thinking about picking it up when and if I tire of Civ4.

[metadigital]

Rome: Total War is a masterpiece. A campaign map, similar to Civ (though not as intricate), has the over-arching story of (to begin with) a Julii general as his family takes over the Mediterranean (and further).

 

The RTS part of the game takes place when the player zooms into a battle. It is easiliy the best combat in any game I have played: almost every unit has its own special techniques, like the testudo formation of latter Roman infantry, or the Canterburian Circle of certain type of cavalry.

 

Additionally, there is is a large community, including www.rometotalrealism.org, which is best for a history lesson.

Tangent:  for those such as I who bought and enjoyed the original, is the expansion worth buying?  I've been thinking about picking it up when and if I tire of Civ4.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just installed the expansion, and it is a totally different concept: basically a smash and grab run to Rome (player starts as a bunch of armies, and the hoarding of the townships is not the way to win.)

 

There are the two halves of the Roman Empire (East: capital of Constantinople, West: capital of Rome) to play, as well as all the Barbarian tribes.

 

I'll let you know when I get a better idea, but it does have great reviews (additional features, like night battles and water combat).

Edited February 18, 2006 by metadigital

[Gabrielle]

@ Meta We were talking about this not too long ago, you recommend that I should get it.

[zer"0"]

RTW might be the best strategy game I've ever played.

Once you go Total War, you'll never go back

Rome: Total War is the second highest scoring game (9.5/10) on Spel

[Leferd]

"How was Rome's combat dumbed down???"

 

-Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval.

-Units speeds are much too fast. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be.

-Units will route much too quickly.

-Archers and slingers are severely overpowered.

-Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs; rabid dogs; screaming women.

-The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt.

-The Macedonians are a non-playable faction.

-DUMB AI.

 

"Additionally, there is is a large community, including , which is best for a history lesson."

 

-BTW do not. DO NOT go to rometotalrealism.com. That is a sham website. Go to www.rometotalrealism.org

 

I would highly recommend anyone who's played Rome Total War to try out the Total Realism mod.

[metadigital]

"How was Rome's combat dumbed down???"

 

-Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval.

-Units speeds are much too fast. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be.

-Units will route much too quickly.

-Archers and slingers are severely overpowered.

-Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs; rabid dogs; screaming women.

-The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt.

-The Macedonians are a non-playable faction.

-DUMB AI.

 

"Additionally, there is is a large community, including , which is best for a history lesson."

 

-BTW do not. DO NOT go to rometotalrealism.com. That is a sham website. Go to www.rometotalrealism.org

 

I would highly recommend anyone who's played Rome Total War to try out the Total Realism mod. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:">

 

Apologies for my lazy googling ...

...

| Disclaimer

 

Our former website rome total realism . com is no longer connected

with this site or the continued development of this mod. We are not responsible for its content. Material shown on that site has been copied from out of date material without our consent.

 

We recommend that our fans and those interested in the Rome: Total Realism Mod avoid visiting "rometotalrealism.com" since visits may simply generate advertising revenue or donations which will not be used to support this website or the modification efforts of the RomeTotalRealism team. Do not use downloads and programs from that site as they may not contain the same content as those from this, the authentic site, and we cannot offer technical support for them.

 

Rome: Total Realism is a fan modification and is not operated for profit.

...

[Tigranes]

I'd sonner recommend Europa Universalis II for historical simulation, but I suppose RTW is more 'fun'.

[alanschu]

"How was Rome's combat dumbed down???"

 

-Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval.

-Units speeds are much too fast. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be.

-Units will route much too quickly.

-Archers and slingers are severely overpowered.

-Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs; rabid dogs; screaming women.

-The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt.

-The Macedonians are a non-playable faction.

-DUMB AI.

 

I didn't consider the AI of medieval to be any more superior. Furthermore, I'm not sure how not being able to play the Macedonians is somehow evidence that the combat is "dumbed down." As with units routing too quickly....as it would seem that that would work both ways. Fantasy women and basing the Egyptians incorrectly are historical inaccuracies...not "dumbed down combat."

 

I also remember winning entire battles, even against heavy cavalry, with Longbowmen in Medieval.

 

It's been a while since I played both games, but in Medieval, the only "terrain impacts" I really remember are UP > Down, trees = crap for cavalry (and good for ambushes). I probably need someone to remind me other terrain influences of Medieval, but I didn't find them too overwhelming...but that's just from memory.

 

The thing I liked best about Medieval was the setting. I preferred it over the Roman era.

[Leferd]

"How was Rome's combat dumbed down???"

 

-Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval.

-Units speeds are much too fast. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be.

-Units will route much too quickly.

-Archers and slingers are severely overpowered.

-Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs; rabid dogs; screaming women.

-The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt.

-The Macedonians are a non-playable faction.

-DUMB AI.

 

I didn't consider the AI of medieval to be any more superior. Furthermore, I'm not sure how not being able to play the Macedonians is somehow evidence that the combat is "dumbed down." As with units routing too quickly....as it would seem that that would work both ways. Fantasy women and basing the Egyptians incorrectly are historical inaccuracies...not "dumbed down combat."

I also remember winning entire battles, even against heavy cavalry, with Longbowmen in Medieval.

 

It's been a while since I played both games, but in Medieval, the only "terrain impacts" I really remember are UP > Down, trees = crap for cavalry (and good for ambushes). I probably need someone to remind me other terrain influences of Medieval, but I didn't find them too overwhelming...but that's just from memory.

 

The thing I liked best about Medieval was the setting. I preferred it over the Roman era.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said that "combat" was dumbed down. I implied that the game as a whole was dumbed down. You wrote asking how was "Rome's combat dumbed down", I just didn't bother to qualify my response as a specific answer to Rome's combat being dumbed down.

 

Perhaps it was my mistake to respond with generalities, but I fully stand by my assertions that Rome was dumbed down to appeal to a greater mass audience.

 

Have you played Medieval with the Viking Invasions add-on? The AI for that game will redeploy their troops in formations based on the terrain and the force you wield. Rome's AI will never do that (atleast to not so great an extent). RTW also has a problem with suicidal generals charging headlong into battle. It took the work of the Modding community to fix these problems.

 

The Longbowman from Medieval were actually supposed to be overpowered. The English really relied on them to win wars. No other archer unit was nearly quite so effective as they were. For Rome, The CA needed to better balance the effectiveness of missile units -as not all archers (peltasts, slingers, etc.,) are supposed to be as effective as longbowmen.

 

Look, RTW is not a "bad" game. No way. I love the game. However, The CA should have made a more concerted effort in game balancing and staying closer to history in the same way they did for Medieval. The Rome Total Realism mod is what Rome Total War should have been coming out of the box.

[metadigital]

I believe the main constraint on historical accuracy of Rome was that it didn't add to game play and the fun quotient.

 

It's not meant to be a history lesson, after all, but a game. That's what the Total Realism mod is all about: taking the fun out and making it more accurate. :D

[alanschu]

Realism is indeed overrated.