 |
| |
|
|
Mr Justice
|
|
no i have to say Conquests is overall better.
their is no doubt Rome is great game. commanding the battle field is great fun and very entertaining.
for a while that is. imo as the game develops you use the auto combat calculator more and more. as a result what may have been once comparing apples and oranges is now like comparing oranges and manderines.
here rome falls well short Civ. Their is no scope to change the world. citys can be improved with an impressive number of buildings and their upgrade paths. but choices in management are very limited. added yto that is that you only directly manage cities which you have placed governers in. toward the latter phase of the game its not possible to have governers in them all.
to cut to the bone the difference in the games is that in Civ you can Squeeze blood out of stones with the correct strategy and you can make up for inadquaties in one area by exploiting advantages in others. this allows people to use vastly different strategys to achieve the same goals. basically it comes down to the fact that the military option is not the only one available to you.
but dont get me wrong Rome is a great game. the warmongers among the Civ players will just love it. and those battle scenes are mighty impressive, but their novelty does wear away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
It didn't bore me so far, but I played it only 2 weeks and then got into EQ2. May be I didn't play it enough to dislike it. But on breaks in EQ2, I would rather return to R:TW than to Civ3, which I definitely played enough to dislike.
As I said I didn't buy the 2 predecessors and therefor, can't do a direct comparison. But I am personally in favor of the R:TW strategic choice. Here are a few details I like/dislike. Since I don't know the predecessors, I will compare to Civ3.
- I dislike the goal of R:TW. It is to conquer, nothing else. It does have a builder part, but you can't beat the game as a builder, you still need to conquer. This is poor, but then, it's Rome, not China or India.
- I like the experience stars your generals get. It makes troups stronger and prevents them from running away before time, if you don't auto-resolve combats (and you really shouldn't). If you auto-resolve, these stars decide the outcome of the battle. You can beat a stack thrice as strong as yours, if you have a general and the enemy only a captain. This is bad, but then, as I said, you shouldn't auto-resolve.
- Terrain does matter bigtime. In Civ3, once a mountain is roaded/RR'd, it becomes like flat land. In R:TW mountains are impassable, period. You can use the terrain to your advantage, you can block key passages etc.
- Movement is limited, period. There is no infinite RR-movement boredom like in Civ3. You have to divide your forces up to your fronts, and if you make mistakes, you lose, and deserve so. You have to live with the fact, that bringing reinforcements may cost ten turns, they are not instantly there like in post-medieval Civ3. In order to keep your troops in shape, you have also to maintain cities with barracks, stables and training grounds here and there, or you would have to return them to your heartland to recover.
- One tile (they are invisible, but exist nonetheless) can carry up to 20 units, not a single unit more. This is good, and prevents from the "the biggest stack wins" philosophy of Civ3. Cities can be defended by at most 20 units too and if you are attacked it with 2 stacks, you have a disadvantage. Seems bad, but then, if you get sieged, you deserve to lose. Build watch towers and challenge the enemy while he approaches in open land.
- Corruption works different than in Civ3. Buildings are ready after "n" turns, no matter if in your heartland, in France or down there in Carthage or Egypt. Corruption mainly affects your monetary revenue, as it should.
- The AI is stupid, true. Not only a bit, but very. It does strange things, like break a siege in a whim, like attacking everything in sight with huge naval stacks, except the single bireme that blocks its port, and other annoyances. I suppose the game is much better in MP mode, but I didn't try this. But I generally like the approach of the developers not to dumb down the whole game to the level the AI can comprehend, and destroying MP fun with it.
There will surely be more to write about, when I return to the game, but as it stands, I will MMORPG a bit (like a year, or two). 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I don't like:
how your population riots like mad after a certain point.
how your armies are easily bribed (including generals) by the AI
naval battles are weak compared to the ground battles.
hmm some others as well Im sure...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Three valid points, the first two of which will be balanced in patches, I a m pretty sure. We have to consider that the game is barely out 2 months. The third hardly, the AI is not very smart anyway, and since all naval battles have to be auto-resolved, not much will change. |
I agree. I would add that its annoying that you have to chase fleeing ships all over the map. Sink, dammit!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
anhalibut
|
|
I've installed and uninstalled Rome TW 3 times now. It just doesn't inspire me to play just one more turn like the other Total War titles and C3C.
The campaign map plays out like C3C, but I think C3C has the better UI. Playing on the campaign map is basically like playing a C3C game on a large (or maybe huge) map set only during the ancient age with domination as the only way to win. With the differences being that the graphics are better, you're moving actual armies around the map and not C3C units,you can set ambushes, there are no workers to manage, there are no worries about production since everything takes the same amount to time to build, and a host of others I'm sure.
Of course the big difference is RTW's battle engine. The graphics are great and the battles look great, but there seems to be a lot more battles per turn than the earlier Total War games and I personally got tired of them pretty quickly.
But don't take my word for it:
The best place to go for info is the forum at The Org. Lots of total war fans that will answer any question you have about the game.
www.totalwar.org
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2004 20:04
Here, here. The strategy part is decent in the ancient age, alright in the medieval age until cavalries, but as soon as you get into the industrial age, everything is railroaded and both you and the AI move 200-unit stacks around, "boring to death" doesn't even cover it; it becomes outright horrible.
To your comment on Civ3, Sir Ralph. 
|