PDA

View Full Version : OT- Rome Total War



dazza9806482
07-01-2005, 07:22 AM
Hi guys, terribly OT but i know that some of you guys play some other games!

Was really into medieval total war for a while and have just bought Rome

im finding it a bit hard to decide whether to persevere with the game- ie. its a bit of a slow starter and i became a bit bored of MTW after a while- is it worth sticking with it?

enough of a depature from MTW?

OldMan____
07-01-2005, 07:33 AM
Did you installed all the patches? Game behavior changes a lot with it.



Also game starts slow only If you want. I am uusually taking cities by second or third turn already. If you wanna a more ferocious start, try the scipii campaign. Or a non roam campaign like greece or chartago.

Abel29A
07-01-2005, 07:39 AM
Well it depends... I love Rome Total War, but the battles suffer a bit from the same Paper-Scissor-Rock mentality of MTW. However the campaings are real challenging - but you should definently look into some of the realism mods out there.

It is definently worth sticking around a bit for - the battles will grow more intense and the game will become more involving as you move forward in time. It all depends on what Civilization you play - RTW really shines there as you have many different challenges.

The Generals pre-war speeches really makes the game much better! Depending on the traits of your general you have quite interesting/stirring/weird/cowardly speeches - great fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The best ones must be: (This is taken from memory so not accurate)

"Look there men - the enemy. They are made of blue cheese." (Crazy General)

"Eh, well. We're here, so we have to fight them I suppose. Rest assured I shall be watching from the rear so no harm will come to me" (Cowardly General)

SeaFireLIV
07-01-2005, 08:14 AM
What are you playing? The starting Imperial campaign? Well as soon as you`ve finished it`s tutorial you should be able to begin your own.

One of the 1st things that happen is you get tasked to take a small settlement within the same turn.

Check your settings too, you may want larger units, but of course RTW is worth sticking with. It`s amazingly immersive with Battleground animation and graphics that would make a grown man weep.

Just watch them closly...

Proberton
07-01-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
What are you playing? The starting Imperial campaign? Well as soon as you`ve finished it`s tutorial you should be able to begin your own.

One of the 1st things that happen is you get tasked to take a small settlement within the same turn.

Check your settings too, you may want larger units, but of course RTW is worth sticking with. It`s amazingly immersive with Battleground animation and graphics that would make a grown man weep.

Just watch them closly...


I agree...it is a fantastic game, just like Shogun and Medeival were for their time.

sapre
07-01-2005, 08:37 AM
You should see the whining in the forum of totalwar.org.
Alot of people is crying about Creative Assembely making "easier arcade game" to appeal the "console kids", crying about "how stupid the AI is", "how easy the campaign/battle is", "So many bug", "The previous one(MTW) was so much better then RTW" and how the game should be "less hard-coded".
Sounds familliar?

SeaFireLIV
07-01-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by sapre:

Sounds familliar?

Exactly. I`ve seen literally mirror-image whines against RTW (and other games) that are identical to IL2. A lot of them are also complaints directed at the game when it`s actually their system that`s not configured correctly, etc, but no matter what anyone says they insist it must be the game - just like here.

Sometimes I think there must be a professional group of whiners who wonder from forum to forum... whining! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Bula
07-01-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by dazza9806482:
Hi guys, terribly OT but i know that some of you guys play some other games!

Was really into medieval total war for a while and have just bought Rome

im finding it a bit hard to decide whether to persevere with the game- ie. its a bit of a slow starter and i became a bit bored of MTW after a while- is it worth sticking with it?

enough of a depature from MTW?

After I installed the latest Rome Total Realism patch, things were a bit better. The patch lets you play groups like the Dacians. (I have yet to survive more than 20 turns playing the Dacians: everyone gangs up on them regardless of alliances made.) Carthage is definitely better after the patch--maybe even a bit too powerful. I'm playing Carthage right now, but, rather than getting into it with Rome, I've wound up fighting a lengthy campaign against the Ptolemies. They attacked without provocation, which is odd considering the fact that they helped to finance Carthage's armies in the 'real world'.

dbuff
07-01-2005, 12:03 PM
get a MOD for it - you will enjoy it more.

the darthmod completely changes the paper/rock/scissors thing in battles.

check this link for mods - good community too.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?s=732ab3036ae0...c6ea9b3&showforum=53 (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?s=732ab3036ae0e1483f70338dfc6ea9b3&showforum=53)

huggy87
07-01-2005, 12:40 PM
I haven't touched it in quite a few months. It was a great game and I did play quite a few campaigns. I might dust it off sometime again in the future.

Zeus-cat
07-01-2005, 05:33 PM
I played the grand campaign as the British. I ended up taking every province (101 total pre-patch). It was tough at the end because so many provinces I held tried to revolt on me.

Some really good easter eggs in the game too. I was attacking a walled city and had finally gotten my guys up on the wall and was really beating up the defenders. Finally got them to panic when they were down to 3 or 4 guys. One of the defenders committed suicide by leaping off the wall. None of my guys were near him, but he turned and ran off the wall and fell 40 or 50 feet to his death.

Don't let the computer manage anything. It can be a pain to watch it all, but you will get burned once you get a lot of provinces because something seems to go wrong every turn. Kepps thing interesting that way.

Zeus-cat

SeaFireLIV
07-01-2005, 06:02 PM
RTW is a grand game and I do tend to be a bit a `realistic` in playing it. I hate all those kiddy help icons and such so I switch all of them off, and of course the dumb Timer.

1.2 really makes the game a challenge strategically, but I still can`t get over the battle stages. They did some kind of wizardly stuff there... 7-10000 fully 3D, fully animated warriors on screen, doing all the fighting, running, falling, pushing, firing catapults, dragging siege engines attacking large cities with elephants, etc, etc, etc...

When CA said they could do it with pretty much the same specs as MTW I didn`t believe it. They proved me wrong.

My gripes about the dev team is while they`re a reasonable bunch, they`re really have a weird Patches policy. It seems like they can only produce ONE major patch per game because their publisher won`t let them do any more. So any little faults (and there are some) are just left.

BTW, has any seen Imperial Glory. It`s a Napoleonic strategy game and I`ll swear the guys who made this pretty much copied RTW! It`s a little slower, but it`s almost the same thing!

huggy87
07-01-2005, 07:04 PM
There is a 1.2 patch? The last one I played was 1.1 back in january. When did 1.2 come out. Has it changed a lot? BTW, this game is great fun online.

Ankanor
07-01-2005, 07:51 PM
I got obsessed with RTW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I just finished my Julii campaign(RTW 1.0), So I mostly missed the Carthagenian and Parthian elephants. They and the Egyptian chariots caused me more trouble than the rest of the enemy armies combned. and if there's one thing I know for sure, the ancient saying(rough translation) - "not a step back from the position", holds. I have at least 20 batlles where I've been losing up to 100 people against an enemy losses up to 2500(the limit of an all-round army). Once you rout the enemy, it's just a massacre. That's when you get ridiculous stats(40 man light cav unit loses 14 people and routs, then get back to the field and slay 593 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

AerialTarget
07-02-2005, 02:07 AM
I left it because not only did they make it clear that they were not interested in historical accuracy, but their basic physics were ridiculous. Men ran over seventy five percent as fast as horses. I did the mathematics based on figures from Creative Assembly. Armed and armoured soldiers in Rome Total War can run at sixteen miles per hour - an incredible figure even for unarmoured humans.

In addition, the game's damage calculations and such were so wrong that entire armies were slaughtered in five minutes. It bore no resemblance to history or reality, and so I left. Prior to doing so I spend dozens of hours writing an extensive realism modification. Changes included historical unit numbers and removal of balogna units. But the basic physics were flawed and unmodifiable.

FlatSpinMan
07-02-2005, 06:22 AM
STICK WITH IT!!!

I just started playing last week, coincidentally . I have patched to 1.2 and think it is superb. I,too, thought it started really slowly and I didn't like the camera controls at first but now I'm really into it in the "oh ****! It's 4am already (again)!" sense of the word. I'm playing the Scipii campaign and really like the importance the navy has on your strategy. I find this series of games sucks me in so I lose all track of time like no other.
I agree the battles are still about the same in terms of tactics but that's cool with me as I love slaughtering routing masses (I always get such a lot of grief when I try it at work). I really have found the management side to be much more involved compared to the other earlier games but really interesting, too. I'm a bit stuck on how to solve a pestilence problem in one large town of mine - got sewers but still there. Am in process of upgrading to a Governor's Palace so does anyone know if that will help?

STICK WITH IT!


================================

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2005, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I left it because not only did they make it clear that they were not interested in historical accuracy, but their basic physics were ridiculous. Men ran over seventy five percent as fast as horses. I did the mathematics based on figures from Creative Assembly. Armed and armoured soldiers in Rome Total War can run at sixteen miles per hour - an incredible figure even for unarmoured humans.

In addition, the game's damage calculations and such were so wrong that entire armies were slaughtered in five minutes. It bore no resemblance to history or reality, and so I left. Prior to doing so I spend dozens of hours writing an extensive realism modification. Changes included historical unit numbers and removal of balogna units. But the basic physics were flawed and unmodifiable.

Well, AerialTarget, I did a very simple modification that helped slow things down a bit as I too felt it was too fast. Obviously I couldn`t do anything too advance and I don`t like fiddling in the internals too much, but I just basically slowed troops so that they actually can`t run across water at the same speed as on dry land, etc. It`s nice now to see an army slow right down when trying to wade a stream. I am dissappointed at they way CA decided to go a bit arcadey in some aspects.

As for the rest of it, well, you can`t have everything. I mean, one can get just a little too nit-picky (although I do agrre about the men running at stupid speeds). Did you know that some goik on the forums insisted that Humans could run as fast as horses? I think he saw one olympic athlete do it and assumed regular men could routinely in battle - I tell you I see some idiotic claims sometimes.

The only other option for ancient warfare games is MTW/STW which while not as good graphically is more realistic to some degree.

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2005, 06:47 AM
BTW, forgot to mention, in patch 1.2 Human speed was slowed a bit compared to cavalry. Alot of other good things were done with the Campaign AI and battle AI.

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Did you know that some goik on the forums insisted that humans could run as fast as horses? I think he saw one olympic athlete do it and assumed regular men could routinely in battle - I tell you I see some idiotic claims sometimes.

Sorry for reviving this thread, but I lost track of it and just now found it again while searching for that delightful Breitling Fighters video.

I was probably in the argument of which you speak, debunking that goik. Here is what I had to say to him.


Originally posted by Benny Moore
I don't know about where you're from, but I've never met any human who could run twenty miles per hour. Professional racers can (the world record is twenty three miles per hour for two hundred meters), but then professional race horses can go forty (the world record is forty eight miles per hour, I believe)! That leaves us with the realistic ratio of two to one.

Fifteen miles per hour is the running speed of a normal, unarmoured man. The average horse (with rider) seems to be able to do thirty to thirty five. We're subtracting five or ten because of the armour. Now, if we assume that a man can go fifteen miles per hour, and subtract three miles per hour for the armour and tight formation, we get twelve miles per hour (a generous figure, I think). So, even when using a high figure for the man and a low one for the horse, we still get the realistic ratio of two to one. So I do not have any idea where you and Creative Assembly get your notions about a one and a fourth to one ratio. Let me sum it up with numbers.

Fastest horse and rider, fastest human: 48/23 = 2.08/1, horse is 209% speed of human
Your unfair comparison of average horse and fastest human: 25/20 = 1.25/1, horse is only 125% speed of human
Average armoured human, armoured horse: 25/12 = 2.08/1, horse is 208% speed of human - only 1% difference between the ratio of the fastest horse and man

Using completely independant means - I did not check them against each other - I arrived at exactly the same ratio (two point zero eight to one), within a few thousanths. Therefore, I think it is quite safe to say that a horse should be twice as fast as a man, not one and a fourth times faster!

Sounds awfully similar to this forum, doesn't it? We were debating - wonder of wonders - speed. Ha, ha! The only difference is that horsepower is a little more literal there!

On another note, it's a small world! It's not at all strange that many who like Pacific Fighters and Rome: Total War. They are both historical simulations (or, rather, are supposed to be). What is your name in the Rome: Total War community? I was Benny Moore on the official forums and Qvintvs at the Guild.

Genie-
07-18-2005, 01:30 AM
http://www.rometotalrealism.com

in a few days mod version 6.0

the best mod ever for me. I have tried RTW only eith patch 1.2 and rometotalrealism and other mods.. but with rometotalrealism mode RTW is a whole new (MUCH MUCH better) experience.

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 01:50 AM
My own modification actually was more historically accurate than the Rome: Total Realism modification. Unfortunately, no one liked it because I reduced the cavalry units to their historical thirty two man turmae, the cavalry equivalent of a century, which is actually eighty two men or so and not a hundred. This reduction in numbers made it no longer viable to have all-cavalry armies charging about Rohan style. I think it made it far more realistic.

I am awaiting the Europa Barbarorum modification. If it is as good as it sounds, I just may fire up the old game to give it a whirl. I may have to edit it to get more realistic unit sizes and physics, which will be irritating considering that I've already spent a very great deal of time writing several modifications (my own and some for others who disliked my main modification).

sapre
07-18-2005, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
My own modification actually was more historically accurate than the Rome: Total Realism modification. Unfortunately, no one liked it because I reduced the cavalry units to their historical thirty two man turmae, the cavalry equivalent of a century, which is actually eighty two men or so and not a hundred. This reduction in numbers made it no longer viable to have all-cavalry armies charging about Rohan style. I think it made it far more realistic.

I am awaiting the Europa Barbarorum modification. If it is as good as it sounds, I just may fire up the old game to give it a whirl. I may have to edit it to get more realistic unit sizes and physics, which will be irritating considering that I've already spent a very great deal of time writing several modifications (my own and some for others who disliked my main modification).

Is there anyplace to download your mod?

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2005, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I was Benny Moore on the official forums and Qvintvs at the Guild.

PeacemakerEAF92

Kurfurst__
07-18-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by sapre:
You should see the whining in the forum of totalwar.org.
Alot of people is crying about Creative Assembely making "easier arcade game" to appeal the "console kids", crying about "how stupid the AI is", "how easy the campaign/battle is", "So many bug", "The previous one(MTW) was so much better then RTW" and how the game should be "less hard-coded".
Sounds familliar?

Uhum. But the AI is indeed stupid on the strategic map, it`s smarter in v1.2 though.

AND I GOT PROOF !

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1110277405_rtw_ai.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I just fired it up btw, Persia will rule the world, LOL. And it`s just one week to TRealism 6.0. Can`t wait, though some of it`s features I truely hate, like removal of some units...

Moustacheo
07-18-2005, 11:07 AM
I think Rome:TW is a great game after being patched up and/or installing the realism mod. However, somehow I really do miss some bits of Medieval:TW. For example, you no longer get the little 'kill prisoners' button and the satisfying slaughtering sound after pressing it. Also, what happened to the bonuses for creating certain units in some provinces? I usually played as the English and used the British Isles as a base for creating armies, with Welsh Longbowmen and Billmen from Wessex. A few highlanders from Scotland never hurt either. Ahh, nostalgia...

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 12:13 PM
ill haveto finish of my campaign, i think i just haveto take rome...

chariots are a pain, archers canbe effective against them..

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by sapre:
Is there anyplace to download your mod?

Yes, I can put it on my webspace or mail it directly to you. Unfortunately, my main modification was written for me and my friend alone, so I did not keep a log of my changes. There are hundreds of changes, particularly in the campaign.

I also wrote two other much smaller modifications and kept track of the changes. These only took about an hour each to make and have many concessions to popular demand, including the historical cavalry unit size. Here are the readmes. Note that the 2.02 is not a continuation of 2.01, but rather replaces it if you do not like 2.01. 2.01 is closer to my main modification. 2.02 never was finished, since the forum multiplayer group decided that they didn't want to play with modifications any more, and I left Rome: Total War altogether shortly afterwards due to unrelated reasons.

2.01
Added centurions and standard bearers to appropriate Roman infantry
Switched statistics and costs for Praetorian and urban centuries
Edited some names
Removed officers from all phalanx capable units
Gave all units with two hitpoints three and gave all units with one hitpoint two
Doubled all missile attacks
Nerfed women
Switched defense from shield to armour for unshielded units

2.02
Added centurions and standard bearers to appropriate Roman infantry
Switched statistics and costs for Praetorian and urban centuries
Edited some names
Removed officers from all phalanx capable units
Nerfed women
Switched defense from shield to armour for unshielded units
*Gave all units an additional four morale
*Adjusted some Roman infantry formations

*Not yet implemented

As for my main modification, I will attempt to list the main changes from memory.

Added centurions and standard bearers to appropriate Roman infantry
Switched statistics and costs for Praetorian and urban centuries
Edited some names
Removed officers from all phalanx capable units (the officers were creating gaps and preventing combined units from being a true phalanx)
Gave all units with two hitpoints three and gave all units with one hitpoint two
Doubled all missile attacks
Nerfed women
Switched defense from shield to armour for unshielded units (some units with no graphical shield model had shield statistics)
Fixed pre-Marius Praetorians bug
Made "Scarface" trait less detrimental (the trait is bugged and happens much more often than intended; this cannot be fixed)
Removed Arcani, flaming pigs, Druids, gladiators, elephants (I couldn't get them to die with one ballista hit), Head Hunting Maidens, repeating ballistas, and several other balogna units
Edited locations for mercenary recruitment
Raised the defense of all tower shields by two and lowered the defense skill of the wielders by two
Changed pre-Marian Roman cavalry to historical thirty man
turma and post-Marian Roman cavalry to historical thirty two man turma[/i]
Changed all other light and heavy cavalry to the same or similar numbers
Fixed horse archer bug (I don't remember if I ever got around to it, since I don't ever use horse archers)?
Extensively tweaked traits to provide more logical effects

That's all I can remember for now, but there are hundreds of small (and perhaps a few big) changes more. This should give you an idea of what I did, though, and whether or not it's a modification you'd like to try. Note that I put historical accuracy and realism to the best of my ability above all else, but that I might have made errors (in particular, the exact numbers of the century and turma are in doubt, although my numbers are certainly closer to reality than anyone else's). Also note that I do not have the necessary skill to make as great of changes as faction changes and province changes. One thing you might like to do is combine my modification with another, such as Rome: Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum. I have no problem with that. But it would take you many hours to do.

If you still want my modification, then either privately message me with your address or ask me to host it.

Loki-PF
07-18-2005, 02:35 PM
I used to *love* MTW.... Haven't gotten around to reloading it since I got my new box.

I have bought RTW but not loaded it yet.. Hell I don't even have time to play PF as much as I'd like.

The main reason I bought RTW was because I heard the the development of the Middle Earth Total War had been moved to the RTW engine.

Anyone heard the status of that? OMFG would that be cool if they ever got it done!

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2005, 04:39 PM
AerialTarget, I`d be interested to try your mod. It looks pretty sensible imho. Perhaps a link?

As for 6.0, I`m looking forward to trying it. It certainly is more realistic than vanilla.

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 04:51 PM
Here it is. (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/data.zip)

Unzip directly to your data subdirectory. I have included backups of all files affected. To uninstall, delete my files and remove the phrase "copy of" from the backup files.

Criticism is more than welcome, especially if I have made historical errors. Even if something just doesn't seem right to you, please tell me; there are probably many simple typos and other errors which could cause problems. The modification is very much beta (I have nine progressive versions), and it has only had two testers so far, including myself. And my friend doesn't do single player, where the majority of the changes are.

The single biggest change in gameplay is that cavalry is no longer the end-all-be-all of the game. Cavalry spammers will lose hilariously. For my Roman armies, I use the historical infantry to cavalry ratio‚' of six centuries (one cohort‚¬≤) to one turma. The cavalry is just enough to perform their historical role - mopping up after the party, chasing away or running down ranged units, and slamming into the back of any cavalry that tries to flank the infantry.

If enough people try it, and enough people like it, I might do more work on it and possibly even document the changes from the original.

‚' The actual infantry to cavalry ratio was more varied, usually having more cavalry (though never the ridiculous ratios you find in the game). The ratio of which I speak is the ratio of infantry to cavalry within the legion. Auxiliary cavalry, or "allied" cavalry, often were there in greater numbers. I believe a good average historical ratio of infantry to cavalry is ten to one, as opposed to my "official" Roman ratio of about fifteen to one.

‚¬≤ What the game calls a cohort is actually a century. A cohort is a block of six centuries, about three paces apart, three wide and two deep. Unfortunately, I am still unsure as to exactly what the historical Roman formations should look like on the cohort level (in other words, how the cohorts form the line). Also, the formations changed drastically from pre-Marius to post-Marius. In addition, I have no clue in what way turmae make up an ala as a century makes up a cohort.

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2005, 05:40 PM
Well you`re obviously more meticulous about the accuracy of units than I, so I doubt I`ll notice everything to do with such , but looking forward to trying it. Let you know in a day or 2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thanks for the link.

I trust this works with the Patch 1.2?

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 05:45 PM
Yes, I wrote it after that patch came out when it became clear that no more official patches were forthcoming. Things which are hardcoded that I really wish I could fix are the shoreline squares bug (it wasn't present in earlier versions! Argh) and the cavalry to infantry speed ratio. You can slow everyone down, but you can't make infantry slower while leaving cavalry alone. Creative Assembly says, I believe, that cavalry runs at twenty miles per hour and infantry runs at sixteen miles per hour.

I might fire up Rome: Total War and take screenshots of my standard formation. It actually works fairly well, although not as well is it did in real life for several reasons. One of them is that rank depth no longer is accounted for (apparently it did in the previous games).

I forgot to mention the generals' bodyguards. By default, they have about thirty men, and to leave them that way while reducing the ordinary cavalry units from fifty four to thirty two would terribly unbalance them. I reduced the general's bodyguard until the ratio of general's bodyguard to standard cavalry unit was the same as in vanilla. I did a similar procedure with chariots, although I couldn't get it exact with the chartiots due to the game mechanics (men and horses and chariots, oh my!).

Lastly, the First Cohort - there are game engine limitations that prevent these from having their true numbers. They are wrong. By the way, in order for the rest of my numbers to be correct, you must use the large unit size and not huge. It won't affect the ratios, though.

TacticalYak3
07-18-2005, 07:49 PM
Love the game (vanilla). Been playing it since it was released last year. Looking forward to the expansion coming soon!

I prefer to play the campaign on Hard/Hard. Played a number of Short and a couple Long Campaigns. Try having unlimited time, no pausing, and restricting camera to add to the challenge. Also, if not enough try Very Hard for Campaigns (Map) (I personally don't find it realistic for the Battles themselves).

Hope you find enjoyment in RTW.

TactS!

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 07:58 PM
I played very hard campaigns with the battle difficulty set on medium. What they don't tell you is that the battle difficulty only gives the enemy units statistic boosts. On medium, it's like fighting another human (albiet a very stupid one). On very hard, there is a significant morale and, if I remember correctly, attack bonus for the artifical intelligence controlled troops.

PlimPlam
07-18-2005, 09:38 PM
I had shogun total war but for some reason I could never install it as my dvd drive and cd drive were in the wrong spots or something. It really made me scratch my head a bit as it made no sense to me what so ever and I did check their site once or twice for patches but they never got around to my problem before I moved on to another game and forgot about it.

They did get my money for it though. So I suppose thats something.

Mebbe Ill try rome total war though. It sounds like a good game.

sapre
07-19-2005, 03:59 AM
>AerialTarget
I'll give it a try, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

dazza9806482
07-19-2005, 05:46 AM
Well guys im now a good bit through a long Julli campaign, and i have to say its growing on me.

not too fussed on the repeated bandit battles, but the megalomania is grabbing me!

Overall it fixes a lot of things i disliked about MTW, especially with the new dynamic campaign map, far more tactical and less like computer risk

i might try ur mod aerial- once ive punished the **** spanish!

one question, does it become patently obvious when u need to tackle other roman factions?

SeaFireLIV
07-19-2005, 05:54 AM
@ dazza9806482

Yes, you`ll know, without a doubt. They`ll start by making a VERY special request of you.

@TacticalYak3

"I prefer to play the campaign on Hard/Hard. Played a number of Short and a couple Long Campaigns. Try having unlimited time, no pausing, and restricting camera to add to the challenge. Also, if not enough try Very Hard for Campaigns (Map) (I personally don't find it realistic for the Battles themselves)."

This is almost exactly how I play RTW too. Very Hard campaign (the AI really works its spies and strategies on you and Hard battles).

dazza9806482
07-19-2005, 06:42 AM
Actually Seafire can u launch a pre-emptive strike against other Rome factions?

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 08:25 AM
i didnt haveto attack other romans to complete my game, well apart from rome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

started a campaign as the british, think ill go play that now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-19-2005, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by dazza9806482:
Actually Seafire can u launch a pre-emptive strike against other Rome factions?

It`s very hard to do. You need to gain the popularity of the people first before RTW will allow you to do this. There is a way: You can send multiple assassins to continually attack the Senate. Eventually, one of the assassins will be discovered as coming from YOU and then the Senate plus all of Rome (the other 2 Roman Factions will go to war with you).

But be advised, this is extremely dangerous to do because chances are you won`t be powerful enough to take them on (unless you play on easy).

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 10:59 AM
well, i filled the rome with spies, so the gates opened http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

then carefully rushed my troops in, the burning oil still works so u haveto be carefull to not get a jam and lose half your men http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

then i just took hold of the gatehouse as soon as i could, then rushed the rest of the city http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TacticalYak3
07-19-2005, 08:59 PM
Indeed SeaFireLIV, certainly a better challenge with Campaign Map on Very Hard.

It's a crazy game in that I find myself moving along, accomplishing my goals, and yet you get up after a session and realize X hours (too ashamed to actually say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) has gone by.

You guys looking forward to the upcoming expansion?

TactS!

huggy87
08-19-2005, 10:30 AM
If you install a mod how easy is it to go back to the plain old 1.2 I am going to download Rome Total Realism 6.0, but if I don't like it it would be nice to revert.

Kuna15
08-19-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by dazza9806482:
Hi guys, terribly OT but i know that some of you guys play some other games!

Was really into medieval total war for a while and have just bought Rome

im finding it a bit hard to decide whether to persevere with the game- ie. its a bit of a slow starter and i became a bit bored of MTW after a while- is it worth sticking with it?

enough of a depature from MTW?

I used to play RTW a lot. But in a short period of time... I quit and didn't looked back.

Basically that game is a copy of Medieval TW, or if you want Shogun TW. More units features and better graphics but... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well if you like that genre I assure you that game is in top. You'll enjoy it.

dazza9806482
08-19-2005, 10:56 AM
Haha funny since this topics been resurected I can report back after a month...


and to be fair Kuna im similar to u, I played a lot and then after a short while havent touched it in weeks.

undoubtedly an excellent game, but it was eating vast swathes of time up and doesnt exactly offer instant thrills.

thing is i think sturmo has spoiled me. when u have that level of imersion and sheer brilliance its hard for other games to match up.

i couldnt shake the feeling i was playing computer 'risk', and hunger for immersive entertainment experiences:

sturmo, half-life and recently BF2 (although not exactly realistic)

but nothing matches sturmo for mercilessly hooking me for about two years and developing an interest in WW2 aviation

ps: i say sturmo i mean the whole caboodle: fb,pf etc

ploughman
08-19-2005, 10:59 AM
I got bored of it pretty quick but the RomeTotalRealism thing has rekindled my interest. Battles are much more intersting now but I still wish the battlefields were much bigger with armies deploying from the march. The opportunity for selecting terrain upon which to fight is way too limited. In the days of yore armies would march and countermarch in search of an opportunity to make the opposition commit on unfavourable terms, this is largely absent from the game.

Kuna15
08-19-2005, 11:03 AM
Two of us have almost exactly taste for game I can tell... I used to play Half-Life for long time (not close to FB tho). But certainly that game has made excellent impression on me.

Today when someone says FPShooter I think of UT and Half-Life(old, original games).

Tell me, is the BF2 multiplayer, online only game or it has single player mode?

I am interested in it, but I like games with single player, at least with single player on multiplayer map with bots.

dazza9806482
08-19-2005, 11:13 AM
There is a single player mode of sorts but the AI makes IL2's look like deep blue... not recommended the game is really built around multiplay.

it is excellent and would be sublime if u played all on comms and all working together. never happens that way tho, but lone wolfing or playing with my mate over skype is still fun

u must have played half-life 2? if u loved the original this game matches the hype

Kuna15
08-19-2005, 12:06 PM
Thnaks for info. Yes I have played HL2 but with all respect, that game is not good as original HL. IMHO. First Half-Life (original without add-ons) was a total blast. Outstanding story (single player), great gameplay... all around exceptional game.

Half life is good ok, but it is short and... I could add that they were run out of imagination somewhere on that road...

Now I have BF2 in plans I will try it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif