PDA

View Full Version : Why does everyone say R:TW is the best?


AboveEnemyLines
07-04-2010, 11:03 PM
i have limited downloading ability this month, so please can someone tell me why everyone always states that Rome is "The Best" of the TW games, and the Masterpiece and such.

(I have medieval 2 and Empire TW, and people seem to hate them)

I have a few games from the steam sale that need installing, and i have had Rome just sitting there for a while, so, is it worth downloading? why does everyone say its so good?

Dreag0n
07-06-2010, 04:17 AM
it's absolutely worth downloading. i can't really explain why people say it is the best TW game but i have to agree with them. Rome plays like medieval 2 but also a bit different, it's a bit easier. it is also the first total war game with 3d.

AussieN00bLord
07-07-2010, 09:39 PM
its an old game. but its fun! its just, FUN :D

Simon_Love
07-09-2010, 06:28 AM
i have limited downloading ability this month, so please can someone tell me why everyone always states that Rome is "The Best" of the TW games, and the Masterpiece and such.

(I have medieval 2 and Empire TW, and people seem to hate them)

I have a few games from the steam sale that need installing, and i have had Rome just sitting there for a while, so, is it worth downloading? why does everyone say its so good?

Well... I like all 3 games myself, each for different reasons....

Rome is less graphically advanced than the other 2 games... some people dislike that, but I don't care about that. :D

By the way, the official Total War forums have more people discussing Medieval 2 and Empire 2 than Rome....

What do people prefer about Rome? Well, I don't know much about others, but I can certainly speak for myself: I like the Rome campaign map more than the Medieval 2 campaign map, because it looks more simple and beautiful to me (and maybe even more realistic?). The Medieval 2 campaign map looks a bit cluttered with farm graphics, etc., of a type that look ugly to me.... You can see the difference in screenshots or videos of the campaign maps....

I also prefer the brighter, more colourful unit graphics and battlefield graphics in battle mode, compared with the more dull, drab, darker, foggy battles in Medieval 2 (and Empire to some extent). Those colours are more enjoyable for me, and the colours also make it easy for me to distinguish between troop-types.

I can say, from reading what other people have written, that some people prefer Rome because of the large variety of unit types... and also some people prefer it because they are into the history of the period, including the classic battles of people like Hannibal and Julius Caesar....

There is also more of an emphasis on foot-soldiers in Rome, I think, compared with Medieval 2, because by medieval times, the development of heavy cavalry made cavalry a much more viable option....

Well, anyway, I certainly love Rome Total War... I can't guarantee that you will, too, because I don't know enough about your likes and dislikes to say... but maybe you will like it - perhaps even love it. :D

barneysixx
07-09-2010, 09:16 PM
because of the unit types
there are 3 types of how the armies are structured
Roman (Cohort system), Hellenistic (Phalanxes), and Barbarian (untrained)
theres alot of variation and different strategies u can implement
also the cavalry response in this game is a masterpiece
its like Alexander commanding timed, well executed Cavalry charges

sin0fchaos
08-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Because it's probably the first tw game that ppl like myself have played. Once u get used to any game and then move onto a sequel and find out that controls,graphics,gameplay have all changed some people kinda get turned down.

Tha Crazy
08-07-2010, 05:32 PM
I dont know how many that praise it as the best, but one of the best, certainly.

If you own M2TW, you should only really get Rome for the Era. MW2 is 'just' ('!') a reskinned version of RTW. I personally love it because of the era and simplicity (same points as for M2TW).

As barneysixx stated about the army types, it pretty much is like that (though, I wouldnt call the barbarian armies untrained) :). Cavalry is just a big factor as in M2TW, even bigger at times.

I'd say go for it, it's kind of the same, but so different.. I still love that game!

Oh yeah, and working phalanxes are just.. OP..

gorpfelch
08-21-2010, 04:41 AM
Rome was the first strategy game I got hooked on and I always find my way back to it and always have a soft spot for it. And you sure can't beat those Praetorian Cavalry charges!

-LSD-
08-27-2010, 01:30 AM
Because it's the least buggy. Yea, there's siege towers getting stuck inside walls, and ladders making crop circles rather than assaulting walls, but at least the game is stable (empire :o) and has working cavalry (M2TW :o).
It's also got a nice amount of variety. In M2TW, you build spearmen to do all the fighting, and then more spearmen, with the odd archer. In Rome, you actually have a use for all the units...
...besides skirmisher javelins...

AnubisArc999
08-27-2010, 10:16 PM
I've playing the TW games since the first one, Shogun:Total War. Shogun was pretty damn good as well, but I must agree that R:TW is the best of the entire series.

Shogun was the perfect balance of fun and "stuff you had to do".

After R:TW, they just keep adding too much extra crap that just makes the game more annoying.

Martin The Mess
08-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Because it's the least buggy. Yea, there's siege towers getting stuck inside walls, and ladders making crop circles rather than assaulting walls, but at least the game is stable (empire :o) and has working cavalry (M2TW :o).
It's also got a nice amount of variety. In M2TW, you build spearmen to do all the fighting, and then more spearmen, with the odd archer. In Rome, you actually have a use for all the units...
...besides skirmisher javelins...

1.) How so is cavalry broken in M2TW? I've got that game, and never had a problem with my cavalry. Of course, I do notice that the cav in RTW do a much better job of disrupting the formation of tight-packed foot soldiers, even spearmen, getting right inside the formation, than they do in M2TW. But otherwise, M2TW cav still do the bulk of my killing, just as they did in MTW and RTW.

2.) Spearmen still kick butt in RTW, as far as I can tell. Especially those you can put on Phalanx Formation. Keep 'em shoulder-to-shoulder in a long line of 4-6 ranks, and they'll roll over anything else I've faced in the game so far, even Roman units. With some cav to keep the enemy from getting around your flanks and/or chase away archers, they're unbeatable. I've yet to see any unit in the TW series that can stand up to a good heavy-spearmen unit pinning it from the front, and a good spear-cavalry unit charging it from the flank or rear.

3.) Skirmisher Javelins do have some use early on. Their faster running speed than most other foot units makes them useful for chasing down fleeing enemy foot units at the end of a battle if you're short on cavalry.

All this may be meaningless at higher difficulty settings or in multiplayer, of course.

-LSD-
08-29-2010, 06:46 PM
1.) How so is cavalry broken in M2TW? I've got that game, and never had a problem with my cavalry. Of course, I do notice that the cav in RTW do a much better job of disrupting the formation of tight-packed foot soldiers, even spearmen, getting right inside the formation, than they do in M2TW. But otherwise, M2TW cav still do the bulk of my killing, just as they did in MTW and RTW.

2.) Spearmen still kick butt in RTW, as far as I can tell. Especially those you can put on Phalanx Formation. Keep 'em shoulder-to-shoulder in a long line of 4-6 ranks, and they'll roll over anything else I've faced in the game so far, even Roman units. With some cav to keep the enemy from getting around your flanks and/or chase away archers, they're unbeatable. I've yet to see any unit in the TW series that can stand up to a good heavy-spearmen unit pinning it from the front, and a good spear-cavalry unit charging it from the flank or rear.

3.) Skirmisher Javelins do have some use early on. Their faster running speed than most other foot units makes them useful for chasing down fleeing enemy foot units at the end of a battle if you're short on cavalry.

All this may be meaningless at higher difficulty settings or in multiplayer, of course.

Cav in M2TW rely on their lances to do any form of damage. You have to pull back miles away then make a charge for them to actually put all their lances down and make a proper charge. Then all of a sudden, when they've charged, their lances disappear and they suddenly have swords which do next to no damage. They rely entirely on shock power, which i suppose is slightly realistic, but not fun for gameplay. To charge again, you have to pull your cavalry back another mile and hope that the lances will re-appear in their hands. A lot of the time there'll be one man in the group with a sword while the rest have their lances out, and that one man ruins the entire charge, because the rest of the cavalry will use the lances in a stabbing motion rather than couching it. On top of that they do a horrible horrible job of killing routing enemies. They'll prance around behind them doing next to no damage.

Phalanx spearmen are Phalangites, which i class as an entirely different kind of spearmen. They're less effective against cavalry, since cav will plow into the formation and completely disrupt it, but they do a much, much better job of killing infantry (defensively) than any other unit in the game. Also, phalangites move at such a slow pace, and the formation is completely disrupted when moving over difficult terrain, and their slow speed and tight cluster formation gets owned by archers/catapults.

As for the javelin men, i hate using them simply because they require so much micro management. Their skirmishing ability doesn't work properly a lot of the time, meaning i have to tell them when to retreat, not to mention how they disrupt formations when they move behind your lines. That, coupled with their short range is why i don't use them. Plus i prefer to play as Romans, who have their Pila which do more damage, pierce armour and don't cost a unit token. Javelin men are great above your settlement doorways for killing the ram-pushers though :D

rial2209
09-01-2010, 04:15 AM
It's the best total war game out there.

That doesnt mean much with the garbage they make now a days, but it still is one of the best games I've ever played. Too bad they strayed form their path and didnt want to make good games anymore.

viceice85
09-02-2010, 06:02 AM
The knights are quite broken more often then not...the few times ive had a successful charge with them are great but they are few and far between they always stop mid charge switch to swords or god knows what

johnhughthom
09-14-2010, 02:28 PM
I think the superb mods available are another part of the reason so many people still play RTW, Europa Barbarorum, Roma Sur♥♥♥♥♥♥ and Total Realism to name but three.

vartanhaghverdi
09-18-2010, 11:00 AM
I think the superb mods available are another part of the reason so many people still play RTW, Europa Barbarorum, Roma Sur♥♥♥♥♥♥ and Total Realism to name but three.
You're on these forums as well? LOL ;)

EmperorSahlertz
09-24-2010, 09:50 AM
Rome was the first strategy game I got hooked on and I always find my way back to it and always have a soft spot for it. And you sure can't beat those Praetorian Cavalry charges!

A Spartan Phalanx can ;)

vartanhaghverdi
09-25-2010, 08:45 AM
A Spartan Phalanx can ;)
Not if it's charged in the rear, but then again, most vanilla RTW players don't mind turning their phalanxes 180 in the blink of an eye.

AcE2302
09-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Why is rtw the best? :D well play it and you will find out

LeeTheAgent
10-04-2010, 03:55 PM
I love all the series (except for the first two, I haven't had much experience with either). Just this past week, I've played games in all of them. I must admit, I love the eye candy of the newer ones, and the different tactics you use.

Empire is fun, but a lot of it is just lining up line infantry. And that's good, it feels like formations and strategic positioning is even more important than the previous ones, which after a point to tend to become mob vs mob. The campaign map plays much differently, and sometimes I prefer it, sometimes I don't. The research tree is interesting and fun to play with.

M2 feels to me the most epic, probably because of the little things, like the agent videos and things like that. It still looks good, and I love the Third Age mod for it, even if I suck hard at it (keep getting my ♥♥♥ kicked as Mordor by turn 10 or so). The crusades are a fun addition, and so is the new world I'd imagine, though I've never tried going there. Kingdoms is a gigantic expansion too, though I've yet to try much of it out. Combat feels like a cross between Rome and Empire... something about it just doesn't feel as responsive though, perhaps related to what others have said about cavalry. But it's a fun time period.

Rome, I think I'd have to say is still my favorite. It's hard to tell if it's just because it's my preferred time period, or not. The combat seems more responsive, and there's a large variety to the troops. It's not as pretty anymore, but it runs smooth. Personally, I love the phalanx combat, especially in Alexander. I'm not sure what it is about the game as a whole, it just seems to go quicker than the later ones. There are some annoyances, like the danger of overpopulation (building any higher than the first tier of farms can really make the later game a pain). But overall, it's still the one I play the most.

But really, as I still play all of them, it really boils down to what period I'm interested in at that moment. Sometimes I'm in the mood for gunpowder, sometimes I'm in the mood for phalanxes, or pretending I'm Caeser.

existentialvoid
10-19-2010, 02:45 PM
because of the unit types
there are 3 types of how the armies are structured
Roman (Cohort system), Hellenistic (Phalanxes), and Barbarian (untrained)
theres alot of variation and different strategies u can implement
also the cavalry response in this game is a masterpiece
its like Alexander commanding timed, well executed Cavalry charges

basically this - in empire and to som extent in medieval - the stratagies are the same - line infantry with some calvalry and artillery maby some long range stuff mixed in for fun, same in medival with some knight units that are unique but basically function the same.

in rome you have 5 distinct styles - Roman, Barbarian, Greek, Eastern and carthaginan and each brings a totally diffeent set of challanges and stratagies in the battlefield. flanking is more important and the sieges are epic. . . While I kno shogun 2 is coming out and that should be fun, I fear it will be similar to medieval in terms of standardized troops in different colors. Rome is the most exciting time period because of the variety in culture.

and the active modding community around rome really tells the story about how much improvemnet can be made to it. I wait for Rome 2 with anticiaption, evn if it means waiting a few more years for it.

Red Spot
10-27-2010, 10:23 AM
^
This

Also in Rome units work as advertised which cant be said about newer games in the genre. The older games just look like crap nowadays. So basicly if you want to play a TW game that looks reasonably well and plays as advertised there is only 1 you can take :D

X-GoDlik3-X
12-18-2010, 07:09 PM
i dont know, at first i was really interested in the total war games, and then i bought rome and played it. i think its kinda fun, but its hard for me, and now im suddenly not interested in the TW series anymore XD

miticopyro
12-24-2010, 02:47 AM
Rome Total War is the best for many reasons
1) the flexibility of the unit
2) the moral armies can win small
3) the best title total war