PDA

View Full Version : All Roads lead to Rome



gunner54
14th Jul 2005, 12:02
Due to Rome Total War being mentioned in so many posts on this forum, I recently bought a second hand copy of the game. Wow, it's everything IG is not at the moment! Plus, there are loads of mods for the game (and it is easily moddable by anyone with the slighestest knowledge of the proccess).

RTW is not as graphically advanced as IG, and its not Napoleonic, but until the arrival of the IG official patch, it's the RTS game of choice for me.

I hope the IG patch will be issued asap, so the game can, hopefully, show its full potential. As in many respects I believe the game can achieve legendry status, regain its place on my pc, and become my FGOAL!

Ironhand
14th Jul 2005, 15:22
Yep. You don't see everyone wearing the same uniform.( ie: Gauls are not recolored Romans.) Morale actually works. Units don't fight to the death unless they have no choice. You can break off from a melee. You can move within a province, so the battlefields are different. You can pause and command

The campaign out of the box isn't that great, but give the SPQR mod a try. You don't have naval combat, but then again your ships don't fall off the edge.

Oststar
15th Jul 2005, 04:37
Bugger of Gunner54 you silly sod. If we were interested in R:TW would we be here? No. Keep it to yourself cobber: IG has issues but once they crack the code modders will make this game what it can be, since I can't trust those buggered devs to hand over the stubbies. And if they can't crack the code then perhaps i'll try contacting the guys who cracked DICE code and the devs should hand over the code anyway.

Nahirean
15th Jul 2005, 06:24
Bugger of Gunner54 you silly sod. If we were interested in R:TW would we be here? No. Keep it to yourself cobber: IG has issues but once they crack the code modders will make this game what it can be, since I can't trust those buggered devs to hand over the stubbies. And if they can't crack the code then perhaps i'll try contacting the guys who cracked DICE code and the devs should hand over the code anyway.

I would change "once" to "if" my friend. We can only crack this code if IG fires the current "Mods" on this board and starts communicating with the community!

gunner54
15th Jul 2005, 13:11
Bugger of Gunner54 you silly sod. If we were interested in R:TW would we be here? No. Keep it to yourself cobber: IG has issues but once they crack the code modders will make this game what it can be, since I can't trust those buggered devs to hand over the stubbies. And if they can't crack the code then perhaps i'll try contacting the guys who cracked DICE code and the devs should hand over the code anyway.
Why thanks mate. LOL By outlining my experiences with, and perception of, RTW, I was trying to highlight the fact of how IG has fallen short with it's initial release. I like IG (see my previous post and threads), but it's broken backed at the moment, due, possibily, to a rushed or poorly thought out release.
I believe IG can be a fabulous gaming experienced, but at the moment it short changes the buyer when compared to other games such as RTW. I believe, like the vast majority of people on this forum I am waiting for THE PATCH.

Queeg
15th Jul 2005, 14:29
IG is much better than RTW was on its initial release. Those who claim otherwise either didn't actually play the initial version of RTW or are just refusing to remember all the problems RTW had on release:

How the AI left its armies divided into little groups scattered all over the map where you could easily pick them off one by one.

How when you grew bored of just slaughtering all these little armies you could just bribe them all away for next to nothing.

How the AI flooded the map with huge navies that were practically invincible because the auto-resolved battles were so ridiculously unrealistic.

How the battlefield AI was so poor that the enemy would sometimes just huddle together in a big clump in the middle of its city and let you destroy them with arrows - without the attacker losing even a single guy.

How the Senate would order you to fight some random enemy or blockade some far distant port, none of which had anything to do with anything that you were doing or the Senate was doing or anybody was doing - just a silly layer of busy-work masquerading as a "campaign" feature.

How everyone complained that the battle speed was too fast. And cavalry greatly overpowered.

How the AI built entire armies of nothing but warhounds. And don't forget the silly screeching women, head hurlers and bum flashers.

No, RTW was a mess on initial release. Much has been fixed. More has been modded.

It remains to be seen how Pyro and Eidos will handle IG, and RTW ultimately may prove to have better support. But, out of the box, IG is a cleaner, more polished and more challenging game.

gunner54
15th Jul 2005, 16:42
Thanks for the insight Queeg, I used a patched version of RTW. Lets hope the IG patch will lift the game to the same level, or higher, as the present version of RTW.

By the way I think the diplomatic section of IG is very enjoyable, first rate stuff; the battles good ,but can be bettered, it's only the naval engagements that are, in my opinion, truly awful.

Queeg
15th Jul 2005, 21:36
Well, auto-resolve in IG naval battles works much better than it did in RTW, so you're not missing anything there.

gunner54
15th Jul 2005, 22:15
Yes, but in IG you pretty much HAVE to auto resolve naval battles, because the battles themselves are rubbish. In RTW you have no choice. If you have the choice the developers should make sure it is playable.

Queeg
15th Jul 2005, 22:32
Well, we disagree about the naval battles. I enjoy them. Took some practice, and the Auto-Fire and Follow-Ship commands help.

Emperor of the French
16th Jul 2005, 00:18
RTW has fun battles. They're buggy, but very fun.

IG, on the other hand, has its strengths in strategic modes. I don't know about you, but RTW's campaign just isn't as fun. It's bigger and longer, but it doesn't have the depth that IG has.

I also like the strategic goals in IG's battles. The actual fighting is rubbish, but the stategic elements of holding bits of land and being able to use them--as well as the idea of objectives--works really really well. It lacks a morale system, but RTW's morale system wasn't too spectacular. It worked, but it worked TOO well--entire armies would run away when the slightest thing went wrong.

Of course, I'd like some sort of godly mix of the two, but that's not very possible. TW's strength is in the fighting, and the campaign is just a nice tool on top of that. IG, ultimately, was about empire building.

Queeg
16th Jul 2005, 02:26
I'm enjoying the battles the more I play them. I found the RTW battles too easy and repetitive. Those in IG, by comparison, seem more varied and challenging. In fairness, much of my preference is due to the simple fact that I enjoy the era in IG more. But, for whatever reason, I'm enjoying them.

Grandmaster
16th Jul 2005, 04:28
Rtw and IG are two very good games in there own right, im just happy i can play the two of them.

Oststar
16th Jul 2005, 07:55
I take it back Gunner; I was over agressive and confrontational. I've seen several R:TW fanboys on this site saying something along the lines of "why would I bother paying so much for a game that has no morale system and is a poor copy of R:TW" etc.

Anyway Nahirean i'm certain there'll be a way to crack the code... I know a few people who've cracked DICE (terrible studio BTW they make hideously clunky games) code so perhaps they can give a few pointers on how to crack this if you'd like?

Anyway I didn't think IG's naval battles were so bad, a few people have had bugs ruin for them and given up totally, but it's not that bad. I'd like the AI code to be able to calculate when and how to form Lines of Battle though, because right now SoL's just act like Frigates and go for close turning fights. The AI should have several programs on how to respond to certain situations, IE:

French: two SoLs one Sloop
British: two Frigates, a SoL and a Sloop

The French code should recognise that the SoL's should form a LoB and have the Sloop sail slightly off to one side to attract a Frigate and then hopefully drag it into the LoB's fire. The British code should have the sloop hang back and send the Frigates to try and rake the LoB from the rear or bows, the Brit SoL should be manouvering to engage a weakened French SoL 1v1.

Also the naval code should be redone so that the AI tries to capture ships more often rather than sinking.

Shot should do damage to the crew, randomly calculated how much, from say nil to 20 damage and 5 to 20 for hull damage should be randomised too, with the probablity higher that it will be 15-20.

Chain should do a little amount of crew damage
Grape should do a little amount of Sail damage

Boarding needs to be a little more randomised, just so that the boarder isn't always whipping the boarded.

Also the imaginary line is utter rubbish, because if a SoL engages a lone Sloop the end result is predicable, whereas in real combat the Sloop would be trying to get astern of the SoL, rake it and then get the weather gauge to escape from the slower SoL. There needs to be a morale system whereby some ships surrender, IE if your Sloop gets under the lee of a SoL it'll wet itself and haul down the colours. Or if a Frigate is losing badly it strikes its colours etc. The player should be able to control prizes and the enemy should be able to retake prizes. Multiple ships should be allowed to engage in boarding, not just 1v1, IE a SoL boards a SoL, so a Heavy Frigate comes up beating tack upon tack to the rescue, places a strong boarding party and saves the day. Sinking ships should have launches and barges dropped and then ships can pick them up as prisoners or rescue them to regain some population, (I know that idea is a dream but well... I can dream if I want to :P).

There's a LOT that needs fixing in Naval Battles, but they aren't totally ruined. I honestly enjoy a good One on One with sloops, but in 1v2's i just give the enemy a rake of grape and then baord him in the smoke.

gunner54
16th Jul 2005, 10:40
Thanks Oststar. No I am not an 'RTW fan boy.' I agree that fan boy posts such as "my game's fab, yours sucks" are irritating and serve no useful purpose. My post was trying to highlight the differences between two quite similar games, as they stand at the present. If ,there seems to be an edge in my posts of late, it is because of 'customer disatisfaction.' IG's gameplay and particularly the era it's set in gets my gamer's juices going, and right from the release of the demo I have been behind the game. But, at the moment it needs attention from it's developers, i.e. a patch. I must say I am encouraged by the appearence (forgive the pun!) of IG community produced skins. Also, as the people who write and read the posts on this forum share a common interest in millitary games, it is only natural that some of us would like to share, in a friendly way, our experiences of other, similar, games. I find this aspect of great value, and I have tried several games, that, over the years have been recomended by fellow gamers.

The naval battles are the most in need of attention. Can I mention SM's Pirates!? The naval battles in that game are pretty good and something along those lines in IG might work.


RTW is still, by the way, not 'perfect.' One element that it contains, and that I've seen IG players asking the developers for is 'pause and command'. I dont use it, it seems to me to be almost cheating!

Grandmaster
16th Jul 2005, 11:12
why would you need a pause button in the game IG the battles are small skermishes compared to RTW epic battles on large scale you would need a pause button, after playing and controlling large armies with RWT with a pause now again , IG is a walk in the park without a pause. anyhow you can still pause the game , on IG take a breather, and see whats going on anyhow, but useing the camera just use your judgement, what do next with your troops and so forth un pause the game and do a quick command where its needed most.

Oststar
17th Jul 2005, 08:55
Thanks Oststar. No I am not an 'RTW fan boy.' I agree that fan boy posts such as "my game's fab, yours sucks" are irritating and serve no useful purpose. My post was trying to highlight the differences between two quite similar games, as they stand at the present. If ,there seems to be an edge in my posts of late, it is because of 'customer disatisfaction.' IG's gameplay and particularly the era it's set in gets my gamer's juices going, and right from the release of the demo I have been behind the game. But, at the moment it needs attention from it's developers, i.e. a patch. I must say I am encouraged by the appearence (forgive the pun!) of IG community produced skins. Also, as the people who write and read the posts on this forum share a common interest in millitary games, it is only natural that some of us would like to share, in a friendly way, our experiences of other, similar, games. I find this aspect of great value, and I have tried several games, that, over the years have been recomended by fellow gamers.


Actually now I thank you... perhaps the modders of IG would like to look at R:TW's code and see if it is at all similar to IG's? Even if it isn't looking at how R:TW's psuedo code is written pertaining to morale system perhaps it could be coded in?


The naval battles are the most in need of attention. Can I mention SM's Pirates!? The naval battles in that game are pretty good and something along those lines in IG might work.

I can't say i've ever played Pirates, but I certainly agree the naval battles need redoing. I've been wondering how they could have been different. It's too late to change the invisible line I think, but still with extra code to get real tactics out of the enemy ships and some recoding of the guns a very good system could be implemented.


RTW is still, by the way, not 'perfect.' One element that it contains, and that I've seen IG players asking the developers for is 'pause and command'. I dont use it, it seems to me to be almost cheating!

Active pause is up in the air for me: some people wouldn't play without it whereas I don't touch it. It would be useful but it defeats the hectic nature of battles of the period when you can't just pause and make neat little lines.

Emperor of the French
17th Jul 2005, 10:51
why would you need a pause button in the game IG the battles are small skermishes compared to RTW epic battles on large scale you would need a pause button, after playing and controlling large armies with RWT with a pause now again , IG is a walk in the park without a pause. anyhow you can still pause the game , on IG take a breather, and see whats going on anyhow, but useing the camera just use your judgement, what do next with your troops and so forth un pause the game and do a quick command where its needed most.

Battles are not particularly epic when entire enemy armies retreat because two units have been routed. Furthermore, the usage of epic and large in quick succession is highly redundant and entirely unnecessary.

Oststar
17th Jul 2005, 11:46
Battles are not particularly epic when entire enemy armies retreat because two units have been routed. Furthermore, the usage of epic and large in quick succession is highly redundant and entirely unnecessary.

Armies do that in R:TW do they? I've heard the morale system in R:TW is very oversensitive. I'd be pissed off if my armies retreated because of some heavy losses: quite often the critical point is when the winning side has to engage the loser's last forces. It might just be the way I fight (I find a strongpoint and hold it then use my forces to screen it.) The screen falls back on the strongpoint unless they're doing really well or are pinned, and using this method the main forces cut each other up pretty bad and then I fall back and use the damaged forces to support the strongpoint. Usually even with 1/2 the enemy's size in numbers I can win doing this. Some might argue it's better to group around the strongpoint rather than screen it but i've found the enemy tends to pick a flank and concentrate on that working towards the strongpoint. Then I have to rush my other flank around and usually they manage to take the strongpoint, whereas using a screen they simply try to break my centre. Also with a screen sometime I establish a position where I am destroying the enemy and leaves a position to fall back to if I mess up. If I did this in R:TW from what I hear i'd get my ass kicked like a one legged man in said competition.

Emperor of the French
18th Jul 2005, 00:17
Unless you used Roman units, who are the only ones with any decent discipline in the entire game, the concept of using any sort of tactical reserve to butcher your enemy becomes destroyed. It's quite unfortunate, really, because I do that all the time in IG battles.

Queeg
18th Jul 2005, 00:49
Battles in RTW, for all their size and graphical glory, are simple and repetitive: meet their line, hit their flanks with cavalry, they rout. Every time.

Which is why a morale system, for all its realism, is not necessarily a good thing for gameplay.

Emperor of the French
18th Jul 2005, 02:41
Oh, morale's great--if it worked properly. They only had a few categories in RTW, though: impetuous, eager, wavering, and broken. They would need more levels, plus sturdier morale. I could see barbarians breaking that easily, but there's no reason Greeks, Parthians, or even Romans would fall that easily.

Sir Crow
18th Jul 2005, 16:03
With the risk of being slated I think RTW's land battles are a cut above IG's. Yes when it first came out there were probs but look how quickly patches came out and then the mods. Some of the mods for RTW are excellent, I play the Total realism mod which is brilliant and graphically pleasing too. One point was mention about routing armies, this was true or as near to true as you can get in a game. If you could get 3 armies say to rout then this would spread through the army but don't think routing armies are just confined to that era, look at the old guard at Waterloo for example, them 2 units routed and caused panic through the french Army, then there was the spanish in the Pennisular campaign. In one instance the Spainards formed alongside the brits and they were being fired upon from french skirmishers, the Spanish panicked and let off a volley and the whole unit were frightened by the sounds of their guns and routed leaving the brits to fight. And also it was not just the Romans who had discipline that is way to a simplistic statement, obviously you haven't heard of the Carthagians or the Secluid empire to name but two. And while it's true there is no Napoleonic mod for RTW there will be in the not too distant future and it looks fantastic my only wish is that IG could be good too but it needs modding and as soon as Eidos/Pyro accept that and seriously help the modders the game will last but the more the continue to ignore people the more chance there is of IG to die which would be a shame.

evilbanner
18th Jul 2005, 18:14
to be honest guys,....

Imperial glory is damn good I mean okay people call it a copy of RTW but aint that becuz it is still fresh in their memory? I mean most people start accusing IG or either RTW without a good look at what both games have to offer.

But one thing I must point out, althought I really like IG the game itself, the support sux read thread crash at start up I had to search google myself because the admins didn't do much indepth research (sorry if im wrong ) but they just left that thread open after a few simple replies. I had to do it one my own. eventually I fixed it searching through nvidia and amd forums.

The other thing is the naval wars. I think its really cool that you dont have land wars all along but also ship wars. When I started playing it I wos liek PWNAGE ! after something liek 20 mins I was almost sleeping in front of the screen. The gameplay is really boredom itself. I know the cannon shooting is cool but the AI is so ****ed up that I just automatch naval battles and do mroe important stuff (.......................) I mean 4/6th of the time you are chasing ships who go of the map and the AI comes back just before the ship would leave the battlefield because it is AI controlled. how boring is that :eek: not to mention the entering. Seeing something liek 10 guys swirling around WHOHOW WHOHOW Im amazed for real. Dont get me wrong I like the game. I showed like a few friends how cool IG wos. the managing maps --> cool, the land battles --> cool the sea battles -> snork snork they begged to put it off.

Emperor of the French
18th Jul 2005, 21:47
Old Guard... rout?! ;-)

My friend, it was the Middle Guard that pulled back during the withering hail of bullets during Waterloo. It wasn't a rout, either, but a withdrawal to get them out of the hail of bullets.

Unfortunately, the shock of seeing the Guard reverse at all, plus the army's distrust of any marshals after Mormont's betrayal in Paris left them wondering if perhaps Ney had backstabbed them, which gripped the army in panick and caused the line units to rout.

The entire army did not rout, however. The Old Guard, especially, fought a rearguard action to defend the retreat under l'Empereur's personal command. It was only until the retreat was secured that Napoleon I ordered the Guard to form a square around him and withdraw.

Waterloo isn't nearly the failure that everyone portrays it as, it's the consequences of Waterloo that are important: namely the ability for Fouché and Talleyrand to magnify the defeat and convince the Deputies that it was a rout, especially with Ney's aide.

gunner54
19th Jul 2005, 12:08
How history changeth! LOL First Waterloo was an English victory, then a win for the allied forces, next a Triumph for the Prussians, and finally (?) perhaps not that much of a defeat for the French!

Phillippe
19th Jul 2005, 13:10
I think the key to the events around Waterloo are simply this, Napolean did what he'd ordered and said was the most foolish thing to do and split his forces.

Ney's charge was futile, and merely weakened the resolve of the French forces.

True it wasn't such a great defeat in terms of casualties, but it sucked the life out of the Campaign for Napolean and put him on the defensive, and facing a combined army of British and Prussians, finding grounds to fight back without suffereing high losses seemed unlikely. Basically it was from then on a losing battle, ignoring any special circumstances.

gunner54
19th Jul 2005, 13:52
I think the key to the events around Waterloo are simply this, Napolean did what he'd ordered and said was the most foolish thing to do and split his forces.

Ney's charge was futile, and merely weakened the resolve of the French forces.

True it wasn't such a great defeat in terms of casualties, but it sucked the life out of the Campaign for Napolean and put him on the defensive, and facing a combined army of British and Prussians, finding grounds to fight back without suffereing high losses seemed unlikely. Basically it was from then on a losing battle, ignoring any special circumstances.

The whole 100 days campaign was a high risk (no pun intended!) gamble for Napolean, any major set back, or French defeat, was almost sure to put an end to it.

Webrider
21st Jul 2005, 03:25
This is a copy of RTW like any RTS is a copy of the first.. RTW is a copy of Shogun which is a copy of Milton Bradly board game Shogun with a RTS battle element added... There is no harm comparing this game to others of this type.

That said there are expectations for featurs in a RTS game and certain hot key combinations Ctrl 1-9 etc loop and select units etc. And there are expectations for features in this style of game and these expectations come from the first of this type of game. It is always acceptable to add expected features .. like when formations were added to the RTS game ... or moral.
This game leaves out key features many found convient... pause to give orders ... speed slider. It added features no one complains about... naval battles ..nicer graphics... A simple boarder around the Naval battle map would help alot.. like the boarder around the Starfleet command battles, and the ability to have some of your ships on AI control and able to jump from one to the other perhaps. But naval battle of any type are better then none.

Diplomacy is another matter... the peacefull annexation needs alot of work and the line with out military hospitals is ineffective... you dont have more money in the period of time to help... by the time you have more money you have most of the map anyway same as in the military hospital route... but I guess it is harder to play that route so for a personal challange its ok now that I think about it some more. But I really hate the peacefull annexation ..glitch/feature where an enemy takes Hannover and you liberate it..leave they take it again .. repeat 3 times and you own every country on the map where you can get or have a consulate.

This could be a great game... I like the era better the Roman era ....I hope the patch will be soon and address all the features I believe are missing to make it fun for me. I could go on about all the things I like and dont like but most have been discussed many time over on these boards. Some people live on these boards waiting for a patch i guess which means this game is at least good enough to have some die hard fans. Hell I drove 40 miles to get this game the day it came out played it 5 time s through the first month I had it ... it's an ok game .. could be a great game with a little polish. Hope they make it into a great game. and SOON.

Phillippe
21st Jul 2005, 22:53
Wish you all the look.

You play it on hardest setting as Prussia? That'll challenge you, you basically have to do Diplo every round without skipping any.

bbushe
24th Jul 2005, 20:55
crikey you lot, how hard is it to buy and enjoy both games?

both games need to be improved, and I want them both! the sooner the better.

Webrider
24th Jul 2005, 23:51
I would bet everyone here has both games and probably Med Total War as well. Most people here from the sound of it are die hard gamers, the casual gamer never visiting a site like this. Some people live on these boards and cant surly still be playing this game 3 months after the release? Its still on my harddrive waiting for a patch for another round. I still visit once a week to check for a patch .. although Gamespot will probablly post it and I could find it there.
Absoultly can't wait for Age of Empires III... Might even try cossacks II till then. Gamespot gave it a 8 and IG 6.7 so they thought it was ok. Not thrilled with some of their numbers at times. AOE III screen shots look amazing. CIV IV comming as well... Prolly gripe about that game as well.. but will surly get them all sooner or later. Still no patch I see and no point in saying again what I would like to see changed....It's posted somewhere here ... Several times :)- See you all next week for another browse for a patch.

gunner54
25th Jul 2005, 01:25
Crikey! Most of us have got both!



Webrider, dont get Cossacks 2, i did and it looks like a game from 1995!

zeroh
25th Jul 2005, 13:07
Play both games there entirely different sure they have similar interface but the games is really different say in Rome you often fight on multi fronts invading several countries at the time. Now in IG fighting 2 empires at once unless you have overwhelming superiorty is very difficult since if you attack one and deplete your resources and troops the other will attack you and soon you'll find your losing more territories that you began with. To sum it up IG strengths is in its grand stradagy you cant simply invade ever territory that has a weaker army then you since you'll just piss off alot of countries and soon find europe at your gates. Rome on the other hand strength lies in it battles which are more well made then IG but in the stradagy map the AI and mechanics is grossly incompetent even with mods that make it harder

So the two games are very different with their own strength and weaknesses and if your into stradagy games you should play both.
Hell ive played every total war game back to shogun including expansions ;)