PDA

View Full Version : Is it fair to compare RTW and IG



BARBARIANrome
10th Aug 2005, 11:46
Right ive only been on these forums for a short while and a few comments people have said that i shouldnt compare RTW to IG and some say otherwise...

Now my question is do you think its fair to and which is your favourite of the 2 games..

.......................................................................................................

My opinion although it may not be wanted lol..

I think it is fair to compare the to games, for one many games are compared and they are of total differant genres or even fps to strat or so on...

But if you look at it they are both based on ancient war times..
They both have the same idea behind them, campaign map, battles, Historical Battles, quests which compares to wonders of the world in RTW... many many other things to...

I think alot of people dont like it been compared as they know RTW was a mega game brilliant game that is...

I think the poeple who created this game new what CA where doing as it took 4 years to make RTW and thought of an alternative, sadly so to, as i think the next installment of Total War series would have been Napoleonic and you can only imagine...

But they have only changed 2 things in my opinion the era of course and added naval warfare, which at best is ok....

You can such things as did people compare mortal combat to street fighter YES...

in all honest IG has the makings of RTW and beyond if only they had spent alot more time on the making and testing of the game there are silly flaws although not bugs that minimize the enjoyment of the game...

Although i think it was worth the 20£ i pad for it RTW is far the superior game.. IN MY OPINION.

efthimios
10th Aug 2005, 12:37
I do not think it is fair to compare the two games.
Both of them are good. None of them is best at their field.

K1ler
10th Aug 2005, 13:05
That is where you are wrong. IG is not a good game. And Rome is the best in the field. You may not agree, you can argue, but that is all you can do about it.

Have you ever played Rome with the latest MOD? It makes it a completely different game. And why? Because the makers of Rome allowed it. Thanks to this the Rome is still played, while IG goes off the computer aftrer one or two games.

edou20_nl
10th Aug 2005, 13:21
Rome is much better game buth the time that it is maked in rome period , i like more the napoleon period and i had hopen that total wars had already maked a napoleon total war , i am waiting for the great mod of the lords that should be much more fun , not that ig is bad , it is not but total war was and still the best strategy game. the bad thing of ig is that everyone compares it with the great total war games, if there were no total war games it would be a fantastic game :) :thumbsup:

Grandmaster
10th Aug 2005, 13:46
i got this feeling that RTW team will bring out a napoleonic game, and why not to, i would buy it, IG is not a bad game at all, but even now i play RTW more then IG.

BARBARIANrome
10th Aug 2005, 13:48
and to the last 2 posters dam right thats how its said....

ROME OWNS.....

napoleon bonapart ill have u m8.... with my gladius and my pila ill make meat out of ya frogs legs... lol

To big IG fans sorry if i upset you im not dissing the game just hoped for more than i got.

efthimios
10th Aug 2005, 13:57
Some of you guys are a complete joke.

One one hand you say "you IG fanboys" and how "they" are wrong for liking IG, and on the other hand you say RTW is the best game there. One is wrong for saying that IG is a good game, but you could never be wrong for saying only good things about RTW. Stop trolling, or being stupid.

BARBARIANrome
10th Aug 2005, 14:21
IG Fanboy errrm i have no idea what u mean......

i know what a bum boy is or a home boy, not an ig fanboy....

but i think i get your point... but like you said earlier we all have opinions all though you may not agree..

deal with it...

Ryoken
10th Aug 2005, 14:34
In my opinion there are three main areas where RTW clearly has IG beat.

Unit Control: IG unit control is very poor. Moving, repositioning, and various other SIMPLE actions are difficult due to poor control.

Size: RTW battles field huge numbers of soldiers; IG doesnt even come close. Yes, IG has better graphics on the units that exist, but sheer numbers are necessary for "epic battles". Waterloo has 200,000+ soldiers in real life.

Speed: RTW plays faster. Battles are more frequent and you waste less time sitting around looking at the map waiting for something to happen. Even games like Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings (two other games I love) are faster than IG.

Now this is coming from someone who enjoyed IG, but I put it down after I wrote my AAR.

BARBARIANrome
10th Aug 2005, 14:58
all good points im still reading that AAR, it makes the game more interesting while i read it so perhaps i shall read a sentance an hour to keep me interested in game.. j/k

good job m8

Ryoken
10th Aug 2005, 15:09
I am actually in the process of putting all my AARs up on my own forum. It should take a couple more days for me to build. I am going to try and build an AAR Forum where AARs from a ton of different games by many authors can be accumulated in one spot.

I am about to move my RTW Carthage AAR from my personal website to the forum as soon as I finish writing this post.

Queeg
10th Aug 2005, 15:14
I've been defending IG in this comparison, here and elsewhere, for weeks. IG out of the box is better than RTW out of the box. Whole bunch of reasons - too many to list here again. And I've argued that it's unfair to compare patched and modded RTW to vanilla IG.

Now that we've seen Pyros pathetic patch effort and nonexistent mod support, I have to concede. RTW is now the better game. And looks to have a much better future.

BARBARIANrome
10th Aug 2005, 15:22
M8 i cant wait me and a friend did one, i did mine on germania and he did his on greece, he never completeed his i did mine complete with 300 screeneis...

if u want that just ask ishall send it over to you m8....

its great...

keep me posted on your forum..

Gelatinous Cube
10th Aug 2005, 15:28
Without any mods? It's fair to compare. Without any mods, they are both mediocre strategy games that could be good.

With mods, there is no comparison. RTW is simply better.

Ryoken
10th Aug 2005, 16:05
M8 i cant wait me and a friend did one, i did mine on germania and he did his on greece, he never completeed his i did mine complete with 300 screeneis...

if u want that just ask ishall send it over to you m8....

its great...

keep me posted on your forum..

I definitely will

Czar
10th Aug 2005, 16:15
It is a fair comparison IMHO.

It is a comparison that was being made even before the game was released because they are from the same genre of game.

I would call it Turn Based Strategy + Real Time Tactical (TBSRTT?? :confused: )

Despite this, many people continued to resist by saying "But IG is NOT Total War!". True. 'Quake' is not 'Doom' is not 'Half Life' either. But they are the same genre and are judged against one another. Fair enough. If one is better than the others then that game will get the acclaim and the customers. That is fair enough too.


As for IG v. Total War series

IMHO ROME:TW is NOT superior to M:TW in the Strategic Area.

I.G. Seems to compare to M:TW (from what I have seen).
That is a good thing. I found the Strategic part of R:TW tedious.

In terms of the battles I liked R:TW for a few reasons, but if M:TW had allowed troops to fight on the battlements as R:TW does I would probably play M:TW all the time.

My ideal game would be:
'Napoleonic' = I.G.
Span the 'Known World' including the colonies = TW series.
Use an IG / M:TW strategic map system but allow you to choose your ground within a province within reason (depending if attaker or defender) and allow you to scout for good ground if you hold the province.
Have an excellent Naval Warfare Engine (Age of Sail?)
including the ability to engage shore targets and land troops (no game does this properly yet that I know of - big potential market there)
Be totally moddable.
Allow historic battles.

IG had the potential to really "Kick some Total War butt!" - but it didn't because the designers made choices based on what they thought would be good - they disregarded the gamers.
The Total War Forums should have been a good source of design inspiration for the IG team. Perhaps if they had been - IG would be a different game?

joxer31
10th Aug 2005, 17:25
The patch was found wanting. Great, we can speed up or slow down the battles. They are still over in a matter of minutes. All turns to melee if you bring artillery to the field. The rest is just a wash. I found it interesting that on the website, American at least, that they didnt post any news of the patch. You have to learn of its existence from the forum. ( Good idea there! :mad: )

But yes, I think it is fair to compare the 2. I would bet that most people who bought this game also own RTW. We all were intrigued because of the uncanny similarities between the two and have waited for a Napoleonic style game of this genre.

My copy has been shelved as well.

Ryoken
10th Aug 2005, 17:35
Amazing how many of the guys who used to argue IG was the greatest have turned against it due to lack of support.

joxer31
10th Aug 2005, 18:01
Amazing how many of the guys who used to argue IG was the greatest have turned against it due to lack of support.

We played the game, found aspects that degraded the experience, and awaited the patch. Alas, we have been betrayed and are now a little upset that our comments and suggestions were not implemented. (ie morale)

That is the one I wish was implemented over any other. I have heard of only one instance in history where a unit would choose to fight to the death, rather than retreat. Thermopylae. But its recreated in every battle.

Gelatinous Cube
10th Aug 2005, 19:01
I have heard of only one instance in history where a unit would choose to fight to the death, rather than retreat.

The entire Pacific Campaign in WWII, the Charge of the Light Brigade, some of the units in Napoleons army during Waterloo, and many more.

That, however, does not excuse to the sheer lazy approach to morale that IG has.

Ryoken
10th Aug 2005, 20:05
But the developers insist that they "have morale" in that if an enemy retreats on the strategic map you can capture him. Bullocks! That is not what we are talking about!

joxer31
10th Aug 2005, 20:22
The entire Pacific Campaign in WWII, the Charge of the Light Brigade, some of the units in Napoleons army during Waterloo, and many more.

True. I was venting more on the fact that units fight to the death in melee situations. But still good to know that history does have other instances.

screamingpalm
11th Aug 2005, 01:51
As a mp game I like IG better as I explained in a previous post. For sp I dont like either, Bull Run is much better. I think Les Grognards will be better than both for a mp game when it is released. Lastly, RTW was good for what it was and did when it came out, they just never improved the game enough for me. Got lazy I guess, sold their copies and all. Thier support is comparable to Eidos. Give your money to developers that earn it and enjoy making the games I say.

My .02

Czar
11th Aug 2005, 07:00
The entire Pacific Campaign in WWII
No. The Japanese had a "fight to the death" culture and had nowhere to retreat (island warefare) but prisoners were still taken and some surrendered willingly.

the Charge of the Light Brigade
No. Lots of survivors there. Tried Google?

some of the units in Napoleons army during Waterloo,
Name one.

and many more.
French Foreign Legion at Camerone perhaps?
IIRC a couple of them were taken prisoner too.

It is very rare for a unit which has the option to retreat to 'fight to the death'.
I can think of units that were surrounded being wiped out but fighting to the death for no reason? Nah.

zeroh
11th Aug 2005, 08:48
That is where you are wrong. IG is not a good game. And Rome is the best in the field. You may not agree, you can argue, but that is all you can do about it.

Have you ever played Rome with the latest MOD? It makes it a completely different game. And why? Because the makers of Rome allowed it. Thanks to this the Rome is still played, while IG goes off the computer aftrer one or two games.
Yep
vanilla 1.2
SpQR 3.1
RTR 6.0
Darthmod 3.0?
+ most of their add ons and earlier patches
currenting playing RTR 6.0

and nope RTW has it flaws like Grand stradagy and virtually no diplomacy and seriously stupid AI on the stradagy map.

IG = Great stradagy Map and planning, but crappy battlefiield, virtually no mods
RTW = Great battlefiled, crappy stradagy, great mods

joxer31
11th Aug 2005, 13:45
Guess we are waiting for the perflect blend of RTW and IG.

Mamelukes
11th Aug 2005, 15:02
and to the last 2 posters dam right thats how its said....

ROME OWNS.....

napoleon bonapart ill have u m8.... with my gladius and my pila ill make meat out of ya frogs legs... lol

To big IG fans sorry if i upset you im not dissing the game just hoped for more than i got.

I'll drink to that :thumbsup: . But RTW is way too expensive, I bought IG for like 40 bucks but RTW is like 50 or something.... waiting for price to go down!
LOL But honestly, The unit types in RTW are completely varied, AND I TOTALLLY ADORE UNITS WITH DIFFERENT STAT! (again a downfall for IG)

And in addition IG has some RTW aspects in it, for example, the horse riders, and also the peaseants with weapons....

Mister Nock
11th Aug 2005, 16:34
Fogive me if I'm repeating someone else, only scaned this topic, too long to read it all. :o

I like both games, IG is better in terms of graphics obviously, and the fact that the maps have interesting features, (esp. buildings and cover,) but RTW is by far the better game in terms of gamplay on campaign map, and in battle it wins because of moral, leadership units, army sizes and the fact that enemies are invisible if your troops cant see them. But Napoleonic is my favorite era.

IG tops RTW in some respects, but to be honest, I think I'd rather play an "Imperial: Total War". - Just my opinion.

Hogan
12th Aug 2005, 12:22
Agreed. IG has a better era, but sadly RTW is a better game.

One thing that annoys me is I think IG is more similar to MTW than RTW< in which case I prefer IG. But I think Eidos had the choice between the way a map campaign is done in MTW and the way it is done in RTW, and they made the wrong choice.

The fact is, the RTW way suits Imperial Glory so much better. I WANT to be able to besiege a city with artillery! I WANT to be able to outmanouvere an enemy to get a battle on MY terms. For example, if my beloved France is being invaded, I want my army to recreate Marshal Soult's by leading the invaders on a merry little dance after it to buy time for more troops to be made, rather than just being invaded and retreating. The RTW way is much more flexible and far more accurate for a Napoleonic period.

Ryoken
12th Aug 2005, 14:28
TEMPLE OF RYOKEN FORUMS (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Temple_of_Ryoken/index.php?act=idx) is now online. It is a new forum specializing in AARs.

I look forward to seeing you there, BarbarianRome.

Emperor of the French
12th Aug 2005, 18:25
Aside from the stupidity of IG's AI and refusal to research or buy anything remotely useful, one big issue I have with IG is that the cavalry are awful. They're just like upgraded militia units: they have no collision mechanics to speak of. Cavalry in RTW, on the other hand, are excellent and very useful.

I also love the ability to move around the map and lay siege to cities et cetera, like one of the previous posters mentioned. That's far more Napoleonic than the Risk-board setup used by IG, which is remarkably anachronistic and ill-suited for the Napoleonic period.

The compromise, I suppose, is to wait for NTW2 to come out. It'll have the greatness of RTW with the atmosphere of IG.

I do like some aspects of IG's strategic map, like the equestrian statue for the Dictatorship government, but window dressing isn't good enough.

Webrider
27th Aug 2005, 01:48
Of course you compare the games. I.G. chose to use the SYSTEM the total war series created. (for computer) *Milton Bradley published the Shogun board game where the campaighn game for Shogun Total war originated*

And as such you compare features just like you do for the RTS (SYSTEM) when you buy a new (red alert)(empire)(starcraft)(warcraft)(kohan)(cossacks)(generals)(warhammer40k)(total anialiation) on and on.

So it is fair to compare their features, strengths and weakness's and not even mention units or era... To me the comparisons are obvious feature for feature. This does not even get into AI but does include unit pathing.

I.G. chose to compare itself to the total war series since it chose that "SYSTEM" and there are only 3 prior entries in that "SYSTEM"
Shogun total war, Medevil total war, and Rome Total war. And of course their respective expansions that add somewhat to the original feature list.

Of course just my opinion.

Nahirean
27th Aug 2005, 02:33
I think it's very fair to compare the two and R:TW wins hands down.

The only thing IG has going for it is it's diplomacy model.

SharpFish
31st Aug 2005, 13:05
I also think its fairt to compare, but as a long time MTW player I thought Rome was in fact pretty poor. For my money, IG's campaign game is far superior to any of the TW series. Rome has been shelved as a result; MTW and IG have not.

I also differ now on the whole morale issue. I was recently reading Mark Urbans book on the 95th Rifles and another on the redcoats, and both were at pains to point out one salient fact: retreating in the face of muskets is utterly, utterly futile. And as a result, it very seldom happened.

I agree its a little overstated in IG but I don;t think much. I also thought that cannon were under-ranged but on further research this turns out not to be valid either. I feel we could do with a bit more giving of the benefit of the doubt.

ytareh
31st Aug 2005, 17:52
It does seem that retreating if anywhere near line of fire is fatal...

ObbaJobba
25th Sep 2005, 21:19
To be honest they both sort of fill in each other's gaps. In RTW you have to build a settlement and it could take years to get it to a town. But in IG you can improve countries faster. In RTW the fighting is much smoother. IG is choppy and slow. The graphics would have to go to RTW. I shouldn't really say that since I haven't tried to change the settings for graphics in IG. But, I don't think it would be able to handle it anyway!!! RTW can allow HUGE ARMIES to fight against each other where IG only allows a few armies before it slows to a snail's pace. But, IG does have some great strategy to it. You do have to plan what you are going to do before starting a campaign and where to attack and defense and what not. In RTW if you have Cataphracs you win hands down.

seawolf2004
25th Sep 2005, 22:26
Of course you compare the games. I.G. chose to use the SYSTEM the total war series created. (for computer) *Milton Bradley published the Shogun board game where the campaighn game for Shogun Total war originated*

And as such you compare features just like you do for the RTS (SYSTEM) when you buy a new (red alert)(empire)(starcraft)(warcraft)(kohan)(cossacks)(generals)(warhammer40k)(total anialiation) on and on.

So it is fair to compare their features, strengths and weakness's and not even mention units or era... To me the comparisons are obvious feature for feature. This does not even get into AI but does include unit pathing.

I.G. chose to compare itself to the total war series since it chose that "SYSTEM" and there are only 3 prior entries in that "SYSTEM"
Shogun total war, Medevil total war, and Rome Total war. And of course their respective expansions that add somewhat to the original feature list.

Of course just my opinion.


Nice typing there m8.. Weldone, my compliments. You choose your words wisely. And all

From all reasons i see on this threath, only yours who make a sense, while the rest are :D

From all who involved this Topic, i think we all agreed what i quoted above. YOu guys should ask webrider opinion next time you have problems lol, he seems like a very good educated man.

:thumbsup: RESPECT !

colmde
27th Sep 2005, 11:46
I think it's very fair to compare the two. The campaign part for IG is way better than RTW, IG has sea battles (though it's a shame they aren't a bit better), and I love the atmosphere of the battles in IG, the sound of the muskets going off and the officers shouting orders, though I wish there was a more realistic level of smoke and blood.

It's just a pity, I think, that IG didn't learn from RTW. It seems in its attempt to not look like "RTW, only Napoleonic", it ignored quite a few things in RTW that are good features. The morale, the vast numbers of men, friendly fire, etc. There are a lot of things in RTW that if IG had, along with the stuff it already has, it would be a fantastic.

billywindsock
4th Oct 2005, 23:34
As my first post, I must say that the original thread was; is IG better than RTW?

Never in a million years.
I have tried to like IG and played on and off for over a month. I have found the resource management and diplomacy dull, repetitive and lacking in any feel of the period.
The tactical battles are a joke. As has been said in a number of places in this forum, all of the units have the same stats; attack defence and cost. Even a half decent stab at the period could have used national characteristics to vary the cost and abilities of troops - RTW manages a huge range of cost and ability in the weapons available.

The look of IG is good, but all of the TW series still look as good, and with backup and updates, this will probably continue.

The bottom line is this. I will still be playing Shogun, MTW and RTW long after I have given away IG.

TheAssembly
5th Oct 2005, 01:31
Comparying Rome Total war and Imperial Ages is comparing apples to oranges.

Different time era's , different engine , how ever similiar concepts. I give the game 6/10 , wasnt bad , seemed kinda thrown together. The addition of naval battles was nice , not impressed with the controls to the them though.
Dont worry though , June of 2006 isnt too far off. And for those who do play The Total War series , the is a very talented group of modders that made a Napoleonic Total war mod for MTW and RTW (still in production I belevie)

ST0MPA
5th Oct 2005, 04:41
:confused: is it true those guys can make the skeletons for the models mount and dismount the horses?

TheAssembly
5th Oct 2005, 17:27
:confused: is it true those guys can make the skeletons for the models mount and dismount the horses?

Its possible they have , but they application you mentioned is possible in deed , one thing RTW prides it self on is its ability to be moded , we feel that the only way to truly gain the insights and intrests of the consumer is letting there imagination run wild , in fact the next installment of the Total War Series was going to be centered around The Greek and Persian Empires , prior to the dates of RTW , however , do to the apparent intrests by numerous groups and mods that have been made , that project has been pushed back , and currently European Total War is slated to be realesed late next year. And I assure you , you will not be Dissapointed.

billywindsock
5th Oct 2005, 19:11
I don't think that IG and RTW are hugely different - both need resource management in a political world, both have a tactical battle option to resolve conflict. The main difference is the era and the playability of each.

I really wanted to like IG . . I wargame the period (for about 20 years!) and have some little understanding of the times and way of war. I am also a re-enactor of sub-Roman Britain. Although niether tactical battle games are accurate to the nearest detail, RTW does at least have the right atmosphere. It may sound like a flimsy argument, but the feeling of 'rightness' is what makes me involved in a game.
I play Guild Wars and although I enjoy it greatly, I would love to be able to customise my character to look ugly. Every player in the game has a beautiful or handsome exterior, and I long for a little grittyness to ignite my imagination. . . . . having plague break out in Sparta or my faction leader die in a battle I control adds atmosphere and grit and it keeps me coming back. IG has none of this . . .just some pleasing graphics.