[xquFzpNw]

I used to play Rome Total War a lot, but then my computer stopped working, and the computer I got to replace it wouldn't play R:TW. I just got a new computer over the weekend and have yet to install Rome.

BTW, I still think this goes in other games.

[VladFal]

BlackCat - those in front of them are their guys, with spears facing away towards the enemy. Cavalry are presumably being held in the reserve. I have no idea, it's just a screenshot I found on Google Image Search.

[BgpOoGI2]

I prefer the original Medieval: Total War. The battlefield AI in Rome :Total War is pretty bad and enemy armies tends to route very quickly. I got so good at exploiting the poor battle AI, it was getting to the point I was defeating entire armies (even if they had spear units) just using my general unit with 20 horsemen.

I like the gritty feeling in MTW and battles last a lot longer since the killing rate isn't as fast as RTW. You can formulate meaningful strategies and the Battlefield AI is pretty good at holding it's own.

It think part of the reason is the differences in map layout. MTW uses a RISK board style were units simply move to different provinces while RTW uses a very detailed map that allows individual army movement and is unlike a board game. The problem is the AI can't handle it very well and tends to split up armies (especially early on) into small groups that are easily mopped up by the human player.

I will give credit to an improved siege engine though. In the original MTW, the enemy AI rarely opts to attack walled cities with siege weaponry and instead just waits to starve out an enemy.

[dicemets]

Any hints how to defeat the dreaful Egyptian Chariots? They're making a mess out of my beautiful Roman infantry AND cavalry, I simply have no cure.

[ephennaCypota]

I'll try that. I've been using just the infantry + light cavalry combo so far. It works well, I'm winning and this is on Hard. Maybe I'll try Very Hard next.

[CVEGK7mV]

Rome Total War was a great game. Now I want to play it again.

[poonnassunlix]

I played the expansion barbarian invasion. If you want a masters course on getting it in the ass then that is the expansion for you. It will expand all right, expand your ass.

[ArraryTauTDew]

I always got bored after conquering ten or so territories. At this point, there was no way to lose and a lot of tedious battles with rebels and city happiness.

[Reftsheette]

I don't play regular RTW very often, but peltasts tend to be better against heavily armored and shielded troops. Use one unit, preferably a phalanx, to pin the unit, and send the peltasts around back to throw javelins into the enemy rear.

Heavy peltasts are passable in melee, so after they use their ammo you can charge into the back of that same infantry unit.

The best skirmishers are Illyrian mercenaries; if you're playing Macedon (or Greece), hire the sh*t out of these guys and use them like they're going out of style. They give the Macedonians a viable close melee unit, since the Maks don't have heavy peltasts or any other regular hand-to-hand melee units. From what I remember, they get generated in Illyria pretty fast, so they're readily expendable.

I conquered the Amazons as Scythia once. Their chariots aren't very good against regular old horse archers. It's not a very useful settlement to have, as it doesn't give you anything special and suffers from massive unhappiness problems from being so far away from where your capital probably is.

My favorite original RTW unit is probably the Parthians' Persian Cavalry. Horse archers are the best all-around unit in the game, and these horse archers are good in melee too.

[refdhbgtd]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
So my wife has been looking for a good game to replace Civ 2, which she still plays pretty compulsively. We're not sure if her computer can run Civ 4, and we like bargain games, so we were thinking of either this, Rise of Nations, or a couple of non-war games (Pirates, Railroad Tycoon 3; she likes the civ-building part of Civ as much or more than the fighting). Would you say R:TW is the best of that bunch? no. This is very much more a battle sim than a strategy game. The economy/build portion is pretty weak in comparison to civ so even though I'd say R:TW is the best of that bunch I doubt she'd find it so.

[HotboTgameR]

It's a great game.

If your computer can play it properly medieval 2 is even better

[daasayse]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
If you're looking for a strategic, turn-based game like Civ, RTW is not what you want. Then what do I want -- aside from a new computer to play Civ4 on?

[luspikals]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
I prefer the original Medieval: Total War. The battlefield AI in Rome :Total War is pretty bad and enemy armies tends to route very quickly. I got so good at exploiting the poor battle AI, it was getting to the point I was defeating entire armies (even if they had spear units) just using my general unit with 20 horsemen.

I like the gritty feeling in MTW and battles last a lot longer since the killing rate isn't as fast as RTW. You can formulate meaningful strategies and the Battlefield AI is pretty good at holding it's own.

It think part of the reason is the differences in map layout. MTW uses a RISK board style were units simply move to different provinces while RTW uses a very detailed map that allows individual army movement and is unlike a board game. The problem is the AI can't handle it very well and tends to split up armies (especially early on) into small groups that are easily mopped up by the human player.

I will give credit to an improved siege engine though. In the original MTW, the enemy AI rarely opts to attack walled cities with siege weaponry and instead just waits to starve out an enemy. You need Rome Total Realism then. Units don't that easily, and battles are harder. Spartan hoplites for example are nigh invincible unless you can batter them down with some ranged troops and charge them from behind.


I always got bored after conquering ten or so territories. At this point, there was no way to lose and a lot of tedious battles with rebels and city happiness. Yeah exactly, but then again that applies to every other game as well. Once you gain the clear upper hand in Civ, there's not much of a challenge left. Once you gain the upper hand in any other RTS game etc the game's pretty much over. That's why either multiplay or other genres (such as shooters) interest me atm

[denwerdinoss]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I don't play regular RTW very often, but peltasts tend to be better against heavily armored and shielded troops. Use one unit, preferably a phalanx, to pin the unit, and send the peltasts around back to throw javelins into the enemy rear.
Their Javwelins are especially good against Elephants and AFAIK also chariots (well, that also applies to the javelins hurled by the roman legions).
2 units of javelin hurling troops can quickly decimate an elephant unit


I normally also play greece or macedon as I love the greek phalanxes. JUsing the hammer and anvil tactics of Alexander (with the hammer being the companion cavalry) can do lots of damage to the enemy
(you just have to ensure that you aren´t flanked)

I also love MTW2 for its better graphics, but in terms of battle engine RTW is still better than MTW2

[kuklame]

Rufus are you just looking for all of the playing elements of civ2 but in a different package that will run on a PC no better than what you use for civing?

It would help a lot to know just how underpowered that rig is.

[MackBranon]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Rufus are you just looking for all of the playing elements of civ2 but in a different package that will run on a PC no better than what you use for civing?

It would help a lot to know just how underpowered that rig is. It's not that underpowered. It's a low-level Dell model from 2004 (I'm at work right now and can't remember what model); it's got a gig of RAM (after a recent upgrade) and a processor that's at least 1.8, maybe even faster.

Jon Miller - Paradox games look very cool, and I think I'd probably like them, but they look like they have a steeper learning curve that she's willing to invest in. She likes games she can start playing right away, then learn the ins and outs over time. Her two favorite games, Civ2 and SimCity 2000, were both like that: quite complex, but easy to get started with nevertheless.

Arrian - Interesting choices, and I know I've seen Pharaoh in bargain bins in Singapore. I'll check 'em out!

[Bwvapays]

I played Medieval 2 TW a lot until I recently rediscovered CIV4.

One of my funniest achievements was to recruit mercenary war elephants in Baghdad and bring them all the way to Mexico to smash the Aztecs. Indian elephants, so to speak.

[BuyCheapest]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's not that underpowered. It's a low-level Dell model from 2004 (I'm at work right now and can't remember what model); it's got a gig of RAM (after a recent upgrade) and a processor that's at least 1.8, maybe even faster.

Jon Miller - Paradox games look very cool, and I think I'd probably like them, but they look like they have a steeper learning curve that she's willing to invest in. She likes games she can start playing right away, then learn the ins and outs over time. Her two favorite games, Civ2 and SimCity 2000, were both like that: quite complex, but easy to get started with nevertheless.

Arrian - Interesting choices, and I know I've seen Pharaoh in bargain bins in Singapore. I'll check 'em out! Pharaoh pwns