The myth that RTW was the greatest epoch in Total War history.

[M2TWRocks]

People have criticized ETW for numerous reasons since it first came out almost a year ago. Some of these criticisms are warranted, some are ridiculous rants, and most lie somewhere in between those two. Despite what you think about ETW, the series is clearly still successful, and unbelievably, it is still somewhat of a genre of its own considering not a single title has been able to compete with it.

I have my own criticisms of ETW, particularly when it first came out. Most people agreed it was buggy. I personally experienced game crashes, goofy annoying bugs like trying to disembark an army would cause a CTD, and graphical glitches. It just seemed like such an unpolished game when it first came out, which was uncommon for a Total War title in my experience having played every title and every expansion since STW.

Amidst all those discussions, there is really only one criticism that just constantly gets under my skin. And it always seems to come up in every heated discussion of this game. This myth that Rome Total War was some sort of revolution in gameplay, and was by every measurable quality the best title of the Total War Series.

Here are some of the main points that came up both during the development of, and after the release of RTW that prove Rome was not only just as flawed as both M2TW and ETW, but in most ways an inferior game:

1) The game was ahistorical.

A)The ahistorical approach to the game was so pronounced during development that an entire movement developed and eventually turned into this: http://www.europabarbarorum.com/
B) Egypt had units that preceeded the game's timeframe by a thousand or more years.
C) A stack of archers could route and defeat any army lineup. I remember thinking just how useless having an army of phalanxes, or Roman infantry, or any heavy infantry was when you could defeat anything with some archers. This fact led many modders to go to the other extreme and make archers and skirmishers almost useless like in Rome Total Realism, and in to a lesser extent in EB.
D) An enemy army made up of any number of war dogs was more difficult to defeat than a phalanx heavy army. Though they were used by Roman army's historically, the way they were designed in the game made them far more usefull then they were in reality. It was just silly.
E) War chants used by Barbarians made them fight more effectively for a short duration. Ridiculous.
F) Rome was divided into 3 distinct territories based on family allegience? Absurd.

2) Most units were identical except for color.

A) The different roman factions had identical units, the only difference being the red, blue, and green. Empire Total Clone War?

3) No naval invasions.

A) That's right, Vanilla RTW did not have naval invasions. Many, many patches and mods down the road eventually implemented them, but they didn't exist in Vanilla. This was a huge criticism of the game when it came out, and was a huge criticism of M2TW, and a huge criticism of ETW. It always seems to show up in a Vanilla release.

4) The campaign AI was terrible.

A) Most people were ecstatic that the game had this new map design. No more risk style map, you could set up ambushes, block mountain passes, etc. But once we all started playing more, most people realized very quickly that the AI could not handle all the options the map allowed. You'd get attacked by a trickle of 2-3 unit stacks instead of a huge army. Usually your campaign would quickly get tedious because you'd just simply get sick of all the tiny battles you'd have to fight per turn. "Oh boy, here comes another stack of 2 skirmishers. Followed by 15 similar tiny stacks of similar units."

5) The battle AI was terrible.

A) People have been complaining about this for as long as I can remember. And for those of you who haven't played RTW, I assure you the battle AI has improved considerably since then. Sure you won't find the challenge you would from a human player, but its considerably improved since RTW.

6) Egypt would become the most powerful nation every single campaign.

There's more to be sure, but frankly, I'm tired of typing. Another criticism from many was that the developers were getting away from their roots, and had focused strictly on graphics. The game felt way more arcade like instead of feeling like a war game.

So there you have it. ETW has bugs. M2TW had bugs. RTW had bugs. And in many ways RTW was a far inferior game to both M2TW and ETW. Have a nice day!

[hobopunk]

Yes, but 5 years on, Empire possess each and every one of these flaws.


Edit: besides the Egypt thing of course.

[Mig el Pig]

Yes, but 5 years on, Empire possess each and every one of these flaws.


Edit: besides the Egypt thing of course.

Shame, would love to field redcoats and cannons against those desert axe cavalry and pharoah's guard.

[daniu]

tl,dr.
Seriously, you're ranting against RTW? Who cares?
I don't get why so many seem to like it most because I thought M2TW was better too, but what's the point.
To each his own.

[M2TWRocks]

tl,dr.
Seriously, you're ranting against RTW? Who cares?
I don't get why so many seem to like it most because I thought M2TW was better too, but what's the point.
To each his own.

Apparently you do, as you found it necessary to post a reply.

[daniu]

Apparently you do, as you found it necessary to post a reply.

You're right.
Thanks for rubbing in the fact that I fell for your trolling.

[dmcheatw]

yeah they were both full of bugs. RTW was their first attempt at that style map though. ETW is their 3rd try. I expect improvement in a series of games, not stagnation.

it is true though, the games are only marginally better than RTW, and humans tend to have a nostalgia about it and elevate it on a pedestal when in reality RTW had many of the same problems as ETW.

[ottomanfan]

People have criticized ETW for numerous reasons since it first came out almost a year ago. Some of these criticisms are warranted, some are ridiculous rants, and most lie somewhere in between those two. Despite what you think about ETW, the series is clearly still successful, and unbelievably, it is still somewhat of a genre of its own considering not a single title has been able to compete with it.

I have my own criticisms of ETW, particularly when it first came out. Most people agreed it was buggy. I personally experienced game crashes, goofy annoying bugs like trying to disembark an army would cause a CTD, and graphical glitches. It just seemed like such an unpolished game when it first came out, which was uncommon for a Total War title in my experience having played every title and every expansion since STW.

Amidst all those discussions, there is really only one criticism that just constantly gets under my skin. And it always seems to come up in every heated discussion of this game. This myth that Rome Total War was some sort of revolution in gameplay, and was by every measurable quality the best title of the Total War Series.

Here are some of the main points that came up both during the development of, and after the release of RTW that prove Rome was not only just as flawed as both M2TW and ETW, but in most ways an inferior game:

1) The game was ahistorical.

A)The ahistorical approach to the game was so pronounced during development that an entire movement developed and eventually turned into this: http://www.europabarbarorum.com/
B) Egypt had units that preceeded the game's timeframe by a thousand or more years.
C) A stack of archers could route and defeat any army lineup. I remember thinking just how useless having an army of phalanxes, or Roman infantry, or any heavy infantry was when you could defeat anything with some archers. This fact led many modders to go to the other extreme and make archers and skirmishers almost useless like in Rome Total Realism, and in to a lesser extent in EB.
D) An enemy army made up of any number of war dogs was more difficult to defeat than a phalanx heavy army. Though they were used by Roman army's historically, the way they were designed in the game made them far more usefull then they were in reality. It was just silly.
E) War chants used by Barbarians made them fight more effectively for a short duration. Ridiculous.
F) Rome was divided into 3 distinct territories based on family allegience? Absurd.

2) Most units were identical except for color.

A) The different roman factions had identical units, the only difference being the red, blue, and green. Empire Total Clone War?

3) No naval invasions.

A) That's right, Vanilla RTW did not have naval invasions. Many, many patches and mods down the road eventually implemented them, but they didn't exist in Vanilla. This was a huge criticism of the game when it came out, and was a huge criticism of M2TW, and a huge criticism of ETW. It always seems to show up in a Vanilla release.

4) The campaign AI was terrible.

A) Most people were ecstatic that the game had this new map design. No more risk style map, you could set up ambushes, block mountain passes, etc. But once we all started playing more, most people realized very quickly that the AI could not handle all the options the map allowed. You'd get attacked by a trickle of 2-3 unit stacks instead of a huge army. Usually your campaign would quickly get tedious because you'd just simply get sick of all the tiny battles you'd have to fight per turn. "Oh boy, here comes another stack of 2 skirmishers. Followed by 15 similar tiny stacks of similar units."

5) The battle AI was terrible.

A) People have been complaining about this for as long as I can remember. And for those of you who haven't played RTW, I assure you the battle AI has improved considerably since then. Sure you won't find the challenge you would from a human player, but its considerably improved since RTW.

6) Egypt would become the most powerful nation every single campaign.

There's more to be sure, but frankly, I'm tired of typing. Another criticism from many was that the developers were getting away from their roots, and had focused strictly on graphics. The game felt way more arcade like instead of feeling like a war game.

So there you have it. ETW has bugs. M2TW had bugs. RTW had bugs. And in many ways RTW was a far inferior game to both M2TW and ETW. Have a nice day!

your right, i actully came in to the TW series late so M2TW was my first purchase which i loved and Empire was my second and reading through these forums and seeig all the exaltant praise for RTW i thought i must buy this also. BIG MISTAKE - utter Rubbish in comparison to the other 2!

[Xerrop]

...and reading through these forums and seeig all the exaltant praise for RTW i thought i must buy this also. BIG MISTAKE - utter Rubbish in comparison to the other 2!

Yeah that´s the great problem of RTW. The vanilla game wasn´t that good, M2TWRocks is right on this.

But the reason, why many people play still the game are the mods. Try e.g. Europa Barbarorum. Improved everything aside from some hardcoded stuff. New graphics, battle AI, campaignmap-graphics, units, factions, victory conditions, over 60 new unique wonders on the campaign map and much historical accurate stuff to read in the various building and unitcards or the year in history-pages.

@M2TWRocks: only on point 2) A) I wouldn´t agree. The factions had diverse troops. It´s just logical that the three roman families have similar units, they are the same state.
But when playing one of the Roman families, Egypt, Britons, Carthage, Skythians or Seleucids there´s much variety to each other.

[Jihada]

You forgot to mention one thing. The modders for RTW were able to create some amazing mods such as Europa Barbaorum and RTR which for me still makes the game enjoyable today. In spite of the huge effort modders have made with ETW, the non release of modding tools limits their possibilities. I don't play vanilla TW so I can't judge on that but overall RTW is still a better game imo.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

1: RTW was the first totally 3D game CA ever made.
2: ETW was the third totally 3D game CA ever made.
3: RTW has an excuse for its flaws.
4: ETW does not have an excuse for its flaws.

Class dismissed.

[daniu]

Class dismissed.

Thank you, master.

1: RTW was the first totally 3D game CA ever made.
2: ETW was the third totally 3D game CA ever made.
3: RTW has an excuse for its flaws.
4: ETW does not have an excuse for its flaws.

1: "totally 3D" is a purely technical issue and works perfectly.
2: STW, MTW, RTW, M2TW: mostly arrows and melee.
3: ETW: mostly artillery and firearms.
4: fundamental change in combat doctrine makes completely new AI necessary.

Would-be teacher fired.

[kesa82]

1: "totally 3D" is a purely technical issue and works perfectly.
2: STW, MTW, RTW, M2TW: mostly arrows and melee.
3: ETW: mostly artillery and firearms.
4: fundamental change in combat doctrine makes completely new AI necessary.

Bingo !

Thank you .

Right.

Naval warfare isn't the only clear and radical departure in ETW. All previous titles were essentially melee based. In ETW the primary weapon is the musket .
Interesting that this basic tactical difference is currently being discussed ; http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=332488

Perhaps in 5 years we will be hearing how innovative, how perfect, ETW was.

[daniu]

Naval warfare isn't the only clear and radical departure in ETW. All previous titles were essentially melee based. In ETW the primary weapon is the musket .

And even that is only limiting yourself to the battles...
IHMO, the step from "all extension buildings are built in your region capital" to "there are towns around the regions where you can build certain buildings" is almost as relevant to gameplay as the one from risk-style-regions to proper movement on the campaign map (as introduced by RTW).

[GrnEyedDvl]

And even that is only limiting yourself to the battles...
IHMO, the step from "all extension buildings are built in your region capital" to "there are towns around the regions where you can build certain buildings" is almost as relevant to gameplay as the one from risk-style-regions to proper movement on the campaign map (as introduced by RTW).

I would agree. One of the things that sucks about RTW and M2TW is the economics. ETW is a better concept and hopefully they improve on that in future games.

[kesa82]

And even that is only limiting yourself to the battles...
IHMO, the step from "all extension buildings are built in your region capital" to "there are towns around the regions where you can build certain buildings" is almost as relevant to gameplay as the one from risk-style-regions to proper movement on the campaign map (as introduced by RTW).

In my case at least, I spend ten times as much time on economics, and in diplomacy, as I spent in all previous titles. If only they had found a way, or had implemented , family trees, marriage, and a continuing role for the Papacy for Catholic factions.

[bigfootedfred]

Bingo !

Thank you .

Right.

Naval warfare isn't the only clear and radical departure in ETW. All previous titles were essentially melee based. In ETW the primary weapon is the musket .
Interesting that this basic tactical difference is currently being discussed ; http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=332488

Perhaps in 5 years we will be hearing how innovative, how perfect, ETW was.

you can be sure that will happen.
By the time we have RTW2 and the bugs and moans to go with it.
We will have 'why cant they make it like they made empire' and empire will be held up as the grand wonder of the total war series.

I have to disagree with the OP. Despite its flaws, for its time, RTW was a revolutionary and amazing experience. I still remember the awe and excitment that first time Victoria took me through my first tentative steps on the Italian peninsular!

TW games have evolved since then and, despite rantings to the contrary, have got better, but neither Medieval II, Empire nor, I suspect, Napoleon, have that bit of magic that draws you deeper and deeper into the game.

i never found that magic with rome, in fact id say rome goes at the bottom of my fav total war list.
MTW
ETW
MTW2
STW
RTW

nothing for me can ever top MTW, ahh i look back with such fondness on it.
I stil remeber my first campaign as the almohads, played 18 hours straight

[Tony83]

I have to disagree with the OP. Despite its flaws, for its time, RTW was a revolutionary and amazing experience. I still remember the awe and excitment that first time Victoria took me through my first tentative steps on the Italian peninsular!

TW games have evolved since then and, despite rantings to the contrary, have got better, but neither Medieval II, Empire nor, I suspect, Napoleon, have that bit of magic that draws you deeper and deeper into the game. If, as I've heard said that CA dropped the ball with Empire, then they got something terribly right with Rome. The whole truly exceeds the sum of the parts.

The basic building blocks of the game are superb and the mods, which transform it, the icing on a very substantial cake.

[helmersen]

1: RTW was the first totally 3D game CA ever made.
2: ETW was the third totally 3D game CA ever made.
3: RTW has an excuse for its flaws.
4: ETW does not have an excuse for its flaws.

Class dismissed.

Well said, you Marxist. +rep

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

Empires vs Rome:

Graphics: Empire up close, Rome from more than 15M due to sprites having longer draw distance...
Navy: Empire
BAI: Rome
CAI: Rome at least in those times diplomacy played a leeser role, and the CAI could hit hard sometimes...
Historical Accuracy: Rome, Empires is based on the patriot and many units have ridiculous stats, Hessians for example are basically just militia, when in real life, they used the same drill book and drills as Prussian Line...