SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 11-28-22, 09:47 AM

I have Rome 2, and that was what ended my love with Total War. The AI in the tactical battles was terrible, all units tend to start rushing towards a centre of gravity despite all your tactical planning, and left the efforts of the player to project influence in the battles in vein, no more it was rock, paper, scissors, but Moorhuhn-uniformity, and I ended up to have all units ordered running towards one and the same spot because that was what they would do anyway, and what the enemy AI did also, and unit dfferences would not make differences for their behaviour, and then it all degenerated into a pixel-brew at the centre of the aciton and no unit cohesion left at all. Pure arcade slaughtering. Maybe they repaired this later on, but if so, I missed it because I did not care for it anymore. This was not my own impression only, but a common criticism backc at the times of release. Compared to the battles in earlier titles, I considered it to be a mess. That was what decided it for me, and as a result I also had a serious decline of interest to come to terms with the changes in the strategic map play.

I bought Rome Remastered a couple of days ago, in a sale, and once I am done with my current match of Medieval 2 will try that one. Its said to have healed several of the strategic map play issues of the older title, repaired some of the broken game mechanics.

BTW, I still have the memory and impression that the most differentiated tactical play was to be had in the very first game of the series, Shogun 1, and also Medieval 1. Just the bitmap graphics keep me from playing them today. Flanking, height differences, obedience to orders I gave, in my memory at least were superior to what later games offered. Much more tactical moving-forth-and-back to win a battle while also keeping losses low.

Rome-1's bigest weakness to me was also its biggest attractiveness, that was keeping the Gallic and Germanic hordes from crossing a bridge with just a phalanx of hoplites. Very satisfactory to keep them blocked and picking them away with archers from the flanks.

But then, it happened too often and then became repetitive.

11-28-22, 09:47 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,496 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I have Rome 2, and that was what ended my love with Total War. The AI in the tactical battles was terrible, all units tend to start rushing towards a centre of gravity despite all your tactical planning, and left the efforts of the player to project influence in the battles in vein, no more it was rock, paper, scissors, but Moorhuhn-uniformity, and I ended up to have all units ordered running towards one and the same spot because that was what they would do anyway, and what the enemy AI did also, and unit dfferences would not make differences for their behaviour, and then it all degenerated into a pixel-brew at the centre of the aciton and no unit cohesion left at all. Pure arcade slaughtering. Maybe they repaired this later on, but if so, I missed it because I did not care for it anymore. This was not my own impression only, but a common criticism backc at the times of release. Compared to the battles in earlier titles, I considered it to be a mess. That was what decided it for me, and as a result I also had a serious decline of interest to come to terms with the changes in the strategic map play. I bought Rome Remastered a couple of days ago, in a sale, and once I am done with my current match of Medieval 2 will try that one. Its said to have healed several of the strategic map play issues of the older title, repaired some of the broken game mechanics. BTW, I still have the memory and impression that the most differentiated tactical play was to be had in the very first game of the series, Shogun 1, and also Medieval 1. Just the bitmap graphics keep me from playing them today. Flanking, height differences, obedience to orders I gave, in my memory at least were superior to what later games offered. Much more tactical moving-forth-and-back to win a battle while also keeping losses low. Rome-1's bigest weakness to me was also its biggest attractiveness, that was keeping the Gallic and Germanic hordes from crossing a bridge with just a phalanx of hoplites. Very satisfactory to keep them blocked and picking them away with archers from the flanks. But then, it happened too often and then became repetitive. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-28-22 at 11:29 AM.