![]() ![]() No other archer unit was nearly quite so effective as they were. The English really relied on them to win wars. The Longbowman from Medieval were actually supposed to be overpowered. It took the work of the Modding community to fix these problems. RTW also has a problem with suicidal generals charging headlong into battle. Rome's AI will never do that (atleast to not so great an extent). Have you played Medieval with the Viking Invasions add-on? The AI for that game will redeploy their troops in formations based on the terrain and the force you wield. Perhaps it was my mistake to respond with generalities, but I fully stand by my assertions that Rome was dumbed down to appeal to a greater mass audience. You wrote asking how was "Rome's combat dumbed down", I just didn't bother to qualify my response as a specific answer to Rome's combat being dumbed down. I implied that the game as a whole was dumbed down. I never said that "combat" was dumbed down. The thing I liked best about Medieval was the setting. I probably need someone to remind me other terrain influences of Medieval, but I didn't find them too overwhelming.but that's just from memory. It's been a while since I played both games, but in Medieval, the only "terrain impacts" I really remember are UP > Down, trees = crap for cavalry (and good for ambushes). ![]() I also remember winning entire battles, even against heavy cavalry, with Longbowmen in Medieval. Fantasy women and basing the Egyptians incorrectly are historical inaccuracies.not "dumbed down combat." Furthermore, I'm not sure how not being able to play the Macedonians is somehow evidence that the combat is "dumbed down." As with units routing too quickly.as it would seem that that would work both ways. I didn't consider the AI of medieval to be any more superior. The Macedonians are a non-playable faction. The Egyptians are based on ancient Egypt rather than Ptolomeic Egypt. Fantasy units that have no place in history: flaming pigs rabid dogs screaming women. Archers and slingers are severely overpowered. The difference in speeds between infantry and cavalry is not as great as it should be. Terrain has less impact on the battlefield as does Medieval. (see any similiar patterns here?)Īnyways, I would highly recommend Rome Total War and suggest that you play it for a bit and then check out this fine mod: (which addresses the "dumbing down" issue) Rome is a great game on its own right, but The Creative Assembly's hardcore fans have cried out over the "dumbing down" of the game for its appeal to a mainstream strategy audience. Rome's strategy engine plays like a Computer Turn-based Strategy game. ![]() Medieval's strategy engine virtually plays like a grognard's table-top boardgame. Medieval's tactical engine is a very primative 2D/3D hybrid with sprites (reminiscent of the IE engine actually), of which the key to success is through the careful study of the Art of War. ![]() Rome's tactical engine is based on a pretty looking 3D engine that brings about great cinematic combat. Rome Total War is however, only the second best in the series, behind Medieval Total War. #Rome total war gold edition disc serial number location seriesThe Total War series of games are the best Turn-based Strategy/Real-time Tactical hybrids in the market. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |