Rome: Total War short review
Posted: Mon, 27. Sep 04, 02:00
This is the best strategy game, real-time or turn-based, that I've played in a long time. It's much easier to play than M: TW, and it hasn't been dumbed down too much. You still need to maintain a balanced military, economy, and keep dividing and conquering. I'm playing as the House of Julii, and so far I've taken over a large portion of Western Europe (I haven't taken Spain/Portugal or East of France, but I think that's pretty good for 8-10 hours of play. I've also reached the Marius Event, where a man named Gaius Marius unites the Roman Factions' militaries, so they all have far superior units (legionarres, roman cavalry, auxiliaries, auxiliary archers, etc.). Also, the game gives you the choice of governing each and every province yourself, or opting to have some (or all) provinces AI-controlled, running on a building strategy chosen by you.
The battles are also very good. They aren't quite as complex in terms of formations and orders as Medieval, but they still need the player to have a strategic mind. For example, it's still a wise choice to have archers/skirmishers rain arrows/spears on the enemy before charging with foot troops, wardogs (wardogs are fun!), cavalry, etc. Siege weapons are more fun now, too. Ballistas aren't useless anymore (can fire flaming arrows, are accurate, long-ranged, and can skewer several soldiers at once), and before assaulting a fort, it's required that the player build some sort of siege weapons before attack. It's possible to build battering rams, battlement-boarders (the things that drive into battlements and load off troops), and some other contraptions on site. Also, the turn-based campaign map involves some real-time elements. For example, during an assassination attempt, you're shown the result before the end of the turn. Or, when units are told to move, they walk to their destinations, avoiding obstacles, or armies can be walked into woodlands and hidden for ambush.
I've found the game pretty satisfying so far, and the only lacking part so far is the multiplayer, as not many people seem to play yet, and therefore a lack of servers is present. But right now I have to stop this review and do my English homework, though there's so much more to be told...
The battles are also very good. They aren't quite as complex in terms of formations and orders as Medieval, but they still need the player to have a strategic mind. For example, it's still a wise choice to have archers/skirmishers rain arrows/spears on the enemy before charging with foot troops, wardogs (wardogs are fun!), cavalry, etc. Siege weapons are more fun now, too. Ballistas aren't useless anymore (can fire flaming arrows, are accurate, long-ranged, and can skewer several soldiers at once), and before assaulting a fort, it's required that the player build some sort of siege weapons before attack. It's possible to build battering rams, battlement-boarders (the things that drive into battlements and load off troops), and some other contraptions on site. Also, the turn-based campaign map involves some real-time elements. For example, during an assassination attempt, you're shown the result before the end of the turn. Or, when units are told to move, they walk to their destinations, avoiding obstacles, or armies can be walked into woodlands and hidden for ambush.
I've found the game pretty satisfying so far, and the only lacking part so far is the multiplayer, as not many people seem to play yet, and therefore a lack of servers is present. But right now I have to stop this review and do my English homework, though there's so much more to be told...
point taken The_Abyss