Remove ads

Glory to Mars - Rome: Total War Remastered

I mean if a bunch of classical age horsemen full-on dick-first charged a wall of pikes in real life I bet they'd die like flies. It's just that the commanders, riders, and horses themselves were all smart enough to not do that. Total War battle AI isn't.
 
Reveen said:
I mean if a bunch of classical age horsemen full-on dick-first charged a wall of pikes in real life I bet they'd die like flies. It's just that the commanders, riders, and horses themselves were all smart enough to not do that. Total War battle AI isn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not even classical era, medieval cavalry charges just didn't try to ram through the enemy formation, they skimmed off the edges. Especially not if it was a formation of pike, knights learned pretty quickly that charging into them would be near certain death after one battle (whose name I can not recall) had the arrogant knights do... just that.
 
Sarissa said:
It's not even classical era, medieval cavalry charges just didn't try to ram through the enemy formation, they skimmed off the edges. Especially not if it was a formation of pike, knights learned pretty quickly that charging into them would be near certain death after one battle (whose name I can not recall) had the arrogant knights do... just that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah Joffrey learned that shit the hard way in my current Westeros Total War campaign lol.

A shame really. I was hoping for Brienne to take him out.
 
Last edited:
I've heard it mentioned they're adding some new units to flesh out insufficient rosters.

I hope that means "we gave carthage some archers" specifically.
 
Carthage was, is, and will continue to be my favorite Rome faction.

Unless Romano-British is really good, you guys.
 
Wootius said:
Greek Cities are worse if you can believe it. You build Spartans/Armored Hoplites and Archers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean they're less flexible but Sacred Bands and shit are just... largely worse than Silver Shield phalanx/legion troops, and literally the only stuff that Seluicids don't have or a direct analogue to.

Spartans at least Do Things you couldn't just play the Seluicids for.
 
Terrabrand said:
I mean they're less flexible but Sacred Bands and shit are just... largely worse than Silver Shield phalanx/legion troops, and literally the only stuff that Seluicids don't have or a direct analogue to.

Spartans at least Do Things you couldn't just play the Seluicids for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Carthage gets good cavalry at least and the merc slingers aren't bad if you remember to put them on the right flank. Yes, Cataphracts are king, but the Greeks have nothing but milita tier cav.
 
Wooo, it didn't turn the Egyptians into yellow tunics greek cities with less units and claimed they are 'fixed
(yes I do have issue with the Rome modding Community how can you tell?)
In al seriousness I love it. Can't wait to get it.
 
Simmr001 said:
Wooo, it didn't turn the Egyptians into yellow tunics greek cities with less units and claimed they are 'fixed
(yes I do have issue with the Rome modding Community how can you tell?)
In al seriousness I love it. Can't wait to get it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean at this point in history Egypt was run by the Greeks and their armies would look very similar to them.
 
VolantRedX said:
I mean at this point in history Egypt was run by the Greeks and their armies would look very similar to them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't mean you turn them into Greek cities without Spartans though. Or Macedonians without companions. Otherwise why dont i just play them?

This is why the modding frustrates me. Give the ptolemaics something unique to them. Otherwise your turning a unique faction into a clone faction
 
Simmr001 said:
That doesn't mean you turn them into Greek cities without Spartans though. Or Macedonians without companions. Otherwise why dont i just play them?

This is why the modding frustrates me. Give the ptolemaics something unique to them. Otherwise your turning a unique faction into a clone faction
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Ptolemaies in Rome 2 DeI having a good and diverse unit roster considering of Egyptian, Greek, Thracian, Galatian and Jewish units. Hell there's even a Roman unit at the top of the tree. And loads of regional levy and merc units.
 
Sulemain said:
The Ptolemaies in Rome 2 DeI having a good and diverse unit roster considering of Egyptian, Greek, Thracian, Galatian and Jewish units. Hell there's even a Roman unit at the top of the tree. And loads of regional levy and merc units.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...interesting. I'll need to check that out.
Also I should have clarified I meant the original Rome modding community but I can't say I haven't gained from this
 
Rome 2's vanilla Egypt also has a mix of Greek and local troop types. In true colonial fashion the locals tend towards fodder uses, but there are some higher end ones - and the Meroe/Kush faction (Desert Kingdoms DLC) has a real nice upper Egypt and otherwise Nubian roster.
 
Last edited:
This may fit in with the Controversial Gaming Opinions thread but I for one preferred Mighty Pharaoh Egypt in vanilla RTW and didn't give a crap that they weren't historically accurate for the time period. They were different and they looked cool and that was enough for me.

Hopefully the Remaster keeps them in their original Ancient Glory.
 


Republic at Play has released a video criticizing the remaster. I don't agree with all of his criticism, it's not reasonable to compare it to AOE 2 DE, and expecting co-op campaigns was never realistic. But he does make some good points.

Firstly, they are not adding in any new units. Suffice to say this is unacceptable, unlocking fifteen new factions without actually balancing out their roster is pretty bad. The original Rome was pretty bad for most non-Rome factions, this could be even worse. Those factions were, as a rule, locked because they lacked proper rosters, there are some exceptions like Macedon who IIRC played fine when unlocked but most of them won't play so well.

Furthermore, there are no AI improvements. Which considering how bad Rome 1 AI is a major downside.

Feral has done a great job with modernizing the graphics and QoL features but when it comes to necessary gameplay changes it seems like they were unable or unwilling to go all the way in modernizing the game. If someone really loves Rome 1 and can get the price slashed it would probably be worth it, but otherwise, $30 seems like a steep price considering those downsides. Personally, as much as I like what I see I'm glad that I chose to prioritize Warhammer content.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:


Republic at Play has released a video criticizing the remaster. I don't agree with all of his criticism, it's not reasonable to compare it to AOE 2 DE, and expecting co-op campaigns was never realistic. But he does make some good points.

Firstly, they are not adding in any new units. Suffice to say this is unacceptable, unlocking fifteen new factions without actually balancing out their roster is pretty bad. The original Rome was pretty bad for most non-Rome factions, this could be even worse. Those factions were, as a rule, locked because they lacked proper rosters, there are some exceptions like Macedon who IIRC played fine when unlocked but most of them won't play so well.

Furthermore, there are no AI improvements. Which considering how bad Rome 1 AI is a major downside.

Feral has done a great job with modernizing the graphics and QoL features but when it comes to necessary gameplay changes it seems like they were unable or unwilling to go all the way in modernizing the game. If someone really loves Rome 1 and can get the price slashed it would probably be worth it, but otherwise, $30 seems like a steep price considering those downsides. Personally, as much as I like what I see I'm glad that I chose to prioritize Warhammer content.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean I wouldn't have expected much. This is a remaster, not a remake. The lack of AI fixes are annoying, but given that many people still play Rome 1 and see no issues with the AI (and given that CA has been spotty on AI in general) I doubt this is a deal-breaker. For the rosters, again this is a remaster, not a remake. The point is to make the game look and feel like a modern game, not have dozens of new units and factions.
 
VolantRedX said:
I mean I wouldn't have expected much. This is a remaster, not a remake. The lack of AI fixes are annoying, but given that many people still play Rome 1 and see no issues with the AI (and given that CA has been spotty on AI in general) I doubt this is a deal-breaker. For the rosters, again this is a remaster, not a remake. The point is to make the game look and feel like a modern game, not have dozens of new units and factions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's a remaster that costs $30, I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to expect some level of improvement in the gameplay side of things.

They specifically touted adding new factions as a feature, that they aren't making them actually playable is worthy of criticism.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top