Entry posted by Zacharias
783 views
I've been a Total War fan for quite some time. I've had a very high opinion of all of the games. I also own all but one of the Total War games. As the release date draws nearer, almost two months away, I've began to ask myself the question we've been seeing on the pictures and game trailers all around the web, How Far Will I Go For Rome?
First, let's talk about the Total War series itself. I haven't played nor do I own the original Shogun: Total War, so I can't say anything on that. However, I have played the original Rome: Total War extensively. There are a few things in particular I really enjoyed about Rome: Total War.
I really enjoy the missions you receive from the Roman Senate. Not necessarily what the missions were, but the missions themselves. It made myself feel like I was helping to expand the Republic, not just land wise but with religion and culture as well. I was expanding with a purpose. Occasionally the missions became a nuisance, especially if you are trying to fulfill your own ambitions. Sometimes you'd be forced into a war you aren't prepared to fight, but as you immediately start out with three solid allies, the chance of your utter annihilation was extremely slim, even on the higher difficulties. Also, at the beginning of battles, your general would give an inspirational speech to the soldiers. These speeches would contain things that have happened in previous battles, and the campaign. If the enemies army is about 1/4 or a half of the enemies total fighting force, the general will say so. If he beat the general you are fighting, or lost to said general, your general will say that As an added bonus, the game itself could easily be modified with just a few copy and pastes in the descr_strat file. You could play as the Greek Cities, the Britons, or even Numidia without have to go through the lengthy time of conquering all of the way there. One thing I didn't like was the length of time it takes to upgrade your cities. You can only build one building at a time in each city, which really slows your technological development.
Medieval 2: Total War was almost the same as Rome, with a different setting and updated graphics. There was only one thing I didn't like about Medieval. The general's speeches were no longer in the game. Overall it didn't affect gameplay, so It was still an amazing game.
Empire: Total War was a good game. Graphics were great, and being able to go to India and a good portion of America was a good addition. One of my favorite additions to the game has to be having buildings all around the province, instead of just in the Provincial Capital. It no longer takes over 30 turns to even upgrade all of the buildings one "level". Also, it is quicker to build an army, for the most part, because you can train more than one unit at a time. One last addition that I liked: you don't have to be in a city to retrain/heal your units. Of course, being realistic, it would make sense to only be able to retrain/heal your units in your home provinces. If you are playing as Sweden and you are in Mexico, it doesn't really make sense to be able to heal a 1,000 + man army in a year. One last thing, missions were practically erased from the game. There are only 4 nations were you received a mission. It made things almost the exact same through each campaign you play.
Napoleon: Total War was pretty good. Graphics were amazing, artillery was made more effective, and playing through Napoleon's conquests in Italy, Egypt, and in the War of the Coalition was really fun. Due to the restriction of only playing through the years of Napoleon as Emperor, you were not allowed to leave Europe at all. You weren't even allowed to go on Anatolia. That was a let down, but I should've realized it when the name of the game was "Napoleon: Total War". The addition of Attrition into the game was really cool. It made the game a lot more realistic, and it really gave Russia a true advantage. It really made you think twice about marching your armies into Russia, or even marching your armies nearly anywhere during the winter. Lastly, an addition I wasn't crazy about was the choices at what you can build in your cities. It really wasn't that much of a bother, but it got annoying when having a gunsmith in a territory that was nowhere near the fray was hurting me more than helping me.
Shogun 2: Total War. What could you not like about having to control one of the most prominent clans during one of the most turbulent times in the history of feudal Japan, Sengoku Jidai? You really had to think about your moves. Conquering to much at once can make you look like a threat in the eyes of the Shogun. If you say behind to much, you will become easy pickings for your neighbors, who most likely are on their way to try to become the new Shogun. You needed a delicate balance. We see the return of missions, which was a nice plus. Now, for a negative. Your campaigns can get crazy. One minute, you are squishing a defenseless clan The next, the entire island is knocking on your doorstep. So, you need to always change your strategies to adjust to current or potential foes. You might need some archers to take down an enemy who specializes in heavy infantry, so you build an archery dojo. The enemy was repelled. But then, an enemy who specializes in Calvary attacks. You can't simply recruit spear units. First, you'd have to destroy the Dojo and then you have create a Yari Drill yard. 99% of the time their calvary will roll over your archers. It gets rather frustrating when things like this happens.
Looking back at these, instead of asking How Far Will I Go For Rome, I've been asking myself, How Much Will I Spend For Rome 2? As you may have guessed, initial price is $60. I have to say, if Rome 2 is like Shogun 2 in terms of "City Building", I can't say I'm willing to spend $60 on Rome. If it is leaning more towards Empire, I can say without a doubt I'm willing to go $60 for Rome.
So, what about you? How Far Will You Go For Rome?
2 Comments
Recommended Comments