Rome: Total War Reviews

While it's easy to point out elements that were overblown....the 'RPG'-like elements of the generals was sorta wierd and arbitrary...I mean, if a general constantly fought battles, he eventually got to be a really good military leader, but other than that it was impossible, or almost impossible, to make sure that the govenors of your cities got a good education, or even decent advisors (I'm an absolute ruler, and I can't even appoint advisers to the govenors of cities so that they won't piss away *all* of the money?)...the 'historical-ness' of the whole thing was so completely absurd--I'll confine myself to pointing out that the three different Roman factions (yes, *three different* Roman factions) were run in a European-medieval hereditary/dynastic sort of way, while the City of Rome and the Roman Senate was dipicted as a *separate country* from the rest of the Roman State, as though it were some kind of wierd feudal system--that gives you an idea of the historicalness of it.....and the 'turn-based' elements were also overblown, since there were never really any meaningful strategic decisions to make, it was just--big armies = good, use big armies to conquer much land = good idea, anything else = bad bad idea. And there was no diplomacy, since everyone declared war on you eventually, so the only thing to do was to wipe them out first.

So it was basically just an RTS--the part that mattered was the real-time battles. But since these were done pretty well, it was actually pretty cool. Yes, one battle did tend to go in much the same way as the one before, but it still seemed realistic enough to hold my attention. Basically, you used your army to conquer cities, and then used the money to increase the number and quality of your units, and replentish losses. Cities were basically bases for your armies, to supply them. So the thing was to conquer cities (and defeat armies so you could conquer cities) and you had to learn what your units were good at, and what they weren't good at, and how to minimize your losses while defeating, routing, and wiping out the enemy. You could technically let the CPU manage the battles for you, but this was always a bad bad idea, commanding battles was basically the point of the whole game and you had to do it well if you wanted to win. And it was fun, especially since each unit was composed of many individual soldiers, which made it seem realistic, and the general always gave an amusing speech to rouse the troops to an appropriate level of bloodthirstiness before the army entered the fray. ("I want to see blood. I want to bath in their blood! I want to bath in their blood for a week! So....kill them all!!!)

So, it worked.

....

Oh yeah, this was spectacular. Just like 'Star Wars: Empire at War'.

Yeeahh....

A little perspective makes alot of the.... littler details blur together.

Like, when they mesh together the different kinds of empire games into one, sloppy mess of a.... generic empire game.

(6/10)

Of the few games I have ever completed without cheating, this is one of them. Why? Because it makes you want to play it properly.

The graphics and AI in this game are astounding. At the more difficult levels of game play, the computer's armies seem to actually have a master tactician on their side. Even out of battle this game is amazing. For those who are into strategy more than battle, battles can be automatically resolved whilst still on the map.

The personal characteristics of your generals changes everything in this game from the finances of your towns to the morale of your men. My general Gaias the Lewd had to be sent on a suicide mission, he was no good for anyone. This is the ultimate of strategy games.