Some early Alpha Screenshots

[Galleblære]

Yes let's forget that R:TW is a glorified RTS whose 'strategic' element is nothing more then a sappy excuse for why you're fighting these battles in the tactical game. The tactical part of R:TW is arguably great (not mentioning the AI that even a trained monkey could beat) but the strategic part is worthless and more akin to what you'd expect from an RTS. Paradox is quite right that we could use a grand strategy game set in the Roman era, and they're the ones to deliver.

Lets not polarize each side here. Funny how everything becomes a dirt throwing competition. As far as I see, they are different games in scope and goals.

 

[afb]

Yes let's forget that R:TW is a glorified RTS whose 'strategic' element is nothing more then a sappy excuse for why you're fighting these battles in the tactical game. The tactical part of R:TW is arguably great (not mentioning the AI that even a trained monkey could beat) but the strategic part is worthless and more akin to what you'd expect from an RTS. Paradox is quite right that we could use a grand strategy game set in the Roman era, and they're the ones to deliver.

With the Total Realism mod, R:TW actually becomes a solid strategic game. Combined with the enjoyable tactical elements, it is very good. That doesn't mean I'm not extremely excited about EU:Rome, however

Anders

 

[Kaelic]

I'd personally like to see a proper title system, similar to that employed in a mini-mod for RTW (the name escapes me). Depending on how generals/characters work in this, having them gain senate positions and such would be immensely fun.

 

[unmerged(21621)]

I'd personally like to see a proper title system, similar to that employed in a mini-mod for RTW (the name escapes me). Depending on how generals/characters work in this, having them gain senate positions and such would be immensely fun.

that would be absolutely amazing

 

[Imrryran]

I'd personally like to see a proper title system, similar to that employed in a mini-mod for RTW (the name escapes me). Depending on how generals/characters work in this, having them gain senate positions and such would be immensely fun.

+1

 

[unmerged(63498)]

They don't have Ming in this one

In this time, should be the Han. Hey! Bring the Three Kingdoms! "Those infidels in Wu have declared independence on us!" :rofl:

 

[unmerged(258)]

I seriously hope it won't just feel like playing a Prussia in Italy. Disciplined army part suits well, but I want backstabbing in the senate feel like something more than random events.

Yes. Pax Romana had some good ideas to it, having a political, trading, and some province development game in addition to the military game. Even having generals removed from command of armies based on political pressure (and winning & losing) was something Rome did historically. The problem with Pax Romana was the speed of the strategy / Forum portion each turn along with an incredibly lousy AI that just grouped armies into certain spots and never really fought. But the concepts of positions in government you had to get support for and the various factions competing for power were good.

Hopefully we'll have some of the politics of Rome or royal courts elsewhere. That is one of the biggest potential areas for long-term enhancements in Paradox games, I think. Some Crusader Kings - type additions but with bribery, factionalism, etc. A bit like adding in the Curia from EU3...

 

[unmerged(258)]

I also hereby volunteer as a Beta.

Given my crappy 0.95 GHz computer, I can test it for performance on low-end machines.

Mine is faster than that, but I could still be in the lower end of machine performance.

 

[Karri]

Sad troll.

Wow, what an intelligent comeback. You must be at least 12 years old. Or perhaps you were speaking about yourself?

Yes let's forget that R:TW is a glorified RTS whose 'strategic' element is nothing more then a sappy excuse for why you're fighting these battles in the tactical game. The tactical part of R:TW is arguably great (not mentioning the AI that even a trained monkey could beat) but the strategic part is worthless and more akin to what you'd expect from an RTS. Paradox is quite right that we could use a grand strategy game set in the Roman era, and they're the ones to deliver.

Let's see. In R:TW you have cities in which you can build buildings to get more money or to increase population, yadda yadda...and that is exactly how much different from EU series?
I mean sure, there's more 'historical' feeling in EU game series...but it's not much more complex from that. The only thing more complex is the trade system, and honestly you can't really do much about that. 'Invest in trade technology' WOW that's so grand strategy.

It's not like the EU/HOI/Paradox games have perfect AI either...world conquest with Luxembourgh, eh?

I'm not a Total War nor a Paradox fanboy. Personally I like Paradox games more, I am not someone looking for eye candy. But the thing is, I don't see what aspect Paradox can 'improve' in R:TW to make it better. All they could add is history.

 

[STGeorge]

I'm not a Total War nor a Paradox fanboy. Personally I like Paradox games more, I am not someone looking for eye candy. But the thing is, I don't see what aspect Paradox can 'improve' in R:TW to make it better. All they could add is history.

My biggest fear is that in essence paradox may only change the look of the EU3 engine, giving us a Roman theme and adding very little (but still charge for a new game)!

Im intrigued on whats going to be added, new, different and groundbreaking enough to make EU fans (and others) want to go out and buy this game?

 

[Raczynski]

Let's see. In R:TW you have cities in which you can build buildings to get more money or to increase population, yadda yadda...and that is exactly how much different from EU series?

Rome Total War have no (meanigfull) diplomacy.
Rome Total War have a pitfull number of countries, or "factions" you can play with.

 

[Karri]

Rome Total War have no (meanigfull) diplomacy.

That's true. But after you get your country 'started' in EU you only use diplomacy for war...it really has no 'higher' meaning...as I pointed out, certain things are made to look more complex but in reality they aren't.

Rome Total War have a pitfull number of countries, or "factions" you can play with.

So? Screw the engine mod me a thousand nations!

 

[Morpheus506]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone earlier mention it having CK-style character stuff? I don't believe that's in Rome: Total War...

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone earlier mention it having CK-style character stuff? I don't believe that's in Rome: Total War...

It does have the family tree/character traits aspect, but it is fairly simple. Unfortunately we have no idea if EU:R will be as fleshed out as CK was, or just like RTW..

 

[behran]

Graphics are BAD.it says "early aplha" but as you remember in EU3 it was almost same with final product.

Terrains seems like Google earth's graphics even GGearth much better!

sorry Paradox not this time...

 

[STGeorge]

Graphics are BAD.it says "early aplha" but as you remember in EU3 it was almost same with final product.

Terrains seems like Google earth's graphics even GGearth much better!

sorry Paradox not this time...

Hmmm I tend to agree. I have friends who took the plunge with EU3 and regretted it, the map looked awful in my opinion. The units admittedly look better in EU:R than EU3, less blocky but the map still looks.....v poor.

Its a cheap shot but the Campaign map in R:TW is about right I think. It would be so good to have a map that comes alive. A sea that laps against the shore, snow capped moutain, seasons!!!! Now I know its eye candy but it really helps to get a feel of the world if you add little touches.

 

[L'Afrique]

Graphics are BAD.it says "early aplha" but as you remember in EU3 it was almost same with final product.

Terrains seems like Google earth's graphics even GGearth much better!

sorry Paradox not this time...

Tell me, do you know how Google Earth gets its "graphics?"

For the record, I prefer the look of this map to RTW's cartoony one.

 

[STGeorge]

Tell me, do you know how Google Earth gets its "graphics?"

Sure doesn't everyone?

For the record, I prefer the look of this map to RTW's cartoony one.

Cartoony probably! Still looks good...borders are easily defined, the animation is fun but it still looks like a campaign map and it adds to gameplay. Lets face it PG think that too otherwise they wouldn't have gone the 3D route.

 

[Raczynski]

Tell me, do you know how Google Earth gets its "graphics?"

LOL real life graphics is so poor. And you need pixelshaders for that?

 

[unmerged(6303)]

Tell me, do you know how Google Earth gets its "graphics?"

For the record, I prefer the look of this map to RTW's cartoony one.

In the Rome Total War map you can see terrain type, province ownership, city status, city defenses, province development, trade goods, trade level, army size and weather. In the EU:R screenshot you can see what the area might look like from space on a clear day, borders and armies.