You've probably heard that a remastered version of Rome Total War is coming up. This was the first strategy game I ever played, so I spent some time watching YT videos about its features. Of course, it was natural to compare it with Imperator. The result? I think I love I:R even more now.
I already thought that, despite some flaws/room for improvement, I:R 1.5 was one of the best games I ever played, and it only got better with 2.0. But if you compare it with Rome TW (I'm just gonna ignore Rome II, I'm still offended at how hideous that map looked), the difference in depth and breath of game mechanics is just striking.
Rome TW has no culture, no religion, no social classes [no pops], no politics, no ability to shape the map by founding cities, no wonders, a fixed road network that you cannot design, no military traditions, etc. The game fundamentally asks you to 1) raise armies and conquer; 2) upgrade city buildings to access new/better units. I still liked it a lot, because of the time frame and the battles/cities, but I could never go back and play it--it would feel way too shallow.
Thus, I'm so grateful that we have I:R to build captivating and ever different stories in ancient times! This comparison (and you could do the same with other chapters of the TW saga) really highlights all that good that there is in I:R.
As a side note, there are a few things that I:R could draw inspiration from TW: e.g. a simulated trade network that links close regions and doesn't differentiate so strongly between internal and external trade (I wouldn't replicate the same thing, but despite its simplicity Rome TW's trade feels much more reasonable than I:R); also, city buildings felt a bit more interesting in Rome TW, especially because there is a 3d model that you can explore. Maybe adding small buildings and walls to the map (somewhat like Civ 5) may partially compensate for this. It would surely give some extra gratification for those of us that like civic development. But apart from these things, there is really little else that I:R could learn from the TW titles.
I already thought that, despite some flaws/room for improvement, I:R 1.5 was one of the best games I ever played, and it only got better with 2.0. But if you compare it with Rome TW (I'm just gonna ignore Rome II, I'm still offended at how hideous that map looked), the difference in depth and breath of game mechanics is just striking.
Rome TW has no culture, no religion, no social classes [no pops], no politics, no ability to shape the map by founding cities, no wonders, a fixed road network that you cannot design, no military traditions, etc. The game fundamentally asks you to 1) raise armies and conquer; 2) upgrade city buildings to access new/better units. I still liked it a lot, because of the time frame and the battles/cities, but I could never go back and play it--it would feel way too shallow.
Thus, I'm so grateful that we have I:R to build captivating and ever different stories in ancient times! This comparison (and you could do the same with other chapters of the TW saga) really highlights all that good that there is in I:R.
As a side note, there are a few things that I:R could draw inspiration from TW: e.g. a simulated trade network that links close regions and doesn't differentiate so strongly between internal and external trade (I wouldn't replicate the same thing, but despite its simplicity Rome TW's trade feels much more reasonable than I:R); also, city buildings felt a bit more interesting in Rome TW, especially because there is a 3d model that you can explore. Maybe adding small buildings and walls to the map (somewhat like Civ 5) may partially compensate for this. It would surely give some extra gratification for those of us that like civic development. But apart from these things, there is really little else that I:R could learn from the TW titles.
- 34
- 10
- 9
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
