Let's talk RTS

[bhavv]

I dont enjoy the battle in Total War games at all unforunately, I find it too boring and time consuming and only ever play it with every battle automated (I love the risk based map play, hate the combat).

I like everything about AoE2 though, I've tried getting it up and running on Win 7 / 8 lots of times, but its full of graphical glitches and errors and looks and runs like junk.

So I had to pre purchase AoE2 HD. I bought it with AoE3 complete because I never bought the expansion pack to that game, but it wasnt as good as AoE2. I've also tried out AoE online, and while similar it still wasnt as good as AoE2 lol.

So yea, despite the cost, I had to buy the HD remake. The graphics are the same though, dont be fooled about that, but it has high resolution and multimonitor support, will be Win 7 + 8 compatible with no more bright red / green dots all over the map, and they are adding in much better multiplayer support,

I cant wait to get my previous expertise of cranking out British Longbows and dominating everything with their uber range . Britain had really good economy and ranged bonuses in this game, but they had minimal siege and no cannons, but they didnt need them because their longbows do what siege normally would completely fine.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

To come back here and clean me from my shame:
I was playing Supreme Commander 1, not 2.

 

[Maniacal]

(I love the risk based map play, hate the combat)

I imagine that the combat improved a lot after the original two TW games (I never got them working) as in Rome and onwards it is pretty damn good.

 

[coanda]

I imagine that the combat improved a lot after the original two TW games (I never got them working) as in Rome and onwards it is pretty damn good.

Rome: TW's combat is basically the same as Medieval: TW. Just about the only difference is that you no longer had to deal with near-invincible generals who just would not die - even if they were routing, their entire bodyguard was killed, and they were surrounded by several hundred troops on all sides.

I still recall in Medieval: TW just watching and laughing as an enemy general, all alone with his bodyguard all killed, spent ten minutes slowly slogging through my troops towards the edge of the field without dying. He moved slow enough that once he broke past one unit I could just walk that unit around to the far side of my army to meet him again a few minutes down the line.

Digression aside, if you like Rome: TW's combat you'd probably like that of Medieval: TW too. The games are very similar; the big enhancements in Rome in my opinion came from character trait development on the strategic overview, and just better UI.

 

[sophie]

Digression aside, if you like Rome: TW's combat you'd probably like that of Medieval: TW too. The games are very similar; the big enhancements in Rome in my opinion came from character trait development on the strategic overview, and just better UI.

At the expense of a worse campaign map and a significantly easier AI.

 

[Maniacal]

Its not really so much worse, just a completely different style. I think its neat, although I do prefer the region system since Empire.