RTW: Other Factions ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In the docs for Rome: Total War it says that you can play other factions
than just the Roman ones...

Is there some secret to unlocking those factions to play them because
all I see when I start a campaign is the 3 Roman ones?

Are the docs just wrong? HELP...

I'm running vs 1.2
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Werewolf wrote:
> In the docs for Rome: Total War it says that you can play other factions
> than just the Roman ones...
>
> Is there some secret to unlocking those factions to play them because
> all I see when I start a campaign is the 3 Roman ones?
>
> Are the docs just wrong? HELP...
>
> I'm running vs 1.2

Either win a campaign as one of the Roman factions (a short campaign
will do it) or google for a mod that will unlock them. TBH the short
campaigns are quite easy so you shouldn't have any difficulties...

Carl...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Or...you can go to FilePlanet and download the total realism mod, which
is very well done, and allows you to play the other factions.


Werewolf wrote:
> In the docs for Rome: Total War it says that you can play other factions
> than just the Roman ones...
>
> Is there some secret to unlocking those factions to play them because
> all I see when I start a campaign is the 3 Roman ones?
>
> Are the docs just wrong? HELP...
>
> I'm running vs 1.2
 
W

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

>
> Clue: ROME: TOTAL WAR *is* one of these bullshit "products created for
> the mindless masses" you're pissing and moaning about.
>

But it is just so darn PRETTY...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Try the Darth Mod at the TW Centre - its about the only mod that remains
relatively true to the original game minus some of the stupid units, and at
the same time increases the battle difficulty. Its a great mod, I think its
actually far better than Rome Total Realism, which I feel has lost its way
up its own a**e now! The Darth Mod will only take you a few minutes to
download as well not a few hours like RTR.

Nats

"Werewolf" <nunya@numbnuts.com> wrote in message
news:ZuILe.3110$Ji4.653@fed1read03...
> In the docs for Rome: Total War it says that you can play other factions
> than just the Roman ones...
>
> Is there some secret to unlocking those factions to play them because all
> I see when I start a campaign is the 3 Roman ones?
>
> Are the docs just wrong? HELP...
>
> I'm running vs 1.2
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:48:43 +0100, Nats <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Try the Darth Mod at the TW Centre - its about the only mod that remains
>relatively true to the original game minus some of the stupid units,

Which units are stupid?

--
Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
>
> [RTW] is pretty. But that doesn't make it any less an
> exercise in "Rock-Paper-Scissors."
>
> Giftzwerg

Did you really find it so? I didn't. In fact the game seems to avoid the
Starcraft rock-paper-scissors model in that some units have multiple
uses but are just better at defeating a particular kind. There was no
triangle of perfectly balanced equilibrium ... which made battlefield
tactics a bit more realistic, IMO. Much better than MTW even.


- Sheldon
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <iNaMe.19023$Ji4.16619@fed1read03>,
> nunya@numbnuts.com says...
>
>> > Clue: ROME: TOTAL WAR *is* one of these bullshit "products
>> > created for the mindless masses" you're pissing and moaning
>> > about.
>
>> But it is just so darn PRETTY...
>
> It is pretty. But that doesn't make it any less an exercise in
> "Rock- Paper-Scissors."

How about a combination of units?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I similarly dont find its paper rock scissors either. Often you have a
shortfall of men, or more men, or can use the trees and terrain to an
advantage. Also some types of unit are very good at several things and some
units are only good at limited things. But there are so many ways to win and
lose in this game. Ive fought Gauls for example and had a numerical
advantage and then just lost coherence and lost an easy battle using the
Darth Mod (admittedly the vanilla game and Rome Total Realism mkae this less
likely to happen). In fact Ive actually lost half my battles to date using
the mod opposed to winning 99%-100% with the vanilla game and RTR mods. Try
it you may be surprised.

Nats

"Sheldon England" <sheldonengland@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4314B3D4.9A03631A@netscape.net...
> Giftzwerg wrote:
>>
>> [RTW] is pretty. But that doesn't make it any less an
>> exercise in "Rock-Paper-Scissors."
>>
>> Giftzwerg
>
> Did you really find it so? I didn't. In fact the game seems to avoid the
> Starcraft rock-paper-scissors model in that some units have multiple
> uses but are just better at defeating a particular kind. There was no
> triangle of perfectly balanced equilibrium ... which made battlefield
> tactics a bit more realistic, IMO. Much better than MTW even.
>
>
> - Sheldon
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Sorry about that - didnt realise the original poster had posted to both
groups with his initial posting the plonker.

Nats

"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:df2gvk$g28$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>I similarly dont find its paper rock scissors either. Often you have a
>shortfall of men, or more men, or can use the trees and terrain to an
>advantage. Also some types of unit are very good at several things and some
>units are only good at limited things. But there are so many ways to win
>and lose in this game. Ive fought Gauls for example and had a numerical
>advantage and then just lost coherence and lost an easy battle using the
>Darth Mod (admittedly the vanilla game and Rome Total Realism mkae this
>less likely to happen). In fact Ive actually lost half my battles to date
>using the mod opposed to winning 99%-100% with the vanilla game and RTR
>mods. Try it you may be surprised.
>
> Nats
>
> "Sheldon England" <sheldonengland@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:4314B3D4.9A03631A@netscape.net...
>> Giftzwerg wrote:
>>>
>>> [RTW] is pretty. But that doesn't make it any less an
>>> exercise in "Rock-Paper-Scissors."
>>>
>>> Giftzwerg
>>
>> Did you really find it so? I didn't. In fact the game seems to avoid the
>> Starcraft rock-paper-scissors model in that some units have multiple
>> uses but are just better at defeating a particular kind. There was no
>> triangle of perfectly balanced equilibrium ... which made battlefield
>> tactics a bit more realistic, IMO. Much better than MTW even.
>>
>>
>> - Sheldon
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom