Rome: Total War vs Imperial Glory

Imperial Glory is an interesting addition to the turn based strategy game. Lot's of mods to enhance the gameplay.

Moderator: TAFN staff

Post Reply
Lord Trogdor
Soldier
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:49 am

Rome: Total War vs Imperial Glory

Post by Lord Trogdor »

Saw this as a poll and decided to write a thread about it.

I don't think this question has a simple "yes" or "no" answer, so I figured that only a thread would do it justice. The truth is that Imperial Glory (IG henceforth) and Rome Total War (RTW) both have their own merits, so here's my opinion on both games from various perspectives (note that I will be discussing gameplay issues only, no comments on graphics or sounds):

I. Tactical mode
Land battles: RTW wins by quite a long shot here. More units, more faction varieties, more tactics, MORALE, the ability to chase down retreaters, etc etc etc. Easy choice.
Naval battles: IG is the uncontested winner, since RTW does not have any sort of naval battles. Also, easy choice.
Conclusion: tie

II. Strategic mode
Diplomacy: IG wins, no questions asked. An alliance system that actually works; the possibiliy for peaceful annexation; a good sympathy model; everything better.
Map: RTW has a bigger and better map. It has evolved from the traditional "Risk" style map and moved onto a more complex form, which adds tremendous strategic depth.
Development: RTW beats IG here. Everything that IG tried to do, RTW did also and with a simpler interface. IG has scientific research which is not in RTW, but RTW simulates the growth of cities better. Plus, RTW has the feature to develop your characters, which gives the game, well, more character. The only thing that IG does better is the quest system, which I find to be quite unique and interesting.
Conclusion: RTW wins slightly

III. Challenge
Both games suffer the same problem: after a nation reaches a certain level of power, the game becomes trivially easy. Works on all difficulty levels. I'd say that this problem is more evident in IG, since one can basically avoid fighting wars all the time just by paying money for treaties (chump change for any sufficiently big empire). RTW also outshines IG by simulation population loyalty, which is pretty much the only weakness that a large empire could have. So, RTW wins here.

IV. Conclusion
Both IG and RTW are fine, fine strategy games - anyone thirsting for conquest would find comfort in either one of them. Unfortunately, IG has been overlooked by many game reviewers, especially considering that abyssal score given on Gamespot. IG deserves more attention because it shows tremendous potential. But overall, RTW is still a more refined and complete game. It contains many neat little details that simply results in a more complete gaming experience. So I would say that although IG has made much progress, it has yet to match up to the milestone set by RTW.

What are your opinions? Please share .
kennosen
Soldier
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:30 pm
Location: Wales

Post by kennosen »

Aye.. I'd agree with that. Having played all the TW series to death over the years they are without a doubt the best. But, STW and MTW asside, they have sold out to the console market with the offering of 'vanilla' Rome.
Its gorgeous to look at, but far too easy. Even the mods out there have done little to rekindle my excitement I had when I first heard that CA were making it. It promised to be so much, but failed to deliver on so many points.
The only reason I'm keeping my Rome cd's relatively clean(as coasters) is that the same guys that did the Napoleonic mod for MTW are now working on one using the Rome engine.... :)
Lord Trogdor
Soldier
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:49 am

Post by Lord Trogdor »

A Napoleonic-era game using the RTW engine would certainly be awesome...it is a fascinating era in European history, without doubt.

Yeah I love MTW as well...one of my all time favorites.

Total War games just seem to have more longevity and replayability. Right now I've finished the Prussian campaign on Hard, and there doesn't seem to be anything else to do in the game :cry:
Queeg
Soldier
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:45 am

Post by Queeg »

I'd agree with much of what you wrote had you been referring to MTW, which is by far the best of the TW series. I can't agree regarding RTW.

Tactical Mode. RTW has bigger battles and more factions, but I still prefer those in IG. The much-touted morale model in RTW makes the battles too lopsided in favor of the human player. Just meet their line, flank them, they rout - every time. Or, if you're really bored, just hide a cavalry unit off to one side and wait to ambush the enemy leader. Rout ensues, slaughter a few stragglers - lather, rinse, repeat. At least in IG the enemy varies its tactics and puts up a fight. I regularly won battles in RTW against even 3 to 1 odds. Not so in IG.

Strategic Mode. IG by a mile. Yes, the idea in RTW of a strategic map with tactical features is innovative. Mountain passes, river fords, field fortification - all great ideas. Problem is they didn't bother to program the AI to take advantage of any of them. Instead, the AI insisted on scattering its armies in little clumps all over the map, ignoring the terrain, so you could just defeat them piecemeal - all the while giving your general so many stars that he became all but invincible even if the enemy finally decided to put up a real fight. So, in the end, the strategic map just served as another opportunity for the human player to slaughter the AI.

As for the rest of the campaign, there were the silly Senate missions to fight some irrelevant opponent or blockade some far-distant port, none of which had anything to do with what you were doing or the Senate was doing or anybody was doing - they were just busy-work tacked on to give an illusion of depth.

In the end, the campaign in RTW struck me as just an afterthought, a facade to string together the tactical battles.

So while the map in IG is more traditional, the campiagn offers a far deeper diplomatic model and a better trade model. So, IG wins for me by a mile.

Challenge. Both games, like most grand strategy games, suffer from the "steamroller" effect, where the player achieves a critical mass and becomes all but unstoppable. For me, though, that occurred much earlier in the game with RTW than in IG. And, in IG, I actually lose a battle now and then - not so in RTW. You mention the peaceful route in IG (which I consider a strength) but forget that it was ridiculously easy to bribe away the enemy's armies in RTW - so RTW gets no advantage there. So, overall, I find IG to present a better challenge.

Now, if you were talking about MTW, then we'd be more in agreement.
Morhp
Soldier
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:53 am

Post by Morhp »

One thing is bad that in IG there are many historical misses...wrong uniforms wrong flags and stuff like that...




sorry for my bad english....
Lord Trogdor
Soldier
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:49 am

Post by Lord Trogdor »

> One thing is bad that in IG there are many historical misses...wrong uniforms wrong flags and stuff like that...

Well, RTW certainly doesn't win any points on that issue...head hurlers, screeching women, the completely anachronistic Egyptian faction - it's pretty much a joke on history.

As for the RTW/IG comparison, I should clarify something - it was made purely because the two games are released relatively close to each other, and comparisons between the two are quite common on game sites and forums. Between MTW and RTW, I do find the former to pose more of a challenge, especially if you play it with the recent XL mod.

It is true that RTW presents many features that were not properly implemented and ended up giving the player a huge advantage. However, IG's AI, in my opinion, was not much better - the game broke no new grounds and simply ignored the issues that RTW at least attempted to address. For example, instead of having the AI trying to avoid getting flanked, the game takes out troop morale entirely so that flanking would have less of an effect; instead of having the AI anticipate your moves and react accordingly in strategic mode, the game restricts the player's ability to break certain diplomatic agreements, thus making attacks predictable.

In terms of challenge, I actually found IG's strategic AI to be incredibly simple to manipulate. Playing as Prussia on Hard, I did not experience a single crisis where I had to fight on more than one front in a war - something that, realistically speaking, should concern a country like Prussia. Whereas in MTW and RTW, there are no shortages of these strategic challenges.

The unit bribery problem did cause a concern in RTW v1.0, but the latest v1.2 patch did make bribery more difficult. There are also mods out there that make the game more realistic and challenging (e.g. RTR).

I did enjoy IG. But like I said, it just didn't have all that much to offer once you've beaten it a couple of times. As for now, I'm probably going back to the XL mod for MTW. That, or Knights of Honor, which I heard is a great game as well.
Queeg
Soldier
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:45 am

Post by Queeg »

Comparing patched and modded RTW with out-of-the-box IG is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. RTW today is a better game than it was on release, but it was no better than IG out of the box. It remains to be seen, though, how well Pyro will support IG. Until then, we won't know which ultimately will prove to be the better game.

By the way, I also bought Knights of Honor. Now, there's a tastes-great, less-filling game. Fun but little depth and a very weak AI. It prompted me to dust off Crusader Kings and try the latest beta patch. Having great fun with it.
Lord Trogdor
Soldier
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:49 am

Post by Lord Trogdor »

Aye, I've heard great things about Crusader Kings. However a big complaint about the game is that the learning curve is huge and there's not even a decent tutorial. Is that true? If it is not as bad as the rumours have it, then you just saved me $40 from Knights of Honor :mrgreen:
Queeg
Soldier
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:45 am

Post by Queeg »

I grew bored with KOH after just a couple of hours. It looks great, has a very elegant interface and has some ideas I really like (knights, in particular). But the AI is very weak and map ends up as a wildly ahistoric mishmash (Kingdom of Croatia in England, for example). It's just too "lite" for my tastes.

CK is more complex and, like all Paradox games, some of its nuances are discussed nowhere in the manual and must be discovered by browsing the Paradox forum. But the game has a unique twist - while there are kingdom building and warfare, the real focus is on dynasties. Personalities matter. Is your ruler a military genius or an inbred idiot? What about his heir? And can you find a good marriage prospect - if you can't conquer it maybe you can marry it. I find myself alternately cheering and cursing my digital lineage.

The map is nicely detailed in terms of provinces. And, like other Paradox games, it feels nicely historical without being overly confining.

They are using a beta patch process, which seems to work well. I'm playing the latest beta patch and am enjoying it.
Post Reply