Rome: Total War

Wasn't built in a day... obviously

The graphics are not only for spectacle. Units can now smash through other units and the flow of combat is far more realistic and unrestricted than it was before. The shift to 3D has liberated the combat mechanics of the Total War series and the designers have taken that liberation and run with it when it comes to the variety of new units. On top of the old swords, spears and arrows staples the aspiring general can now have elephants, war-dogs, camels and chariots at their command, all of which wheel and jockey for position in a far more realistic - and far less aggravating - manner then before. And then there's the incendiary pigs. Fire plays a large part in other weapons systems as well, such as flaming arrows or Onagers, with the flames having a deleterious affect on the enemy's morale. And while zooming right into the action isn't much help when it comes to command it sure looks great and draws the player into the frenzy.

The camera system is still not 100%, with issues remaining over orientation and fine control, especially in the thick of a massive brawl, but to be fair CA have done as well as could really be expected given the limitations of the mouse and keyboard. If you don't want to get involved with the tactical screens all the time there's the option to have the computer auto-manage the battle when opposing armies first come into contact. However, on harder difficulty levels, the competence of the computer to successfully wage war for you seems to have been severely hampered, which reduces the player to having to slog through every single battle to ensure victory. Now, I estimate there to be somewhere in the region of 2-300 battles in a campaign. Even if each one took only 15 minutes, you'd be looking at a minimum of 50 hours, which may not trouble those who are in love with the battles but will seriously dampen the enthusiasm of the strategic gamer. Personally, I have always spent more time engrossed in the strategy maps of the Total War series, and have always found this to be a problem. Now while I don't ignore the tactical maps completely, enjoying the thrill and spectacle of annihilating a larger force with my superior units and tactics, I do not like being, for all intents and purposes, forced to play through almost every battle if I choose to play on a certain difficulty level. And those levels themselves are too marked in their differences. The change in difficulty from medium to hard is rather pronounced. It's not an optimum situation but it's bearable as for the most part the game is such an entertaining beast.

The range of tactical options and the high level of control that the player has over their units really allows the battles to glow as shining examples of computer-based warfare. And while the novice or casual gamer will have little difficulty organising a victory the more committed wargamer will find that like chess, this is a game that takes no time to learn but a lifetime to master. The strategic game is also very enjoyable although it does suffer more from the AI's propensity to cheat when the going gets tough. It can also get bogged down when the player's empire grows past a certain size, but neither of these flaws are enough to severely weaken the game's playability. Even the absolutely pathetic ending of the game is not enough to fatally weaken the title, especially as by beating the game with one of the Roman factions you will unlock all the other factions for subsequent campaign replays.

If the full campaign sounds like too much there's a shorter version available. For this you have to hold Rome for 50 turns. There are also a handful of accurately represented historical battles to play around with. These set you up with the right forces, stick you on a map and tell you to go over there and take out some bad guys. These are an enjoyable aside and a good way of practising different tactics in various settings. Of course there is also a range of multiplayer options. LAN battles accommodate up to eight players and are a wickedly enjoyable way to while away an evening or two. Unfortunately I couldn't go on a rampage across the world as Rome: TW refuses to work across NAT so joining an internet game through the integrated Gamespy system was just not going to happen. This is just bad programming and indicates to me that Rome is running on the same netcode as its predecessors. A variety of bugs and glitches also infest Rome: TW. Fortunately, while some of them are rather annoying there are no showstoppers, and things should run smoother once the famously tardy Creative Assembly patching squad swings into action.

Rome: Total War is the best game out there to give gamers the cerebral challenge of mounting a major campaign through decades of human history, a campaign where they can take their plans right down to the field of battle. The revamped graphics engine and overall presentation make Rome a far more cinematic game then the previous titles and manages to do it without sacrificing any of the deep gameplay that we have come to expect from the Total War games. However, even with all the new gloss I didn't think that this was really enough of a development over the previous games. Or to be more precise, the enhancements and improvements, while undeniably impressive, were not enough to make up for the various problems that have befallen every Total War game. Niggly controls, cheating AI, cluttered management screens, a rash of aggravating bugs and an unshakeable sense of over familiarity all combine to keep Rome: Total War from being an outright classic.

89%

By Sam Gibson