Well, people like what they like, I guess. No offense to you, but for my money, Rome does indeed suck all to hell.
Ghoulem said:
I can agree that Medieval TW 2 wasn't up to par, but you can't dismiss Rome TW as sucking all the way to hell. IMO it's the best in the series so far. The chivalry-system is so ..lame and it makes less sense than a pancake factory out of a garden gnome's ass. Command, Influence and Management was more enjoyable and isn't some ridiculous Good vs. Evil scale. The setting, the factions. The world map movement. It's just the better game.
It sounds like you're role playing the thing. What do I care about the chivalry system? I just look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of units and use them accordingly.
The Rome map was a good idea maybe, but a horrible implementation. We went from a simple and functional map that at least allowed the game to offer some resistance to your strategy, to a map where the enemy just randomly marches around, sieges a town, then arbitrarily breaks off the seige and marches clean out of sight. It's utterly ridiculous how bad the strategy map AI is.
I don't even know what you mean by Good vs. Evil scale?
It seems like they're taking some right steps on Empire TW and I'm looking forward to it. Naval Combat ffs. There is so much improvement from Shogun to Empire, but not every thing they do are necessarily for the better, but they have to try out some new things if they want to improve. I didn't particularly fancy Medieval II myself, but it's much more entertaining than it's predecessor. And even though you fancy Medieval I, both you and I know there is a reason why they chose to redo it.
There is so much more potential to this series than the Medieval I-style gameplay. I would like to see more politics, more diplomacy, resources playing a more important role, researching, more choices in character development and faction uniqueness.
If they combined the detailed gameplay of an 4X game (Civilization anyone?) with their own combat system and some RPG-elements. Total War would be the undisputed champion of TB strategy games.
You didn't even mention the heart of the game, the actual combat, which is completely nerfed in Rome. Hell, even after all this time in MTW, I still get in situations where the tactics I use make the difference between winning or losing a battle, or taking unneccessary casualties. I can tell exactly how every Rome battle will turn out, almost down to the number of casualties from each side.
As for why, it's pretty easy to see. They wanted a bigger audience, so they ripped out the gameplay and replaced it with fluff. Obviously, it has worked, so it's hard to fault them for it. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, though.
Anyway(s), I don't guess there is any purpose arguing this point by point. If you like where the series has gone, who am I to say different?