Slitherine

Ave

Just a simple review here

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

Bah, those guys are so full of crap.

"A pale imitation of RTW", indeed!

Shit...

possum wrote:Bah, those guys are so full of crap.
"A pale imitation of RTW", indeed!
Shit...

Ave possum,

I couldn't agree with you more, that's what prompted me to write my poor attempt at a review.

You're far more literate and eloquent than I, a review from you would be most beneficial for the community.

Who knows it might even begin a thread!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

spedius01 wrote:

possum wrote:Bah, those guys are so full of crap.
"A pale imitation of RTW", indeed!
Shit...

Ave possum,

I couldn't agree with you more, that's what prompted me to write my poor attempt at a review.

You're far more literate and eloquent than I, a review from you would be most beneficial for the community.

Who knows it might even begin a thread!

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

LOL, me literate and eloquent? Spedius, you are far too kind.

But I suppose I do alright for a guy who left High School at 16, and dropped out of community college 1/3 of the way through his first semester

The problem with pointing me at this issue is twofold. First, I do not suffer fools gladly. Second, I have an unfortunate tendency to wax quite profane when annoyed.

I would probably open by asking something like, "Are you inbred, seven-toed morons out of your tiny sheep-raping minds?"

As someone with a fairly intimate knowladge of RTW i can say this is much better...the AI kills RTW, it really does.

Anyway, the two game types are totally dissimilar....

RTW is an Empire Managment game first and formost. It also has tactical battles. However, when one can beat a unit of the same type in a one on one, and beat it by a comfortable margin mind (on very hard also) then you know you have problems.

Legion Arena is a Tacitcal/RPG Game. You level up troops and fight many-a-scenario compared to RTW's campaign.

I prefer LA.

End of discussion.

EDIT:

I would probably open by asking something like, "Are you inbred, seven-toed morons out of your tiny sheep-raping minds?"

Fantastic! you my friend have balls indeed.

You should open instead by asking why the hell their sister is their mother.....let em get their heads around that

possum wrote:

spedius01 wrote:

possum wrote:Bah, those guys are so full of crap.
"A pale imitation of RTW", indeed!
Shit...

Ave possum,
I couldn't agree with you more, that's what prompted me to write my poor attempt at a review.
You're far more literate and eloquent than I, a review from you would be most beneficial for the community.
Who knows it might even begin a thread!
Vale
M. Spedius Corbulo

LOL, me literate and eloquent? Spedius, you are far too kind.
But I suppose I do alright for a guy who left High School at 16, and dropped out of community college 1/3 of the way through his first semester :)
The problem with pointing me at this issue is twofold. First, I do not suffer fools gladly. Second, I have an unfortunate tendency to wax quite profane when annoyed.
I would probably open by asking something like, "Are you inbred, seven-toed morons out of your tiny sheep-raping minds?"

Ave possum,

Go possum, go get'um.

Wow, boy, I can just see those guys over at RomanArmy.com quaking in their boots if our possum let's rip at them.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

Ave grimsta,

Why don't you also write a review along the lines of what you've written here.

I've never played RTW, nor do I want to.

The two of you can present a far more persuasive case for Legion Arena vs RTW than I ever could.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

Legion arena vs RTW this isn't quite right. RTW is different from LA. In LA player has only to fight. In RTW player must not only fight but also develope economy(to have money) and cities(to be able to recruit elite warriors).

thats crap becoause in RTW there is no fun in the campaigne (far too easy) whereas there is a littlebit more challenge in LA. As for the multiplayer, it an unbelievable mess units running all ver you chnaging your orders every 2 seconds, its not tactics it's who can click the fastest to get around the ennemy. Also the ability to upgrade troops makes LA far more interesting. It's only 2 low points: only 2 sides and angle of attacks not counting; both of which i m sure a patch and expansion sets could very well take care of.
Honestly in RTW people had to agree not to use too many heavy cav, there eing no enemy on the field that could resist them apart for Phalanxes which were statci and therfore easily routed....
Slitherine I honestly have never played such a tactically interesting game. ONly bigger armies as sum1won said and the 2 small shortcomings that ive highlighted could make it any better!!!

Please publish The Cultof Mithras fast!!!!!

No, don't publish Cult of Mithras fast.

Take your time and publish it right

Blimey Not the old RTW/LA debate again. I know unbiased viewpoints cannot be expected on any fan forum, but there are merits and deficiencies in both RTW and LA. I can happily play both for what they are without any particular favouritism for either.
RTW is grand strategy and empire building with huge battles and sieges and tends to be rather serious to play while LA has a far more focussed and fun strategy/RPG element which is quite refreshing after RTW gameplay. LA's complexity lies in the myriad unit upgrades available and the way in which these are combined with tactical decision making on the battlefield. I like both games and will continue to play them both.

Ave

Just so you know that I'm still doing my bit for Legion Arena check out the link provided in the first post of this topic.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

Thanks Spedius - always good to have someone standing up for us

iainmcneil wrote:Thanks Spedius - always good to have someone standing up for us :)

Ave Iain,

No problem. I'm still a fan of the game.

I may not be as active in the Legion Arena Forum as I was, but I havn't forgotten you guys. I pop back several times a day to see what's happening.

Vale

M. Spedius Corbulo

I haven't really found the best historical game. There really is no perfect game.

Some games have weaknesses some have strengths, the key is to minimize the weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths.

If you are into historical games then RTW should be on your hated list, I know my views are awkward. Chariots of War, Legion, Gates of Troy, and Spartan are the only games in my opinion that come close to what actually went on during the time frame that is depicted unlike that of RTW.

I highly doubt messangers would be able to tell a non-commissioned-officer in the midst of battle what to do next. I like the way you guys at slitherine make us choose a set of orders to apply to our troops before the battle even starts and then make us watch the battle helplessy.

If any of you people have read Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", you'll understand where I'm basing most of my arguement.

In this book one of the main character was contemplating the fact that he couldn't hear what the hell was going on around him, since there was such an amount of noise being produced, when melee combat begins.

Hey guys the new expansion pack looks awesome!

I found this online which I thought looked like a good review:

http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r24423.htm

appologies if this has been posted before

kyle wrote: I highly doubt messangers would be able to tell a non-commissioned-officer in the midst of battle what to do next. I like the way you guys at slitherine make us choose a set of orders to apply to our troops before the battle even starts and then make us watch the battle helplessy.

If any of you people have read Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", you'll understand where I'm basing most of my arguement.

In this book one of the main character was contemplating the fact that he couldn't hear what the hell was going on around him, since there was such an amount of noise being produced, when melee combat begins.

None the less, the Romans managed it, with the good offices of a man called a stentor...

Furthermore, if you read of the battle on the Granicus, Alexander managed to assert tactical control in the middle of that battle, when he led his Companions Cavalry through the gap in the Persian line.

It could be done, but it required serious organisation and discipline.

Hey possum I understand it could be done, but the fact is only the smartest of brains could do it right?

In addition to my ealier post I forgot to add that this soldier couldn't hear his comrades dying, when they were shoulder to shoulder, this is a reasonable description of spartan warfare, because when a spot opend up the weight on the men behind the open gap would force someone else into it.

possum wrote:

kyle wrote: I highly doubt messangers would be able to tell a non-commissioned-officer in the midst of battle what to do next. I like the way you guys at slitherine make us choose a set of orders to apply to our troops before the battle even starts and then make us watch the battle helplessy.

If any of you people have read Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", you'll understand where I'm basing most of my arguement.

In this book one of the main character was contemplating the fact that he couldn't hear what the hell was going on around him, since there was such an amount of noise being produced, when melee combat begins.

None the less, the Romans managed it, with the good offices of a man called a stentor...

Furthermore, if you read of the battle on the Granicus, Alexander managed to assert tactical control in the middle of that battle, when he led his Companions Cavalry through the gap in the Persian line.

It could be done, but it required serious organisation and discipline.

I'm not a scholar who deals with ancient military history, though I always have several questions.

When there are only 3 people on the battlefield, one man against 2 men.
All of them equip with large reqtangular shield and short sword. 2men line in column, one man against his enemy, and the other is his behind.
One man stab his opponent in his side, and he knows that he scceeded in stabbing the other, his enemy the moment he hits.
And I guess, if he is trained soldier and battle hardened, the moment he stab, he can tell whether it is critical or not.
And as his opponent collapse, he proceed to attack the man in the second row.

Let's change to the viewpoint of the man in the second row. He know the enemy is fighting against his comrade directly before him.
Though he can't tell, when which of them defeated. The first person to know when is the one who deals the blow.
So his action starts the moment when his friend before him collapse.

So I starts to doubt the theory of phalanx and its shield walls.

And there is second point about the battle system of LA.
This game deals not only sparta and its shpere, not only Greece in certain time period, but much wider generations and all around the world at that time.
So, there are Celts, and Romans, Carthago, Numidia and so on. Some of these country have different kind of army compositions and training and fighting-stlye, so it's bit bad for spartan loving gamers.
As envelopping and outflank is meaningful tactic, so static spartan army units will have fair chance to be surrounded.

The previous description makes the assumption that the stricken individual will collapse instantly, which is rarely the case. Even with a wound through the heart, it takes almost a minute for the lack of blood flow to shut down the brain, although the actions of the dying individual would become progressively more erratic, and he may fall down from the shock and pain. Either way, the thrashing body would present an obstacle to both sides.

Perhaps the primary function of the shieldwall was to prevent any individual from being outflanked and attacked from an unprotected side. Pressure from rear ranks may have played a part in some battles and not in others, depending on the initial charge. Some encounters seem to have been somewhat tentative, where neither side really pressed the other, resulting in a few scattered casualties and a long standoff.