You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Barbarian Invasion Discussion
Moderated by Terikel Grayhair, General Sajaru, Awesome Eagle

Hop to:    
Topic Subject: The Barbarian Invasion Review Thread - Post Your Review HERE!
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
posted 30 September 2005 20:48 EDT (US)   
Hey guys! To avoid flooding the forum with tons and tons of reviews of Barbarian Invasion, I've decided to create this thread for you all to throw your opinions out there. Please don't create threads for your own review - they will be closed.

Also, we'll keep a list of the reviews from major gaming critics here:

IGN's Review.
EuroGamer's Review.
CVG/PCZone's Review.
GamesRadar's Review.

Thanks a bunch, and enjoy!

Note: Threads made before this one will remain open for discussion, but please avoid making new threads for your own reviews. Thanks.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

[This message has been edited by Doitzel (edited 10-04-2005 @ 07:49 PM).]

posted 01 October 2005 14:18 EDT (US)     1 / 42  
This expansion has made me think about abandoning RTW altogether if i want a realsitic battle simulation i may as well get dawn of war.

I enjoyed RTW but always seen some aspects of it as unbalanced so i then refused to play as the roman selucids egypt etc. in order correct for me the imbalances. I take into consideration the historicol superiority the romans had at the time. i mean 4 - 5 heavy cav charging urban cohorts who remain nailed to the ground.

BI i hoped would address these issues as well as the bugs that plauged the original particulary multiplayer but no! its taken this and added more bugs and dumbed down further again the realism. Beserkers thankfully are viable but knock their opponents 10 feet in the air, units sometime glow and have little twinkly stars surround them rather like an rpg -very condesending.

I get the impression that the thinking that created the series medieval total war has been deserted and this is what got me interested in the first place.

The Celtic war chariots still have the brittania flag stamped on their rear i dont know all the historic facts but i think this is lazyness. my frame rate is now lower even when i lower my graphics settings thats progress.

I think the looking to a more broad market and mass accessability has destroyed the majesty of the series i put up with RTW due to lack of other similar titles but this expansion is the last straw.

With medival the expansion viking invasion you could play 1 of 4 era's and the exapnsion or original could be selected as one program no disc swapping or loading different versions of the program. It took them this long for this! why? we had many mods from joe soaps done in this time that look as well.

All it took was three settings Arcade/Normal/Realistic for mass appeal and taylored playability.

I could go on but for me

Medival TW 9/10
Rome TW 7/10
Rome BI 3/10

posted 03 October 2005 17:39 EDT (US)     2 / 42  
I feel that BI was more of a modpack than an expansion. An expansion would build on the original game, whereas BI has completely new factions and a different campaign feel due to the new settlment boundaries. I think that BI was more of a step sideways than forward.

Also, the 1.3 patch for RTW kind of ticked me off. It doesn't let you play your 1.2 campaign games. That was a huge oversight in my opinion. I had to spend 30 minutes copying files to get RTW 1.2 and BI working. BI has such a different feel that I think I will still play vanilla RTW every once in a while.

On the other hand, I think BI's gameplay is great. The hordes make for an interesting threat, and I can't wait to fight more night battles. The larger terriotories are hard to get used to at first, bu they make the game more balanced. Rome is no longer the powerhouse it used to be.

My overall rating of BI would be 8/10. It refreshes RTW, but I feel that CA did a sloppy job in some areas.

posted 03 October 2005 18:31 EDT (US)     3 / 42  
I agree that Barbarion Invasion is nothing more than a 30 euro MOD. A true expansion would have different voice overs you should be able to play RTW and BI from the same disc and menu and also would have new music befitting of the era this is a lazy MOD they use the animations from the ele and chariot attacks on the beserkers for pete's sake. Great new's for impatient teenagers, bad news for history channel fans and wargamers.

Compare this commercial package to Rome Total Realism or chivalry Total War.

I purchased Imperial Glory today...

[This message has been edited by Celtic Tiger (edited 10-03-2005 @ 06:37 PM).]

posted 03 October 2005 22:08 EDT (US)     4 / 42  
New review:

Your welcome

"It's called a retreat, not a defeat"
"Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde trembera" Napoleon Bonaparte
posted 04 October 2005 03:22 EDT (US)     5 / 42  
Great game, too bad there aren't really any (little) movies at the beginning of a campaign like there was for Rome: Total war, I Love the night battles, not that they make much difference but they're fun.
I like the whole christian, pagan (other thingy) thing But I'm kind of missing the greecks, I know it's realistic but I just really liked the greecks, not to play with them but to slaughter them, all of them


I love the game 8/10

posted 04 October 2005 11:12 EDT (US)     6 / 42  
Overall, a good expansion. New campaign with new factions, hording, night battles, ect. One thing that I don't like about the expansion is that many of the factions feel the same. The roman rebels are the same as the regular roman factions, the sarmations/roxolani/slavs are almost exactly the same, the goths/ostrogoths are the same, the burgundii/lombarii are the same and are much alike to the alemanii, thus I don't think that CA did that great of a job differenciating many of the barbarian factions. However, the campiagn and battle gameplay is still ripe, and the AI is improved. Just enough to keep us addicted.


posted 04 October 2005 19:25 EDT (US)     7 / 42  
They fixed the AI and added an amazing challenge. I easily give this 10/10. The original campaign is total shit compared to this one.
posted 04 October 2005 20:49 EDT (US)     8 / 42  

Review soon to come.

Adder |
"I would like to wonder if Adder always acts like a stuck up asshole?" - Coldviper
posted 05 October 2005 12:58 EDT (US)     9 / 42  
I agree it's largely a step sideways. A mod to step sideways and change the style of campaign gameply plus a patch is what it feels like.

RTW and bi are totally different styles. In RTW you started with little to very little and built your empire from the ground up. In bi you start with a large (possibly highly unstable) empire that you must save/expand or a roaming horde that can do almost anything it pleases.

I like building my empire up from almost nothing and thus prefer RTW in that respect. Maybe if I play as the Sassanids on vh/vh I will get to build my empire up (start with five settlements), have awsome units to choose from and have very strong opponents in the ERE and later WRE....

Overall bi is worth the money, considering how much time will be spent playing it. It's something new.

posted 05 October 2005 20:26 EDT (US)     10 / 42  


I agree that Barbarion Invasion is nothing more than a 30 euro MOD. A true expansion would have different voice overs you should be able to play RTW and BI from the same disc and menu and also would have new music befitting of the era this is a lazy MOD they use the animations from the ele and chariot attacks on the beserkers for pete's sake. Great new's for impatient teenagers, bad news for history channel fans and wargamers.
Compare this commercial package to Rome Total Realism or chivalry Total War.

I purchased Imperial Glory today...

I'll take that.

When you think of it, we have been VERY spoiled by the RTW modding community. For people that do this as a hobby, they do it well. I suggest you look at for some other high quality mods.

You have to ask yourself, what are we expecting for 30 dollars. We basically got a revised map, re-textured units, a new battle mode(night), new civilizations, and new campaign map features(hordes, breakaway empires, trigger empires etc), The Senate is gone and you can get a nice new capitol in the East.

The game actually compels me to play. There is challenge and uncertainty. THe well-established empires give a much needed kick-start. Also, when you destroy certain factions, you don't just waive goodbye and lord over the locals, infact, the Horde comes against you! I am so glad to fight now for my possessions! Also now you have to monitor your family for loyalty, and can now hire generals when it seems every family member is useless. :/

Some things i am neutral about: Command stars are very hard to get. While I don't think you should become Rommel because you beat up a rebel armies and got 2 cities, campaigning for 40 years and only ahving 3 command stars is pitiful. I hire generals and bite the financial bullet because even the EMPEROR OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE has 3 command stars, and gains another THREE at night. One side balances the other I suppose.

Rebel factions. I am not talking about the Roman rebels, I am just talking about the Joe SHmoe rebels. I do like hordes, but I don't like it when 1/3 of map is grey because a sacked city becomes a rebel city.

Of course, historically it could be worse. They do give the date of major christian events in the game. And units seem to accurately reflect Constantine's reforms.

Although as someone who see's the Comentarii de Gallo Bello (Gallic Wars) as a 3'rd bible, the second being A short History of the Byzantines, I do love my historical accuracy.

85%-90%. If you really love the series, than 95%, and if you are alightly biased then take my 85-90, and looking objectively at the game, I can understand 75%-85%.

p.s. Imperial Glory is RTW without sieges, and without battles of more than 3000 men.

Crusade! Our brothers in the East need out swords to subdue the Infidel! The Saracen defiles the Sepulchre and is at the gates of the Roman emperor!. Ride! Ride ye holy soldiers to Jerusalem! Byzantium calls for aid...Christ and the Virgin weep at the blood of martyrs spilled on holy pilgrimages! Crusade! -Medieval 2: Total War
posted 06 October 2005 19:03 EDT (US)     11 / 42  
And without tactics of any depth or any realistic depiction of Napoleonic warfare at all. As a Napoleonic warfare buff, I loathe the game.

Oh, and BI? I'm loving it. It plays very well and in some respects recalls M:TW style moments of play (and I'm not one of those who cries out for M:TW and nothing else - quite the opposite). It's varied, it's new, and it's shiny.

And it's fun. Many people forget that.

posted 11 October 2005 05:13 EDT (US)     12 / 42  
Gamespot Review (8.2/10).
posted 12 October 2005 10:22 EDT (US)     13 / 42  
BI is good as RTW is but not good as MTW VI 2.01 (except graphics).
Less number of provinces then RTW is not good news. Game is more complex and I can't play game fast as was RTW - not to mention MTW VI.
The greatest unhistoricness - Catholic and Orthodox priests in III and IV century! 700 years earlier then 1054. REALLY great work CA! We only need Protestant pastors and fun may began...
And camera is little strange.
I'm really disappointed. MTW VI rules with some good mode.
posted 16 October 2005 15:57 EDT (US)     14 / 42  
Wow, surprising amount of focus on the campaign. Especially since, in every game in the series, the campaign was an afterthought designed to give context to the battles rather than be the main feature.

That said, the campaign is hundreds of times better than the RTW one. The RTW one was sluggish and dull. Even on VH/VH, there was no serious challenge with the Romans. A couple of well maneuvered Hastati would slaughter Greeks, and once you had Greece you were set for the rest of the game. Additionally, you almost never fought battles. You just took five or six armies, beseiged a bunch of cities that had armies multiple the size of yours, and starved them to death. No work at all. Additionally, it became obvious slugging matches between bigger powers, while smaller powers were invariably steamrolled.

By comparison, the BI campaign is very dynamic. There are only a few actual knowns going into it. You know that the Huns and Vandals are going to cut a swath across Europe. You know that WRE starts out huge and will dwindle in power, which can be easily taken if you strike quickly. However, even if you build up a decent empire in Gaul or the Balkans, a big rebellion or a roaming horde can set you back, and you have to be constantly aware of this sort of thing. And Themi: you like building up from nothing, so why not play as Sax/Franks/Lomb/Celt/Alem/Burg/Sarms/Berbs? Especially if you don't horde, it's pretty tough.

Now, on to the more important factor: the battle engine. You don't notice the battle engine if you play the campaign as much, but for those of us in the MP crowd, the BI one is quite possibly the best. Especially since vanilla was arguably the worst. In RTW, one would take the 'best' units, as many as possible, and stack them. A successful MP army will resemble, more-or-less, the armies of the day. Plenty of cheap fodder and backbone units with some elite forces.

Additionally, there aren't nearly as bad of imbalances in BI. Perhaps you campaigners didn't notice it, but to us in the MP crowd, Desert Cav, Urbans, and their ilk made 90% of the units in the game obsolete. Playing as anybody other than Rome, Scythia, Greece, or Egypt was a good way to lose a battle regardless of what you actually did. Now, the closest thing to a loser faction is the WRE(ERE just seems better) and the Berbers, and I have seen effective Berbers(the return of the Hillmen notwithstanding). Additionally, no longer is a faction defined by a single unit. You knew when you saw a Roman being chosen that all you were going to see were urbans and a big chunk of Praetorian Cavalry. Scythians weren't really the nation of Scythia, they were a bunch of Head Hunting Maidens. And so on. Balance blew donkey balls. It's much, much better now.

Now, on to criticism. Historical is the big one, and there are some problems. Notably the Orthodox priests. Catholic priests, yes, they existed. The Orthodox church wasn't even conceived of. I know that Sarmatian women fought, they found archealogical evidence of that. Despite that, the importance and justification for the Virgin units is kind of...specious. The Romano British army is about 90% speculative, but I feel like they did an alright job. The Carriage Balistae MIGHT have existed, but we don't know that. When compared with things like Praetorian Cavalry, I feel I can overlook everything but the damn Orthodox priests.

They didn't bring back the Eras from Medieval, which I feel added alot to the game. It made balancing substantially more complicated but added some more depth to the MP army buiding. They also didn't bring back the Medieval torches, which were just fun.

Overall, I'd say this was a HUGE leap over RTW, a significant level ahead of both Shoguns, and better than regular Medieval. Better than VI? Not so sure. I've been having more fun with it than I did with VI, to be honest, but the campaign isn't nearly as complicated and fun. So I'd put it on equal footing with VI.

posted 16 October 2005 19:13 EDT (US)     15 / 42  
When you say VI I take it you mean Viking Invasion ? If so, I couldn't disagree with you more on the campaign. I thought it was pretty tedious to be honest. The Vikings were always a huge disappointment and hardly ever posed a serious strategic threat, the Saxons and and the guys in the Midlands who's name I forget were just too easy to play as, there wasn't enough factions and there was very little variety in the outcome of the campaigns. After the initial fun of fighting exclusively in Britain had worn off I was quite disappointed with it.

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side ? and ain't that a big enough majority in any town ?" - Huckleberry Finn
posted 16 October 2005 20:31 EDT (US)     16 / 42  
Well really, the weakness of the Total War format is that at a certain point, you can just crush everybody else, no hassle. Thus, the opening is the most important part. In RTW van, the campaign, well, sucked, because by midway through the short campaign you could simply outproduce everybody, even on VH, and the only way to keep it challenging at all was to use auto resolve every time so that you would lose without overwhelming local superiority. And even then, the only interesting ones were Numidia, Pontus, and Scythia. And that's arguable. Though in all honesty, if you're playing Total War for the campaigns and not for the battle simulator, do yourself a favor and buy Civilization or Alpha Centauri.

The thing that was interesting about MTW and VI was that your agents flowed like water, and bloodlines were often quite fragile. That, and you could truly invade at many points and storm an enemy nation, then had to worry about supplying reinforcements and the like. VI was interesting because the map was small and crowded, meaning frequent skirmishing, and the whole map was built so that invasions were completely ridiculous from a logistics point of view. Seemingly senseless beach landings, invasions that would bottleneck and flare out just because of the awkward borders, and all sorts of other things that kept the logistics interesting. I do concede that the Vikings were not nearly as threatening as they were made out to be, and other than the Picts, Scots, Welsh, and Irish, it hardly seemed worth bothering it was so easy.

The MTW campaign did have one 'feature' that always amused me: when you hit about 75% of the world(after the regular victory), you'd lose something like 120 loyalty from each province. I dont' know if it was a glitch on my computer and that of my friends, or if it was a bug that we were too lazy to patch(doubt that), but man it was funny to see 3k rebels in 30 different states. Then killing them all. Brutally.

posted 17 October 2005 03:29 EDT (US)     17 / 42  
I agree with quite a bit of your analysis, particularly about the weakness of the overall TW campaign format. You know I've never bothered to even play a game of RTW to the end yet. I played it a lot for a few months when it came out and every time I'd play until I reached a certain level where it was difficult to lose and then I'd suddenly lose interest. While I did manage to complete MTW a few times I usually didn't bother then either.

The main problem I found with the VI campaign was the lack of variety. Essentially every game seemed to pan out the same: Vikings cause havoc for about 5 turns but never settle any territory so eventually become an irrelevance, Scots and Picts hammer away inconsequentially at each other without either getting big enough to be a threat, Saxons and Angles (?) balance each other out until there's a big war between them and one of them ends up as a superpower, Irish take far too long to unify Ireland and then spend the rest of the game doing very little, Welsh do nothing at all. The only AI-controlled faction who's fortunes ever used to follow an unpredectible path were the Northumbrians, who occasionally managed to do well but usually didn't. Basically, the key to the game was just making sure you were sufficiently powerful by the time England had been unified so that you stood half a chance of beating the winner.

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side ? and ain't that a big enough majority in any town ?" - Huckleberry Finn
posted 17 October 2005 16:03 EDT (US)     18 / 42  
I do agree with that, really thinking about it. I actually didn't do a whole lot of VI campaigns. Though I have to say, the big thing that I feel was weak about it was the Vikings themselves. Simply put, their starting land sucked. They stood no chance of actually doing anything dangerous. They had some starting troops, and if they really wanted to they could beat the hell out of the Irish or Picts or Scots and grab a nice chunk of Celtic land, then build up and go from there. But the basic Viking land was simply too poor for them to sustain anything serious.

The main strength of the VI campaign, however, was that it was usually over when it was over. As opposed to many Medieval campaigns and especially the Rome campaign, where the campaign is, for all intents and purposes, over at the 20% mark.

posted 17 October 2005 17:19 EDT (US)     19 / 42  
As I recall, the way to win with the Vikings was fairly easy but needed to be done in a particular way that the AI is unlikely to think of. All that was needed was to go on a few raids, raise a shitload of cash, then move most of your force to conquer 3 or 4 territories in one of the corners, like southeast England, and hold onto them. Meanwhile you leave a small army to keep hopping about and doing little raids to keep the money ticking over until you get the economy up to speed in your new lands. It's really easy to do but the AI approach was just to keep hopping around from place to place, pissing all the money away and never getting established on the mainland.

I used to like playing as the Vikings mainly because they were the only faction which allowed any variety in their campaign. You could pick and choose where you wanted to settle down or keep moving, settling one place for a bit before smashing into somebody else.

"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side ? and ain't that a big enough majority in any town ?" - Huckleberry Finn
posted 16 November 2005 15:29 EDT (US)     20 / 42  
Well, I just beat the game with the Saxons and started with the Huns. I think at first glance (after the saxon run) I would give the game a 95/100. I would take off 5 for the small ammount of units available.

I started the Hun campaign (with a little trouble) and was rather disappointed. I know that everyone is awe-struck with them but without my bar at the bottom showing troups I wouldn't be able to distinguish the cavalry types from each other. Don't get me wrong, it was a lot of fun to play once I figured out who was who but it feels to me like the expansion lacked some detail.

After seeing the lack of detail in the hun units I decided to try multiplayer to get a sneak peek at the different factions. Personally, I think the romans have a LOT more depth than any other faction by a whole lot. A lot of the barbarian factions are exactly the same thing. Sure the colors may be different but in a lot of cases the units even have the same names and stats across factions. It looks like they started with the Romans and then realized they had spent so much time they needed to hurry up and make the hordes/barbs and get the game released.

Overall I would give a 90/100 but I can see why people give it an 80. Personally, if you don't like the sparkling and people flying way back from the beserkers, just don't zoom in that far. To get close enough to see that I find I can't keep an eye on any other troops anyways.

posted 23 November 2005 20:21 EDT (US)     21 / 42  
BI doesnt feel like an expansion pack from a proffesional company. It felt sort of like a mod made by a team of 5 people that changed only the major aspects of the game (night battles, factions, religion etc.) but still, it adds some new twists and events that still intertain me in the good old R:TW Fashion
posted 02 December 2005 07:58 EDT (US)     22 / 42  
Picking up on Carloz' call, the one great thing lacking in RTW is the MTW preponderance to have a massive and sudden revolt throughout your whole empire - it's the one thing that stopped the common complaint in this thread, that you reach a certain point of power and become unbeatable/lose interest. BI seems to redress that somewhat. But I reckon having profligate rebels littered around the countryside is a good way to prevent you becoming unbeatable - there should be plenty of energy spent quelling the natives. In MTW there were many times I had my frontline army stax rush home from the frontier provinces to quell insurgencies - that never happened with RTW, disappointingly.

I also liked the influence of religion in MTW (it was sadly lacking in VI) and glad to see it makes a come back in BI - pity about the historical inaccuracy. I agree that the family line should be more fragile - that would be one way to adress easy invincibility.

One other thing - RTW broke away from MTW's rigid province based movement, and each army traverses the countyside willy nilly, irrespective of provincial borders. This led to a strategic possibility that was never capitalised on by the game designers - the ability to create new settlements afresh. Provincial borders in RTW aren't useful for much, and if you could create new townships afresh (say, adding a 'new colony' ability to a unit or army of peasants) you'd have a great device for strategic differentiation. Obviously one shouldnt be able to create a new township within a certain proximity of another one, and in addition/compensation one should be able to destroy the fundamentals of other townships like walls, governors villas etc that are currently indestructible.

posted 22 December 2005 13:05 EDT (US)     23 / 42  

I like the Total War series and feel that each new game/expansion has improved the series. Barbarian Invasion is no exception to that.

Rome was a massive improvement on Medieval and Shogun mainly because the campaign map became moe important. With Rome one felt that you had gained substantial detail and realism, rather than playing an advanced form of Risk (which is all the Shogun and Medieval maps amounted to really).

As others have mentioned above, the extended gameplay has improved massively (except when playing with some of the hordes. It is very easy to win with the Vandals on VH/VH for instance). This is for a number of reasons, most of which have been touched on above.
Generals progress much more slowly. This is good. It was far too easy in Rome to gain exceptional leaders with soft victories over poor quality opposition.
Especially when playing as West or East Romans, revolts are now more serious and more management of cities and characters is necessary. With the West, a wide variety of opening gambits can be pursued rather than the simple land grab that Rome Tw was based on
Armies are much more balanced and one values elite troops more because of it.

The new problems are fairly minor really. The Orthodox priests are the most awful anachronism, the others don't really signify too much. Other things like the poor battle AI and code glitches seem to be fairly well fixed by the mods that one can access from this site.

Barbarian Invasion still misses the spot though. Much more could have been done with naval warfare. The autoresolve seems strangely random to me, except on the occasions where one has built a massive preponderance of force.
The campaign AI is simply not cunning enough. Too often weak forces attack or expose themselves to attack for no good purpose. This was a fault with Rome also.
The AI also 'cheats' by allowing itself to stack more units. This is a very cheap way of 'balancing' things. I fail to see why AI stacks could not coortdinate themselves to reinforce each other rather than overstacking (if you see what I mean).
I'm also pretty sure that the AI cheats by allowing itself to overspend on unit production/maintenance (and that it has done so in all versions of Total War when played on the maximum level of difficulty). Again I think this is an easy way out for the designers and detracts somewhat from an otherwise excellent series of games.

So like all the Total War games, BI is a flawed masterpiece. Better than its forebears because it builds on them. But it could be so much better.

7 out of 10 (but I'm a harsh marker, I've never played a computer strategy game that I'd rate higher).

posted 24 December 2005 21:47 EDT (US)     24 / 42  

Overall, Barbarian Invasion is a must have for any RTW owner, but it could've been much better.

While I disagree that BI is just a $30 mod, I think CA could have put some more effort into the expansion. Many of the units don't have new voices to reflect their unit names. For example, Limitanei call themselves "legionaries." Really, how much harder would it have been to add new voices?

In addition, while the campaign map itself is great, there is a distinct lack of settlements. The Eastern Roman Empire controlls 17 settlements at the beginning, yet they reign over all of Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and parts of the Middle East. In RTW, that would've amounted to (my guess) somewhere around 30 provinces! Whereas RTW had something around 7 cities in Greece, BI only has two! This is laziness, and had no excuse.

Lastly, there is a slight performance drop. In RTW, I could zoom into the middle of a battlefield between two armies and have no problems. In BI, if I zoom into the middle of a battlefield between two or more units, the game lags slightly. The only way I've found to cure this is keep my system defragged constantly, which should not be necessary. Granted, my computer is not necessarily that advanced, but when CA says there shouldn't be a drop in performance, I beg to differ.

Still, for everything flawed in the expansion, the game also reaches new heights. The new buildings and units look awesome, and so far as the units, they look more rounded and "human" than their predecessors. Furthermore, the new religion system adds a new component to the game never (AFAIK) before seen. You actually get to literally play God. How fun!

I guess Furius Venator summed it up best when (s)he said BI is a flawed masterpiece.

(¯`•._.•[ .:^:. ]•._.•´¯)
KaiserWinterfeldt ¨‘°ºO.:.Oº°‘¨
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt & Jet Jetboy Winterfeldt
(¯`•._.•[ .::. ]•._.•´¯)

[This message has been edited by KaiserWinterfeldt (edited 12-25-2005 @ 10:52 PM).]

posted 24 December 2005 22:22 EDT (US)     25 / 42  


Whereas RTW had something around 7 cities in Greece, BI only has two! This is laziness, and has no excuse.

Ah, but that has to deal with history. Athens and Thessalonica were, at that time, obviously more significant by far than any other Greek city, like Sparta or Corinth. It's just a point of history, methinks.

Oldie from RTWH!
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Total War Heaven » Forums » Barbarian Invasion Discussion » The Barbarian Invasion Review Thread - Post Your Review HERE!
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register
Hop to:    
Total War Heaven | HeavenGames