Aggressors: Ancient Rome
This review is actually a Thank you letter to the developer for making this game.
For unbiased reviews skip this one.
I think it was 25 years ago that most of my school holiday time was used to do what I really like. Gaming. But I did not had my first PC yet, so gaming was spending one day in the city to collect all kind of painting materials and paperboards to create the ultimate game myself.
The Civilization boardgame, HeroQuest boardgame and some rare tabletop games I owned served as an example. But mine had a bigger boards, more options, more counters and features, more of everything actually.
– Real player with 562.4 hrs in game
Read More: Best 4X Strategy Games.
Aggressors - Ancient Rome
This obscure historical game is turn based strategy / tactics to dominate the world starting in 280 BC by default, but adustable from 1000 BC to 500 AD. It is single player and is my personal choice for game of the year. I have played it for over 480 hours in the past 60 days. It is published by Slitherine and available through them, on Steam and GOG.
Where I am coming from
–———————————–
I am the curator of Strategic Win https://store.steampowered.com/curator/9074928/ and have reviewed 142 games there in the past 2 years. I bought this game from Matrix games.
– Real player with 521.5 hrs in game
Total War: ROME REMASTERED
~ DIFFICULTY ~
🔲 My 90 year old grandma could play it
🔲 Easy
✅ Normal
✅ Hard
✅ Dark Souls
It can be changed to hard or Dark Souls depending of your difficulty settings and your faction choice.
~ GRAPHICS ~
🔲 Graphics don’t matter in this game
🔲 MS Paint
🔲 Bad
🔲 Meh
✅ Good
🔲 Beautiful
🔲 Masterpiece
~ MUSIC ~
🔲 Soundless
🔲 Just SFX
🔲 Not special
🔲 Bad
✅ Good
🔲 Beautiful
~ STORY ~
🔲 This game has no story
✅ Like playing Temple Runners for the story
🔲 It’s there for the people who want it
– Real player with 156.2 hrs in game
Read More: Best 4X Strategy Games.
Even with it’s problems it is the best way to play Rome Total War. Wish the new menus and intros were better and wish it got more updates and also that co-op campaigns would be added. Other than that it’s a great looking game and a lot of fun.
– Real player with 153.7 hrs in game
Field of Glory: Empires
Field of Glory:Empires is a good game and a great one when paired with Field of Glory II. I’ve owned the latter for over a year and have enjoyed it but it is spectacular now that stakes are involved. The purchase of this game is worth it just for the improvements to FoG2 as it really captures the ebb and flow of tactical battles during this era better than any game I’ve ever owned (including the Total War which IMO only becomes better for gunpowder era battles).
I could gush about FoG2 but this review is about the base Empires game and my feelings there are a little mixed. My initial impression was overwhelmingly positive but I wanted to play an entire game before fixing my opinion and I’ve found issues there the further you go into the game.
– Real player with 630.8 hrs in game
Read More: Best 4X Strategy Games.
I’ve edited this review to become a response to the most upvoted negative review because that review does not permit comments. That review was written by @Saber_6 and can be found here:
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198006747725/recommended/1011390/
Random Selected Objectives: They aren’t random. They seem to instead be based off of a combination of geographic proximity, historical conquests, and ethnic/government type affiliation. For example, when I played as Syracuse the objectives were first the rest of sicily, then tarentum, then epirus and massalia, and finally they extended to much of the hellenic world, with the result that you create a Hellenic Mediterranean city state league. When I played as the Picts the objectives were the rest of what is now scotland, and then expanded into the greater celtic areas in northern ireland and Brittany, and then out to the rest of britain and ireland, and then into coastal northern Europe. As Carthage I got objectives to secure southern and easter spain, sicily, sardinia, corsica, southern italy, etc…you get the point. They aren’t random at all. Random would be like if Hibernia was given an objective in India or something like that. Can you tell us what nations with what objectives you are referring to?
– Real player with 533.5 hrs in game
Legion Gold
Really cool - suits me down to the ground. I had never played this (or even really heard about it back when it was released) so it was a new experience entirely.
Battles are simple - you give your troops a placement, a formation and advance/hold orders. When battle begins, you have no direct control over your units, in what the manual describes as an accurate depiction of a large-scale battle where commanders could not adequately give orders in the heat of the fray. When setting up your regiments, however, you do have to take into account the terrain your soldiers will be fighting on, and it’s necessary to refer to the included manual on this.
– Real player with 37.1 hrs in game
If you like this type of game, it is still fun to play.
Yes 8 hours is not much as yet. However i have played SPARTAN on retail version many hundreds of hours.
LEGION is what I expected it to be, similar to SPARTAN in gameplay, interface, and visuals. I has less depth than SPARTAN, as the latter has a more elaborate diplomacy, more and different types of resources, a trade option and a tech tree.
Buy it on sale though, scenarios are limited and there is no grand campaign feature to conquer the ancient world.
– Real player with 20.4 hrs in game
Demise of Nations
This game is very interesting it’s really fun and it reminds me of Age of Empires 2 and Rome Total War. I love how you expand your borders by moving across the map that is so cool. One thing I really don’t like about the game is unit health; I will use RTW as an example. In that game it is pure strategy like using the higher ground or using a pincher type move and so to win a battle instead of how much health your unit has. I have a few suggestions for the developers. 1) There are far to many farms and not enough other resources. In order to get a decent amount of other resources available in the game the whole map is nearly all farms. So my suggestions is to have a capability of making areas into resources like example prospecting a mountain or how dense a forrest is. 2) Put in Trading land and cities. 3) Have a capability of building roads for trade routes to other factions similar to RTW (Basically I will suggest them to play RTW to get some ideas). For trading to other factions have some things on the map like wine, textiles, and other stuff to trade to other factions for gold or for other important resources you need that you can’t obtain in the areas you control. 4) Have factions return if a place revolts if a faction has been defeated and add more factions that would be cool to. 5) Have each faction have a couple of unique buildings and units that other factions can’t get. For example the Celts can have druids and since Gaul is similar barbaric people they can have armored swordsman or something like that.
– Real player with 465.3 hrs in game
When I first got this game, I liked it, but thought it was just an ok game. I was wrong, the game is absolutely amazing (unless you hate strategy games).
It is a little difficult to see, but the graphics are pretty good, especially in-game. There are lots of different factors and numbers, such as groundwater, which either you like, or you can ignore and still play the game fine.
I like strategy games however, and I think this is one of the best ones on steam. It is very straight forward if you want it too be, yet there is a lot of content that you could pay attention to if you wanted. I also love one of the developer’s other games.
– Real player with 296.6 hrs in game
Rome: Total War™ - Collection
RTW has an epic feel.
As of today, this game is nearly eleven years old. So, the battle graphics are not as crisp as newer titles, the historicity of some units is sketchy (or just made up), and it seems that multiplayer is not smooth in Steam. Fortunately, none of these mean a thing to me. The heart of the game is in the grand strategy and the personal narrative.
With over a hundred regions in which to play, the strategic game is where RTW shines. You need to plan where you will expand and where you will defend… and then be ready to adapt when the AI does not do what you expect. You may be the pawn of the Senate and serve at their beck and call. You might try to expand against the weak. You can follow the trade routes to gain riches through conquest. You will find yourself occupying regions merely to stymie your enemies (and your allies). Or you might work your way towards all seven Wonders to reap their benefits.
– Real player with 1982.0 hrs in game
Classic game, it uses a realistic battle engine which simulates battles down to minute details, in a way no longer found in newer engines which depend apon flashy graphics to generate interest. The sheer effort put into this game really tells you its creators cared about it they were not just throwing something flashy out there to get as much money as possible. The game makes up for its old and ancient graphics with interesting game mechanics that you just DONT get in the newer RTS games with intricate tactical aspects in addition to intriacate strategic ones. since so much attention has been given to FPS games in recent years. The game is well made and it shows. In modern total wars and other RTS games, troops getting into 1v1 cinimatic fights where thy slide around on the map rather than recreating actual formation dynamics and combat in a believeable way as Rome 1 does. In Rome 1 TW you don’t just have static groups of people fighting in one spot like other games, your troop formations collide and dudes go flying, people get knocked down. The larger force slowly pushes the smaller one back while its formation fluxuates, troops arrange sheilds to defend against attackers leaving weakspots open to well positioned archers. Every part of the strategic map is mapped out into battle maps that mirror that place on the stratiegic map. I am not talking you get a different set of cookie cutter template battle maps depending on your region NO!!! I mean the battle map is an EXACT copy of the terrain on the stategic map. You see a hill on the over all map and move your army to it so the enemy will attack you on ground you choose that hill is on the battle map valleys mountain you name it the battle is in that spot not a faximally of that spot THAT SPOT. The same goes for citys, each is unique and grows in unique ways and this shows on the siege map. Build something in a city and its on the battle map, if a saboteur destroys something it is destroyed on the battle map, Your family members/ generals grow as a result of the situations you put them in becoming complex individuals, put them in a big city with librarys and academys and they may become a soft person but a good organizer, or maybe if the city is a religious center he may become pious or slowly go insane, or become blood thirsty if you constantly send him into battle and he gets kills in said battles (yes even what he does in the battles matters). Another really cool mechanic is that when you recruit units the men are taken from the local populus and when disbanded the men generally resettle in that region! and city level is determined by population so recruit to many from a populas and the city will grow slowly while inversely you can move your populus around to level up citys. Another difference from newer games is the factions, they are few in number compared to the scores of factions in newer games but each faction in very unique, with some factions sharing cultures and others with similar but different cultures. Each culture has a unique city style ect.
– Real player with 1183.0 hrs in game