Although computers are my trade I don't get the spare time amongst my other hobbies to sit down and immerse myself in a game for long periods of time. In fact most of my games will be circa 2005 or earlier.
However a few of these titles have a long lasting appeal such as Rome Total War, a game which had great potential but did not fill the "wargaming hole" in me (see below):
The game has various features, excellent graphics being the most obvious but it's command and control verges on the "arcade twitchy" approach that could be tweaked rather than a time-delayed "simulation" of frustration. The army composition also allows non-historical mixtures as it is just based on a points based shopping cart which leads to cheesy choices IMHO but I may be wrong there.
The game has various features, excellent graphics being the most obvious but it's command and control verges on the "arcade twitchy" approach that could be tweaked rather than a time-delayed "simulation" of frustration. The army composition also allows non-historical mixtures as it is just based on a points based shopping cart which leads to cheesy choices IMHO but I may be wrong there.
However by combining the DBA army lists with its game play (i.e. choosing twelve element armies based on DBA army lists rather than equal points)I managed to get what I consider "stable battles" I can sit back and watch. A good classic is Republican Rome v Cathage viz Cannae. I managed to win using what I consider viable "historical tactics" (from both sides, admittedly when I was the Romans I assumed my cavalry would be beaten in a straight up fight so my flank legions were angled to protect my flanks) against its 'logical Vulcan' AI, now "sadly" that is what I want from a computer wargame ;)
Fun was had and I could even bear to stand to watch the replay again!
Fun was had and I could even bear to stand to watch the replay again!