Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

**Quintus Of Pompeii** · 01-25-2007, 20:06

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

post what u think

**Veho Nex** · 01-25-2007, 20:12

I think your on some *BAD STUFF* but considering the fact that STW is the very first of the total war series its extremely good. rome was kind of lame. and MTW still doesnt compare to STW at least in my book but if your going to diss a game at least give reasons instead of

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

Like i dont like RTW because

A| Rome sucked(my opinion)
B| You dont get the full access of what happened in rome and why it truly fell
C| no composite bows

Devoloped by romans which made roman auxilia powerfull

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 01-25-2007, 20:33

Hi,
I am sorry to point this out, but this is not an especially constructive thread, is it...

I can see the

emerging any moment.

Please justify your opinion and back it up with valid reasons so we can understand what you dislike about S:TW and explain/help you get the best out of your game. Thanks.

**Quintus Of Pompeii** · 01-25-2007, 20:46

I'm sorry

**Gregoshi** · 01-26-2007, 00:52

Hey Quintus, you don't have to like STW to post here, but if you are going level criticism (or praise), it helps the discussion if you state some reasons for your opinion.

So...why do you say STW is the worst of the series. What is it about the game that you don't like? What prevents STW from being more enjoyable for you?

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 01-26-2007, 04:13

**Noir** · 01-26-2007, 05:03

Very funny that someone would post this in the sword dojo that tends to be
a nice quiet place for dedicated fans to share thoughts-info-views-opinions and even feelings about their soft spot...

Just to answer the question although the OP is maybe

trolling, STW is the most clear expression of the TW concept and the most well executed one in terms of balance, detail, atmosphere and immersiveness. It also happens to be set in one of the most interesting periods in history that has the unique advantage to be out of the martetable range of knights - orcs - LORT - warcraft style in which CA came back running (in their preliminary interviews for MTW they sounded very... proud declaring "you can associate with the battlefield (in Europe) now...").

The tactical aspect and the gameplay in Shogun are absolutely stunning,
something that TW releases past RTW cannot exactly claim to have accomplished.

STW remains the best TW game for me; MTW wins on technical engine competence and features (that make it the default best engine for mods), however the balanced gameplay and incredible atmosphere of Shogun has yet to be repeated or even come close to as far as i am concerned.

RTW was simply awful. It was the mods that injected life in that game both in the battlefield and the campaign - but of course that was up to a point. No matter how much i've tried to get enjoyment out of it, it wouldn't just be possible on the battlefield as the engine is quite crippled comparing to the firtst one (the campaign can be changed to suit your taste more or less). M2 is a very similar case and it will probably end up the same way.

**caravel** · 01-26-2007, 13:22

Originally Posted by Quintus93

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

Unmodded RTW is a load of rubbish to many players. To me it's decidedly average, had potential but is severely flawed in many areas. Even when modded it still lacks atmosphere and the campaign map game is still much the same tedious micromanaging kiddy game, which I can tolerate but don't enjoy. To some though, it is the best TW, and that is often down to it's visuals and campaign game. RTS players can better relate to the RTW campaign map than the STW/MTW one. The STW campaign compared to the MTW is very simplistic indeed. There are no generals' traits, no general's stats - only command. There are no ships, no trade, no real use of religion, no titles, no loyalty, no per province taxation, no marriages, no civil wars, etc etc etc. To the player that enjoys the campaign map game above the battles STW would be worse than MTW. Both MTW and STW compared to the newer generation of TW games are very simplistic. RTW's campaign map has become very RTS like. It has many features similar to a Civ game such as populations of settlements, squalor, food production from farmland that is not just a source of florins. STW/MTW did not deal with populations the population were a non entity. A province had a loyalty stat which represented how loyal the provine was to the faction, and that's it.

Redesigning the Total War campaign map in this way is not popular with all players. Some see it as "progress". I don't. A winning formula should stuck to. You don't have people redesigning chess or football. Why should TW be any different?

**Noir** · 01-26-2007, 14:53

originally posted by Caravel
A winning formula should stuck to.

Its being stuck to Caravel, M2 is proof enough of that

(It just happens to be the RTS one)

**caravel** · 01-26-2007, 17:51

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

Its being stuck to Caravel, M2 is proof enough of that

(It just happens to be the RTS one)

Well now that they've widended their consumerbase, they'll definitely stick with it (what some would call selling out to the RTS and Civ/AoE crowd). There's not alot you can do about it though, they'll never resurrect the risk map, as it's only a few loons like myself that still like it. We're not important because we're not buying anything new, out opinions don't count as we're the previous generation.

**Veho Nex** · 01-26-2007, 18:38

I kind of like Risk map and the newer ones(dunno name) but i only like them cause were u fight depicts battle type and ambushes(still haven't been able to do one in rtw)(any hints message me) but i love the fog and the ambience in STW which makes it one of the better(my opinion) TW games because im not a big fan of Europe(unless your WW2) but what truly made STW was the ninja and genjai(err the elite soldier(thingy(type man) guy man)maybe ganjai). I also think they did firing wall(for muskets) extremely well * I remember one time my men were standing in perfect order as Takeda heavy cavalry charged down upon me. They got closer and closer and closer. Then the order came out "FIRE" a wall of musket shots came out causing mass casualties among the enemy ranks then you here "FIRE!" again and more of the enemy troops dropped to the ground. Then out of the hills charge my Yari and Naginata cavalry to pound into the diminished and ruined enemy ranks. I defeated the enemy losing only 115 men
(Few cavalry skipped through my ranks for a bit). It as if put in RTW would have been a legendary battle.* ahhhhh so much fun ok i need to play it right now!!! good bye!!!

**Noir** · 01-26-2007, 18:41

Orignally posted by Caravel
Well now that they've widended their consumerbase, they'll definitely stick with it (what some would call selling out to the RTS and Civ/AoE crowd). There's not alot you can do about it though, they'll never resurrect the risk map, as it's only a few loons like myself that still like it. We're not important because we're not buying anything new, out opinions don't count as we're the previous generation.

Agreed with every word, but does it really matter when you fire the game up?

I'll play the two older games till i get completely sick of them, which considering the mods available and that multiplayer exists (even in a coma state) will take a very very long time.

Let them have cake instead

@ Jkarinen : it was kensai (sword saint)

Edit = a few necessary Italics in

**Veho Nex** · 01-27-2007, 01:47

ok thank you

@ Jkarinen : it was kensai (sword saint)

**Quintus Of Pompeii** · 01-28-2007, 00:00

Okay, i seem to be getting the point.

I apologise for posting this thread, it was a very "N00bish" thing to do. If you are all very dedicated S:TW fans I deeply appologise. If we was in the era of the samurai and in the middle of japan i would take my own life for my shame. I have lost my honour. Sorry Again

Quintus

**Noir** · 01-28-2007, 01:37

No problem Quintus.

I am well aware that we all sound a bit like...

bad mothers in law, but
there are reasons for that as there are reasons why it is believed that STW is actually in many senses superior to the the newer releases.

As we've all been vague and theoretical about it well, i am happy to discuss it more in detail if you.. survive your intended harakiri.

I've been called nostalgic, wearing rose tinted glasses etc etc for liking STW and MTW more than the newer games and for saying that the newer games are inferior. But i don't do it because i am a "hardcore" - its just because i get enjoyment out of them, while its not the case with the newer ones.

Always at your service

**Puzz3D** · 01-28-2007, 03:33

The battles were very good in original STW both in SP and MP. The battles were what STW was all about, and the AI was quite good in deciding how large an army to bring when attacking which really helped make the SP battles challenging. The MP battles were very interesting and very well balanced, and the MP game attracted many high quality players. I think the battles are less good in STW/MI because the guns were not adequately tested for the v1.02 patch, so they were not weakened enough to get back to original STW gameplay. The effectiveness of guns was tripled in STW/MI for no good reason because guns alone would never have been able to stop a cav charge the way they can in STW/MI, and I know for a fact that it was not intended for them to be able to do so by those who balanced the v1.02 patch. Weapon and armor upgrades were introduced, but there was a huge error in the calculation of the cost of those upgrades which meant the weakest unit in the game became the most powerful unit via those upgrades. Multiplayer participation dropped like a lead balloon from over 100 players online on weekends to less than 40. This wasn't people drifting away because they were tiring of the game. It was a precipitous and sudden drop. There were also ominous signs for the future with the introduction of gimmicky units such as the battlefield ninja and kensai. If you study the combat and morale system of STW, you'll see that it isn't suited for handling small units especially one man units, and having a unit like the ninja be invisible when there is no cover and carry 100 ammo is extreme fantasy.

With MTW, it became apparent that tactical battles were diminishing in quality in Total War, although the strategic campaign was improving. The emphasis on the battlefield changed from winning by superior strategy and tactics to winning by bringing the better units. Having a large number of unbalanced unit types had become more important than having a small number of well balanced units. MP participation gradually rose to substantially above what it had been in original STW at it's peak. At that point, it was clear that the game would never return to having a few well balanced units, and it was clear that CA was not going to be able to balanced the large number of units they were now putting into the game. In SP, the tactically important seasons were discarded, and this also adversely impacted the ecomomic strategy of having income only once every 4 turns. Artillery was introduced, but the AI wasn't improved enough to handle it well. This foreshadowed a trend of introducing features without creating and adequate AI to handle those features which was to have disastrous effect in the next Total War game.

RTW was the nadir for tactical battles in Total War. The 3D men were introduced without an adequate combat model for them. The AI used simplified tactics, no longer knew how to coordinate two armies and ran its men around until they were exhausted. On top of that, there were outlandish fantasy units in the game, and outrageous "effects" like incinerating men, exploding rocks, horses jumping high into units, elephants throwing men 100 feet or more through the air, chariots that moved faster than horses and movement speeds that were unrealistic and made it impossible to control all 20 units individually during the height of a battle. The battle engine was simplified so it lost some important features for simulating combat. The strategic AI doesn't know how to handle army movement on the new style map. There were 10x more bugs in RTW v1.0 than in any other Total War game (over 100 bugs were fixed in the RTW v1.2 patch and that didn't get all of them), and the game was finally left with a serious civil war bug that will ruin a campaign for you if you don't know about it.

M2TW, is improved over RTW, but right now it doesn't look good for the tactical gameplay. The engine is still missing important features that were in the original game, and now you have the silly game mechanic where men wait their turn to fight an opponent. CA still hasn't demonstrated that they can balance the plethora of units they are putting in the game. MP popularity is higher than ever before, but only one player in my clan is willing to purchase the game, and this is a clan that was formed in Dec 2000, played Total War MP continuously for 5 years and which has had members on many CA beta teams over the years. SP campaign has become a game of massive micromanagement, but relatively little challenge except to do all that micromanaging.

I think the customer base has been expanded by making the newer versions of Total War appeal to younger players. That means simplifying the gameplay. I don't mean in terms of the number of commands you have to issue either on the strategic map or on the tactical battlefield. I mean in terms of how many parameters you have to coordinate. In original STW, you had to coordinate 16 units to a high degree within a more complex battle system. I played enough original STW MP to see that it was the players who coordinated their units the best who won. It wasn't the players who issued commands the fastest, although speed was important as long as you also had the ability to manage all 16 units. A 12 year old is not adept at multitasking. That ability isn't well developed in a person until much later. I knew one 14 year old who was very good at original STW, but he was an exception because most players of his age would not be equal to an older STW player of average ability. Likewise on the strategic map, having lots of things to do is just "make work" if making right decisions is too easy because the gameplay doesn't require you to coordinate the relationships of multiple parameters and project that assessment accurately far into the future.

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 01-28-2007, 08:57

Well said Puzz3D!

**Noir** · 01-28-2007, 14:49

Another great post by Puzz3D

I agree with the younger costumers comment although i think that Caravel has also a fair point regarding people that are fond of the traditional RTS format and gameplay being attracted to TW everince Rome. It just feels that they've excluded all the reasons somebody would have not to buy the game that is the steep learning curve for battles, the simple graphics, the relatively slow and action-less battle gameplay (that in the eyes of a newcomer it feels like "where's the excitement" i guess), the 2D risk map system and adding endless little jiggles of all sorts in the campaign.

Relative to the old graphics, perhaps they are perfect for a true tactical wargame as are the older controls and camera views.

It seems that most people that play the new games, play zoomed in 50% of the time - if not more - which in tactical terms is suicide. But they make up for it with "pausing" repeatedly apparetly or even stay pasued, which is simply ridiculus if one thinks that this was seldom necessary in the older engine.

**Puzz3D** · 01-28-2007, 18:43

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

I agree with the younger costumers comment although i think that Caravel has also a fair point regarding people that are fond of the traditional RTS format and gameplay being attracted to TW ever since Rome.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if CA had been up front about the change of direction. I called it a "new vision" back in Sept 2005, and MikeB was quick to jump on that and deny it. CA apparently wanted the Total War veterans to purchase the game, and that's why the shift to RTS style gameplay was downplayed. Now they are still pushing that same line about making M2TW appeal to veterans, and yet the gameplay is still RTS. Most of the Total War veterans I know don't want RTS gameplay.

**Martok** · 01-28-2007, 19:33

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I wouldn't have a problem with that if CA had been up front about the change of direction. I called it a "new vision" back in Sept 2005, and MikeB was quick to jump on that and deny it. CA apparently wanted the Total War veterans to purchase the game, and that's why the shift to RTS style gameplay was downplayed. Now they are still pushing that same line about making M2TW appeal to veterans, and yet the gameplay is still RTS. Most of the Total War veterans I know don't want RTS gameplay.

Well said as always, Puzz.

Unfortunately, my then-roommate and I were two of those veterans suckered into purchasing Rome, not realizing just how fundamentally the gameplay had changed from Shogun and Medieval. While my friend and I take full responsibility for our own foolishness -- it's not like we couldn't have seen the new direction the TW series was taking had we not deluded ourselves -- I agree it would have been awfully nice if CA had simply told us what they were actually intending. Yes, we might have felt abandoned, but better that than both abandoned *and* betrayed/lied to. I realize I'm probably being a little melodramatic in saying that, yet I do feel it accurately reflects the feelings many of us had when Rome was released. We were hoodwinked, and bitterness over it still lingers, even two years later.

For as much as Medieval is my favorite of the TW games (I confess I'm a sucker for the time period), I can't deny the truth about it being inferior to Shogun in a number of ways. Whether you're referring to the AI, unit balance, atmosphere, etc., STW will probably forever remain the overall best out of the series.

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 01-28-2007, 21:52

I suppose now CA has gone to the RTS format, which although I like, I came to the TW seiries from RTS, nothing will cause them to return to the classic style.

I agree with you Martok, although I have not played S:TW, that M:TW style system were much better than the new R:TW one. I cannot speak from the side of veterans, I have only being playing the TW series for a year now, yet I agree with most of what you guys have said - the TW seiries did go for flashy graphics over gameplay, yet that appeals to the younger audience and drastically increased the popularity of the seiries henceforth getting more cash and revenue from the game - I can understand their resoning for doing that, most prefer action over tactics - some, such as I, don't - in my opinion, although nice graphics are good, they never can possibly make a game what it is. What would be nice to see would be a sort of M2:TW/M:TW hybrid with the wonderful battle system of M:TW fused together with the graphics of M2:TW. That dream of mine, however, will probably never become a reality.

**caravel** · 01-29-2007, 01:40

Puzz3D has said it all.

RTW as a game failed the TW veterans in three main areas IMHO.

Firstly, and some might say most importantly, it failed those that were anticipating cutting edge AI improvements both on the campaign map and in the battles themselves.

The second failue was the campaign map design, vaunted by many as a significant improvement. It's only an improvement if you like those kind of games. The people that love it are also playing Civ4 or something similar, this is why. Personally I deset RTS basebuilding and Civ type games. For me such a game is nothing short of a nightmare. I even prefer role playing games such as Baldurs Gate or FPS games to those. Players like myself whom had grown very accustomed to the risk map felt let down by the new RTW map that all the appearances of a sell out to the RTS consumerbase. Instead of defining it's own genre it appeared as though RTW was trying to be TW, Civ, AoE and others all at once, but failing to be any of them. The decisiveness of the risk map was it's greatest merit. You would drop your stack into a province, end the turn and fight the battle, or not fight it. No messing about, no micromanagement. That was how it worked. There was no sneaking about, crossing borders, bumping into rebels, no fog of war no fancy animations and it worked perfectly. The risk map simply needed more refinement. More importantly it was a model that Programmed Opponent can work with, the RTW simply is not. When the typical RTW players are asked about how the map could be improved they often cite "real time" as their most preferred improvement. This says it all. RTW captured a different market and brought in alot of RTS players. Their wants will now dominate what CA produces in the future. Because these type of players know nothing of strategy and only want to point and cli-cli-cli-click, AI will never improve because there's no need to improve it.

The third failure, which I don't need to go into any detail about, is the battles. This is partly AI also, though also a balancing and general design problem. So obsessed with getting 3D men onto the field, so intent on the player being able to zoom in and look at these 3D men, and so focused on the visuals... what happened to the battles? Well alot of people think they're great. I suppose some people just like to ram some poor generic looking sods with their cavalry and see them shoot in all directions. Maybe it's not challenge they seek, but effect? So long as it looks good it must be ok? Motorcycle Cavalry that move like a flock of swans... Gah...

This, and the fact that my graphics card belongs in a museum, is mainly why I don't bother with RTW. Even modded it still annoys me.

Ok Martok, walking sticks at the ready, form a phalanx...

**Martok** · 01-29-2007, 08:34

Originally Posted by Caravel

Ok Martok, walking sticks at the ready, form a phalanx...

Sure thing! Just give me a moment while I switch over to full-on grumping old man mode....

**Tony Furze** · 01-29-2007, 13:02

Having managed to get RTW to work decently enough to play it long enough to say something: I just dont go back to it. I dont feel like playing it.

MTW is my favourite because the mix is right-just right.

The only and only reason I dont go to Shogun more often is-wait for it - (you ll love this , Martok and Caravel ) the little guys are too, too, too small and my aging eyesight is too weak!!!! So basically its my problem.

If Shogun could be released exactly as it is but with an MTW camera and unit figure size, I d be at it day and night.

**caravel** · 01-29-2007, 13:11

This looks to be a great mod that I haven't played as yet. Take a look.

**Tony Furze** · 01-31-2007, 02:18

-OO- Thanks

**Puzz3D** · 01-31-2007, 07:07

Originally Posted by Tony Furze

If Shogun could be released exactly as it is but with an MTW camera and unit figure size, I d be at it day and night.

Samurai Wars: MTW camera, MTW unit size, MTW diplomacy and strategy enhancements, Shogun units, Shogun strategy map, Shogun battle maps, more clans, no four seasons, no Shogun weather effects.

**econ21** · 01-31-2007, 10:27

Just to inject a contrary note: I think STW was the worst in the series; certainly it is the TW game I've had the longest but spent the least time playing. I take the points about the MP battles, but I've never played one so that's not a factor for me.

For a SP campaign, STW had the best atmosphere - both on the campaign map and on some of the glorious battle maps (Shinano! the weather, the fog, the music, the ambushes etc). It also had the most challenging competition from the AI. It's rather hard to lose a later TW game; rather easy for me to lose STW (the Hojo horde will often stomp me at the end).

But as a sandbox, STW was the least interesting to play in. The unit variety, the faction variety, the strategic possibilities were all greatly reduced compared to MTW. All TW games suffer, IMO, from being a little too focused on repetitive battles (yes, I know it says "Total War" on the tin, so I can't complain but it does get exhausting). I can replay the STW campaign about half a dozen times, but once I'd run through the factions, there was less to keep my attention.

MTW greatly improved the SP campaign - you were not compelled to salami slice up Japan, but could zap around a full map of Europe, crusading, facing down Mongols etc. There was at least more pretence of diplomacy and something other than total conquest with the glorious achievements. These aspects meant that MTW spurred the creation of fascinating "succession" PBM games in the Throne Room. STW has not spawned one - the SP game just does not lend itself to role-playing, story-telling or cooperative play.

RTW maybe the worst out of the box for some of the reasons given by other posters, but has been completely redeemed by the mods. Variants like RTR and EB make it a better historical strategy game than MTW. The innovation of the campaign map is crucial here - tastes vary, but for me, an abstract "Risk-style" map does not provide the immersion and feel of military campaigning. The detail of the unit graphics is another factor. It's surely no coincidence than RTW has attracted vastly more modders input than earlier engines. I don't think it's that the game is in more need of total conversion mods (although that is true) - it's that it is a better platform for them. The battle AI even in the mods, is still less challenging than in earlier games, it is true. But this is offset by the gloriously rendered detail and battle experiences that very closely resemble those of MTW. If you stranded me on a desert island, I'd rather have EB or RTR than MTW or STW.

M2TW is like the implications of the French revolution - too early to tell. The AI seems to have regained some of its MTW bite, in both the battles and the campaign. The game seems as rich, if not richer, in features than MTW (the faction rosters are more unique). The battles are better paced than RTW, although balancing awaits the next patch. I suspect it may be the best game of the series, at least if CA gives modders the tools to do a full conversion (AFAIK, they still can't edit the unit graphics).

**caravel** · 01-31-2007, 13:21