Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

[Noir]

Originally posted by Puzz3D

The campaign starts in 1530, and by 1538 I've killed both the Imagawa and Hojo daimyos eliminating both clans. The Imagawa daimyo died in my first battle with them, and the Hojo daimyo in my second battle with them.

I protect enemy daimiyos with my life in STW battles because the game becomes very easy once they die and they die like flies in battle.

It's funny to be more anxius to tell the gunners to stop firing because the enemy Daimiyo is insisting again to lead the charge, than to win the battle. Sometimes they die with the last volley that comes off by the teppos' seconds before i tell them to halt.

In MTW its indeed great and in SWs its even better - the general is behaving like an SI (superior intelligence) by staying close to the fight, but not close enough to be risky and deploying his hatamoto at the right time in the right place.

They are also hard to catch or kill even if you isolate them.

It was very frustrating that in RTW, the clock was reset and suddenly all those problems came out anew.

[Puzz3D]

(I am going way off topic here, but I hope this can be indulged, as getting better battles is arguably the most important issue with TW....)

What do you identify as the "best choices" XGM made for modding RTW? (Particularly those that are better than rival mods)?

I'm curious because I have not played XGM but other mods are still to some extent works in progress and might be improved by learning from it.

A lot of it is tweaking, but the global changes are: turn off fatigue, movement speed reduction (all mods do that), modest lethality reduction and modest morale increase. I've edited the revision history to show only changes that would affect the battlefield gameplay. DimeBagHo has made many changes to the campaign game which are documented in the full revision history. The latest version of this mod, XGM version 4.1.24, was just released on Jan 30, 2007. I believe the first version was available in April 2005. The thread at the org dealing with this mod is here. This mod does require the player to fight a lot of battles in the campaign game. Certain factions are extremely challenging to play in the campaign.


Abridged XGM revision history:

XGM Version 4.1.17

-Greek formation changes
-Phalangite formation and stat changes
-Phalangites now use longer pikes

XGM Version 4.1.14

-Some unit stat tweaks

XGM Version 4.1.13

-Removed Naked Fanatics from Iberians and Germans
-Round Shield Cavalry converted to light lancers

XGM Version 4.1.12

-Added Noble Cavalry to Iberia
-Added Scythian Cataphracts to Scythia
-Scythian Early Generals now use Scythian Lancers
-Scythian Late Generals now use Scythian Cataphracts
-Added Militia Cavalry to Thrace
-Removed Light Cavalry from Thrace
-Added Heavy Cavalry to Thrace
-Added Noble Cavalry to Thrace
-Added Megas Hippodromos to Thrace

XGM Version 4.1.11

-Converted Noble Cavalry to Heavy Cavalry
-Converted Gothic Cavalry to Noble Cavalry
-Added Noble Cavalry to Gauls
-Added Royal Stables to Gauls

XGM Version 4.1.10

-Added Agema Hypaspists to Macedon
-Updated Darth Formations

XGM Version 4.1.9

-Added Archers to Iberia

XGM Version 4.1.8

-Added throwing axes to German Nightraiders
-Added Darth Vader's charge distance and attack delay settings

XGM Version 4.1.3

-Tweaked Persian Cavalry stats

XGM Version 4.1.2

-Added Cataphract Camels to Seleucids and Seleucid Rebels
-Added Cataphract Archers to Parthia
-Added Cataphract Camel Archers to Parthia

XGM Version 4.1.0

-Added Javelin Chariots to Gauls

XGM Version 4.0.11

-Added Peltasts to Parthia

XGM Version 4.0.10

-Added Hepteres and Deceres to Ptolemies

XGM Version 3.6.10

-Added Barbarian Cavalry to Britons
-Added Archer Warband to Britons
-Added Archer Warband to Gauls
-Added Archer Warband to Germans
-Removed British Light Chariots
-Armed British Heavy Chariot crew with javelins

XGM Version 3.6.8

-Added swiming ability to several light cavalry units
-Added power charge to all spear armed cataphract and armoured horse units

XGM Version 3.6.7

-Added Late Poeni Infantry
-Added Late Scutarii
-Increased unit size of Desert Infantry, decreased morale
-Decreased morale of many AOR/mercenary units by 2
-Reduced recruiting costs of many Barbarian units
-Increased defense of all units by 2
-Increased defense of spear units by additional 2
-Decreased lethality of spear units from 0.74 to 0.64
-Decreased lethality of phalanx units from 0.9 to 0.64
-Increased attack of phalangite and elite phalangite units by 2
-Phalanx units now suffer high penalties in scrub and forest
-General units now only 1 hitpoint, but defense and armour increased by 2
-Decreased range of elite archer units to 150, Gastraphetes to 170
-Decreased range of elite slinger units to 100
-Javelin and Pilae speeds reduced
-Movement rates reduced from 80% to 70% of vanilla

XGM Version 3.6.6

-Added Thracian Thorakitai
-Added Thracian Peltasts
-Added Thracian Cavalry
-Converted Thracian Late Bodyguard to Scythian Lancers
-Removed Bastarne from Thrace
-Removed Greek Peltasts from Thrace
-Removed Militia Cavalry from Thrace
-Replaced Thracian Mercenaries with Thracian Peltasts

XGM Version 3.6.4

-Fatigue is switched off by default
-Added Ptolemaic Hetairoi/Companions

XGM Version 3.6.3

-Screeching Women removed
-AP attribute added to all axe units

XGM Version 3.6.0

-Ethiopian Axemen added to Ptolemies
-Agema Axemen added to Ptolemies
-Basilikon Guard added to Ptolemies
-Desert Axemen removed
-Iberian Spearmen added
-Macedonian and Thracian Illyrians removed

XGM Version 3.5.3

-Morale for elephant units increased slightly

XGM Version 3.5.2

-Shield wall removed from Thureophoroi, added to Thorakitai
-Slings can not be upgraded
-Archer units attack slightly reduced
-Cavalry unit size reduced

XGM Version 3.5

-Added SignifierOne's animation pack
-Regular Hypaspists reverted to javelin/sword
-Corinthian Hypaspists replaced with Sacred Band
-Sacred Band Units are now, over-hand, spear only, "hoplites"
-Companions/Immortals added to Parthia
-Spartan Royal Guard added
-Early legionaries removed

XGM Version 3.4.1

-Updated to work with 1.5/1.6 patches
-Removed Thessalian Cavalry
-Added Greek Armoured Cavalry
-Added Levy Phalangites to Egypt
-Added Militia Phalangites to GCS
-Increased size of GCS phalanx units
-Tweaked various unit costs and stats

XGM Version 3.4

-All pike formations now use the same pike length
-Added Levy Pikemen to Thrace
-Hypaspists and Sacred Band now use spears/swords
-Added Forest and War Elephants to Numidia
-Removed Militia Hoplites

XGM Version 3.3.3

-Greek Peltasts and some similar units now use javelin for melee as well as throwing
-Militia Cavalry and some similar units now use javelin for melee as well as throwing
-Cavalry units re-balanced, most are now a little weaker

XGM Version 3.3.2

-Egyptian units brought into line with other successor states
-Changed some unit masses

XGM Version 3.3.1

-Recruiting and cost changes for balance

XGM Version 3.3

-Reduced size and increased cost of new heavy infantry units

XGM Version 3.2.2

-Added War Elephants to Armenia and Egypt
-Added Early Legionaries to Seleucids
-Some changes to unit stats

XGM Version 3.2.1

-XGM bug fix for Rhodian Slingers

XGM Version 3.2
-Added movement(-20%)/morale(+2)/killrate(-10%) mod
-Added weather mod (minor)
-Added night battles
-Added slingers to Roman, Greek and Eastern factions
-Added archers to Carthage
-Added Eastern Heavy Infantry to Pontus and Parthia
-Changed Eastern Heavy Infantry to non-phlanax spear
-Changed all non-phalanx spear units to size 60 (except Triarri)
-Added Thureophoroi to GCS, Macedon, and Seleucids
-Added Thorakitai to GCS, Macedon, and Seleucids
-Added Spear Warband to Thrace
-All Hypaspists are now sword/javelin
-Corinthians reduced to 1 hp, cost also reduced
-Other minor unit tweaks

XGM Version 3.1

-War Elephants for Pontus added
-Cretan Archers for Seleucids added

XGM Version 2.2

-Added AnastasioTheGreat's Spartans
-Added Athenian Marine Archers.
-Hypaspists are now more heavily armoured.
-Sarmatian Mercenaries get heavier armour.
-Removed pigs and dogs.

XGM Version 2.1

-Added Thracian Noble Cavalry.
-Added Scorpions for the Greek Cities.
-Included all community bug fixes.

XGM Version 2.0

-Increased javelin range, and added armour piercing attribute.
-Small moral increase for all units.
-Small movement decrease for all units.
-Small lethality decrease for all units.

[Puzz3D]

They are also hard to catch or kill even if you isolate them.

That's because not only is the hatamoto cav stronger in melee (4/6 att/def) than even heavy cav (3/5 att/def) but cav can also disengage in MTW/VI, and the hatamoto have fast horses (run speed = 22) which can only be caught by yari cav (run speed = 24). In addition, the general's 6 hit points helps him get away as well.

You don't have to play so as to spare the enemy general in Samurai Wars, but going after the general may not be the best strategy in battles where there is lots to do because he is so hard to capture.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I used to stare at the fricking STW CD Case when I was 8 years old back in 2000 with the

"Seek worthy Oppopnts online"

tag line thinking

"mabye I should!"

but never did. Now I certainly regret coming in 04 instead of 00




I just think



STW was and is the most stragetic game in the Total War Series. you still had bugs, but it had more stragetic games then RTW or MTW2 or Heck, Even MTW had (to a point).. I think CA/EA (at that time), was obliolusy just testing with the TW Series offline, and same for MP.

When MTW came along, obliolusy you could see CA buliing up on the "3d Units,thousands of soliders" on one map Prograndea, and of course, no vet who started on STW, or even on MTW for that matter, would buy into that.



RTW mainly had to many Bugs.Cav, Inf, etc... I played RTW and VI every day


VI Every single day, 1-6 hours a day for 6-8 months in 2004 (and other times in 05 and 06 and 07), and RTW around 2 hours a day, December 04 till Octorber 2006 to MTW2


and I realize in each game I played, it went from Very Good, to Horrible, to Borderline Fair again.


In VI I aboustley sucked,but just played for fun, like we all Do. RTW was a more easier Engin to hop onto because of all the bugs.Not Much Taticlly thinking, but easy games to win. I won more games on MTW2 and RTW because of easiler games, but they won't that taticfull. I'm not saying all the games were bad, I had very Excellent 1v1 and team games on RTW and MTW2,

I'm just stating the Fact of, I have better 3v3's on SamiWars on VI or 2v2's on MTW or 1v1 Castles on VI then I do on RTW or MTW2..

[econ21]

A lot of it is tweaking, but the global changes are: turn off fatigue, movement speed reduction (all mods do that), modest lethality reduction and modest morale increase.

Thanks for the info. Those global changes sound sensible. I applied something like them to the Alexander expansion and they vastly improve the battles.

Certain factions are extremely challenging to play in the campaign.

Before I leave this thread to get back on topic, I have to ask: which factions are extremely challenging? Challenge is a scarce commodity in RTW, even the mods.

[Puzz3D]

Before I leave this thread to get back on topic, I have to ask: which factions are extremely challenging? Challenge is a scarce commodity in RTW, even the mods.

Well, I've played Carthage with the XGM mod on normal difficulty fighting all the battles myself. I rather quickly got into strategically lost games in the first 7 campaigns. Finally, in the 8th campaign I realized that I had to pay more attention to defeating the Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt). A problem with RTW is that Egypt makes persistent attacks across the North African desert which is not historical. Some mods use an invisble wall to stop that, but XGM doesn't. I'm doing ok in this 8th Carthage campaign by not doing anything on the Iberian Pennisula or in Sicily, eliminating Numidia and then concentrating on defeating Egypt. However, I've set this campaign aside for about 6 months now and haven't gotten back into it. CBR tried this mod as Macedonia, and was doing well but gave up after innumerable battles vs Seleucid Empire became more like work than fun.

Even with XGM there are certain things the battlefield AI does that cannot be corrected which tends to limit the tactics required to beat it. The main challenge in XGM is that you have to climb the tech tree to be competitive in army strength as the game progresses, and at least with Carthage, the economy is not that strong so you can't buy a lot of advanced units or support lots of big armies.

[Ninjak]

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

This game is what started it all. It boosted Creative Assembly, a small company that was mostly developing rugby computer games for EA. I first played this game since 2002 when GTA3 first came to the PC (I bought both games that day). I myself am not a tabletop grognard, I was a flight simmer that was playing Combat Flight Simulator 2 Pacific Theater when I first got this game. I was interested in Japanese military history and military aviation. Playing the demo is what got me hooked into Shogun Total War in the first place along with some other strategy games. The worst game in the series has got to be Rome Total War where foot infantry runs as fast as cavalry, where there is no real penalty or bonuses for attacking downhill and uphill in steep terrain or firing volleys of arrows and artillery in the middle of a rain or sandstorm, and where a player can easily beat an A.I. enemy army. Only “fan-bois” that like pretty graphics think RTW is the best because it’s 3D. In MTW, when you occupied the Caucuses and Asia Minor or in STW in southern Satsuma Provinces as the Hojo Clan, your troops would be pissing and crapping in their pants when they saw the sight of the massive “Hordes” invade. It took hours to defeat them in M1TW.

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

I Disagree completely with RTW being the worst. I have wrote back that I have appologised to all those whom i have offened. IMO RTW is the best (aprt from M:2TW which i have not yet played) because, the campaign is simply astonoshing, the way you can employ assasins to go and kill your enemies faction leader, and general. Also the way, they can sabotage main buildings like Govonors palace. Spys are great for going to see what a neighboroing city that might invade has forces and buildings wise, and if it is worth invading to spendalot of money to keep the town up to date with the other cities and towns. So i disagree with you there my dear friend

Quintus

[Gregoshi]

It seems that we are looking at it differently. Quintus is looking at the campaign level while many of the STW fans look at things more from the battle level. The STW campaign cannot campare to RTW from the standpoint of variety. I still think STW's campaign had little touches that are lacking in RTW (throne room and video spring to mind) but it is still a very simple campaign. Some prefer that simplicity, but many of us asked for more and CA has done well with the campaign in that regard by significantly beefing up the strategic aspects of the campaign.

However, many of us old guard were drawn to the game because of the battles in STW. It was like playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own. The campaign was a means to deliver the battles and give them significance. I think most of us wanted a better campaign game than STW delivered but the game still boils down to the awesome battles as the main event. This is where the discontent of RTW comes from for many of us who have been around since STW. The battles, while looking great, are just lacking in too many ways. And because of this, even the greatest campaign map in the world will not overcome the deficiencies of the battlefield.

Thanks for explaining yourself better Quintus. A couple of questions for you if you don't mind. What other TW games have you played? Do you like the RTW battles and for what reasons? Your reply above only talks about the campaign level of the game.

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

It seems that we are looking at it differently. Quintus is looking at the campaign level while many of the STW fans look at things more from the battle level. The STW campaign cannot campare to RTW from the standpoint of variety. I still think STW's campaign had little touches that are lacking in RTW (throne room and video spring to mind) but it is still a very simple campaign. Some prefer that simplicity, but many of us asked for more and CA has done well with the campaign in that regard by significantly beefing up the strategic aspects of the campaign.

However, many of us old guard were drawn to the game because of the battles in STW. It was like playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own. The campaign was a means to deliver the battles and give them significance. I think most of us wanted a better campaign game than STW delivered but the game still boils down to the awesome battles as the main event. This is where the discontent of RTW comes from for many of us who have been around since STW. The battles, while looking great, are just lacking in too many ways. And because of this, even the greatest campaign map in the world will not overcome the deficiencies of the battlefield.

Thanks for explaining yourself better Quintus. A couple of questions for you if you don't mind. What other TW games have you played? Do you like the RTW battles and for what reasons? Your reply above only talks about the campaign level of the game.

I have played STW and MTW. I do enjoy the RTW battles for many reasons. For a person who is quite rubbish at stratedgy and just goes all in with simple Peasants, there is the arcade mode, which enables (simple and dumb people like me) to rely on the fact there is no stratedgy. But, i have long since used the arcade and i am now learning to fight using my brain (it hurts quite a bit), and i am settling with this for now.

Oh, if there is any RTW people who are like awesomely good, please help me but it dont matter if you dont it was just a general plea.

Yeah, back to the fighting ways. The lay out is good. Also the detail the men have is great, and the way i can zoom in and check on my skirmishers (i tend to use samnites). So yeah, i do like the fighting and battles.

Quintus

[caravel]

I've been continuing my Greek Cities campaign for the last few days, to the detriment of the mod I'm working on in fact. I've managed to get into the campaign game some more, but I'm not seeing the advantages. Firstly, progress is slow and unrewarding, naval combat is tedious with a captial T. I'm presently playing Bireme Pinball. This involves bouncing the enemy fleet around the mediterreanean until it sinks without a trace. I've also played this bouncing game with enemy armies as I've said in the previous post. The only good thing about this campaign map, is some of the traits, retinues and family tree system. I'm not sure as to the point of naval fleets. In MTW they protected your coasts, now they don't. An enemy can still land and disembark on your lands and walk into your province bold as brass. This, for me has taken away any semblance of naval strategy. I'm finding that I'm leaving my fleets in small groups of about four ships, then when attacking I'm bringing one fleet up close to the enemy fleet, then attacking with the second. This is how I'm doing it every time, because numbers seem to be much more important than quality most of the time. (I'm winning 99% of naval engagments like this). Also as these ships have no more impact on trade apart from when they're used to blockade ports, they have been reduced to becoming ocean going predators and transports. With blockading, I had found that when blockading a Scipii port in southern Italy, the AI would send one ship every year just short of the location of the blockade. I would then sink this ship every time it arrived. The AI made no other attempt than that to break the blockade. Similarly the Brutii are building a ship in Sardinia every year and sending it in my direction, at three fleets I have positioned in waiting for it. In the Boshporous Pontu are behaving similarly sending a fleet against my fleet there, every few years without fail... predictable. Also Pontus are desperate to get to my city in Phrygia (I can't remember it's name). I have a single army of 1000 men defending the bridge there that has so far massacred 1000's sent by Pontus. They had taken the city sought of this, near the Mausoleum, but had lost it due to their concentration on taking the northern city. They now look set to lose alot more, of their gains from the Seleucids.

In terms of battles, my men are valouring up rapidly. I still have the same Spartan Hoplite unit I started with. My faction has been the most advanced faction for years now and the Egyptians are always the strongest, mine being the second strongest. The Phalanx units are the most overpowered killing machines on the battlefield... or are they? In one particular assault against Pontic Sardis (I think), my forces rammed the main door, then shot the enemy to pieces up the main street (my two units of peltasts and one unit of archers) After this I advanced the Hoplites (two units of militia, one unit of regular and another of armoured) up the main street and the other street to the left. The enemy, mostly cavalry types, and some eastern infantry, outnumbered my forces about two to one. I expected to have to surround them and wear them down with missile fire prior to engaging them. The reality was, that the enemy commited mass suicide on the phalanx formations dying at a frightening rate, and handing me yet another easy victory. This happens in nearly every battle. The enemy are so easily outmaneouvered and so often miss flanking opportunities. I can surround them with ease, draw them out and pull the out of formation. If they do deploy their own phalanx capable units they waste them. In another battle against the macedonians their Hoplites were thrown away when they attempted to rush my Archers. Bringing my own hoplites up quickly stopped them in their tracks. They were disorganised, out of formation, and my general's bodyguard finished them off charging their rear.

[Zanderpants]

I remember hearing about STW in Gamepro way back in like 1998. It was the first preview, just a few crappy shots of some no-dachi samurai running around in front of a castle, but I loved (still do), the time period, and at the time, there was no game that, as Gregoshi put so well, was like ".... playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own". I counted down the days until STW came out, and I remember exactly what I was doing and where I was when it arrived via UPS. I even got a new computer so that I could run the damn game. Call that sad or familiar to your own experience, but it was that kind of emotion that has made STW my favorite Total War game. It's true, the game was much, much simpler than recent TW games (Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you), but at the time, it was AMAZING. Since then, I've bought all of the TW games, and I'll continue to until the series ends. Medieval was a big step in the right direction, and Rome was a big step in a different direction, while M2TW was a big step in the right direction started with Rome, but I have enjoyed them all despite their differences. The TW series has comprised the most innovative games in the strategy genre, and although it's different today than in 2000, CA continues to breathe new life in a pretty overdone genre.
Shogun, in terms of complexity and visuals, can't compete with M2TW, but Risk can't compete with Shogun, yet we all still love that old board game. They're very different games, that can't really be compared, akin to apples and oranges.
I truly love Shogun because of the emotions it recalls, not because it's the most impressive game out there (Though I think the gameplay can still give any new strategy game a run for it's money). It is also because it brought me into the Total War genre, which has led to many hours of fun and many fine memories (and around $350 lost to CA ).
Though if I had to choose my favorite TW game/mod, it would be the samurai warlords mod for M:TW,VI. It took the improvements from M:TW and returned the setting from Shogun.
There ya go, I'm back to my rocker and oxygen tank now.

[Abokasee]

Personnaly, I reckon the first game, any game company makes, is almost never the worst (unless its the only one) in which case STW is not the worst, but the most limeted, look at RTW it had loads of bugs, even with pacthes and updates members had too do most of it them selves, infact most of the mods have less bugs than the realease version.

[Togakure]

I think it's important to consider the context of a game in its time when making comparisons like these.

At the time of its release, there was nothing like Shogun: Total War. It's graphics were great for its time. I remember being completely blown away by my first real-time battles. That STW can't stand up to the graphic quality of the more modern TW games ... well, I should hope this to be the case!

I find the relative "simplicity" of Shogun: Total War very appealing when I compare it to the other TW titles. It brought a new meaning to the term "Shibumi," which I'd learned about in Trevanian's book of the same name. It has just enough to be interesting; not so much as to become tedious. Strategy map contemplations; tactical challenges complete with terrain and seasonal considerations; entertaining diversions in the form of quality video clips; the Throne Room; the excellent soundtrack--it all fit together in a way that harmonized, making for a very well-crafted work of software art. I love my STW, and always will.

[Wasp]

Since I don't care much about graphics (I still fire up Monkey Island 1 and 2 once in a while), and I truly value a good AI, I'd go with Shogun and Medieval (1) as the best games in the series. Now I'll have to be honest that I haven't played Rome, and only a small bit of Medieval 2, but from what I've heard and the reviews that I've read, it appeared that those were more focussed on graphics (and the campaign map instead of the battlefield).

Shogun gets a place in my heart for being the first, and having the best atmosphere, and Medieval is the worthy succesor, with many more features.

[caravel]

Now I'll have to be honest that I haven't played Rome, and only a small bit of Medieval 2, but from what I've heard and the reviews that I've read, it appeared that those were more focussed on graphics (and the campaign map instead of the battlefield).

RTW was very much all about the new 3D unit graphics for the battle map and the new type of campaign map. It's weakness is in it's AI and gameplay balance. It's main strengths are in it's modding potential and the great mods that are available for it. IMHO it appeals to the strategy gamer, though somewhat less so to the veteran TW gamer. The issue for those that have been playing since STW is the length of time they will continue to play STW/MTW. I have pretty much played both games to death, so eventually I will probably have to move on to RTW or M2TW. I am playing some vanilla RTW at the moment, in the form of an ongoing campaign as the Greek Cities. I've seen a lot of the games bugs and flaws so far, though it's stability is good. As ever AI is the main problem, both in the battles and the campaign game. The new style of strategy map has yet to win me over, and I'm finding the battles very easy. Another example of the "use of terrain", "open borders" and movement points system being far from perfect is the way armies retreat. In a recent engagement on the campaign map I was able to force two Pontic armies to separate and retreat to the east and west, then attack the weaker one and destroy it before engaging the other. If it had stood it's ground and fought it would have had a better chance, with the assistance of the other army. Just one example.

Since I don't care much about graphics (I still fire up Monkey Island 1 and 2 once in a while), and I truly value a good AI, I'd go with Shogun and Medieval (1) as the best games in the series.

Monkey1&2 are classic games, the sequels I've never played, though I have heard they weren't as good as the originals. I had Monkey1 on 5 1/4" floppies. I did eventually get a CDROM with both games on it. That eventually ended up in a charity shop, and I've never been able to find it anywhere since.

[Wasp]

Ah, thanks for the review, Cambyses!

I'll probably pick up Rome if I see it somewhere cheap, 'cause I'm sure my laptop can handle that one. Not sure about Medieval 2 though, and that one is too expensive for me anyway, at the moment.

I'm just a tad worried about the AI.. but I guess I'll have to see it for myself. The Rome time period sounds like a new age to battle in.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

...the campaign is simply astonoshing, the way you can employ assasins to go and kill your enemies faction leader, and general....

Sorry, but I disagree. The M:TW campaign was much better. You could kill your own generals when they went a bit mad, started becoming drunken loonies or (worst of all) lost all their loyalty. Also it was really convenient that killing an enemy man actually did something for you rather than simply killing him off - the army he was commanding lost valour and his provinces became filled with dissent. This enable you to cause a revolt or created yourself a terrified army to fight the next turn! Even better your men could revolt and turn "rebel", I'm yet to see that yet, I just kill my men the second I get that warning about them. Also taking the faction leader out for a trip far away caused unrest which was much more realistic than having your leader in the middle of Asia Minor as Gaul and not having the provinces at home thinking about taking adavantage. Really it was the most fun and realistic out of the TW seiries and I just love it and always will!

[caravel]

Sorry, but I disagree. The M:TW campaign was much better. You could kill your own generals when they went a bit mad, started becoming drunken loonies or (worst of all) lost all their loyalty.

The loss of the ability to kill your own generals and agents is a very big loss in my opinion. I've no idea why CA removed this. It should have instead been expanded upon. In MTW you could do it as often as you liked with few ill effects. With RTW they could have taken it a step further. Killing your own men should have been a risky affair with the chance of being found out, causing vices, scandals, revolts, civil wars etc.

Also it was really convenient that killing an enemy man actually did something for you rather than simply killing him off - the army he was commanding lost valour and his provinces became filled with dissent. This enable you to cause a revolt or created yourself a terrified army to fight the next turn! Even better your men could revolt and turn "rebel", I'm yet to see that yet, I just kill my men the second I get that warning about them.

I still habitually do this before attacking, knowing that it makes no difference unless it's a family member. Assassinating would have no effect on a province, though removing a high dread governor would have had some effect on the province he was governing. You mention civil wars, another feature that I miss. Surely even more relevant in the RTW time frame, than in the medieval one?

Also taking the faction leader out for a trip far away caused unrest which was much more realistic than having your leader in the middle of Asia Minor as Gaul and not having the provinces at home thinking about taking adavantage. Really it was the most fun and realistic out of the TW seiries and I just love it and always will!

Agreed also. This has been replaced by the "distance from capital" which is a factor but should not have replaced the "distance from faction leader" which is also important, if not more important. I'm sure that the governor/people in a remote Roman settlement would be more interested in knowing that the faction leader is actually down the road with a huge army, rather than how far away the capital is?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I think you can kill your own spies with assassins through an exploit in the R:TW game engine - if a spy is in a town and you send in an assassin then he appears on the hit list, yet killing spies isn't really going to help you very much in controling family problems. That is where one way boat-trips come in handy, but would a general with any sense get on a fleet to go to his death?

[Puzz3D]

That is where one way boat-trips come in handy,

Ingenious!

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Ingenious!

Erm, not really, I stole the idea off the .com's tactics page

[César Victor]

I think I may re-install this game. I had good times on the campaign mode but never really finished one properly. I played as the green faction- I forget the name- and did it about half way before the Geisha started peeving me off.

EDIT: It was Shimazu who I played as :D

[caravel]

I played as the <Shimazu> and did it about half way before the Geisha started peeving me off.

The Geishas are just ridiculous, the trick is to have your own stock of Geishas and use them only against the other faction's Geishas to neutralise the problem. I'm not sure if they can be modded out, if they can then I would do it (along with the Kensai and, Battlefield Ninja).

[The Foolish Horseman]

I bought this game with total war eras and pleyed recently, and i was amazed by how good this game actually was

tha AI in this game is so much more advanced than in RTW and MTW2 and the game is so much more entertaining.

If CA could implement the AI from this and MTW/VI and the graphics from MTW2 and RTW, then it would be the best game in the series

[Trajanus]

After reading all of the above it seems to me that CA have been too hasty in their new games.

Everytime a new game comes out and players look around the files they find things such as "Multiplayer Campaign" etc. just sitting around but not doing anything. Whats more the initial 2 TW games (STW, MTW) had (as mentioned above) actions in the game that have been removed in the latter 2 games.

The example of princesses and killing your own generals etc. for MTW, and the balancing of AI and units, and the throne room and videos in STW. (From what I read it appears CA put the videos back into M2TW, so at least they are beginning to understand)

I guess we have to take into account, that they need to mould the game around the era they are basing it on, which may be a reason why somethings such as princesses in RTW are missing, although I'm sure they could have been factored in somehow.

However it seems to me that CA have a problem with great ideas but perhaps not enough thought for them. For example: Lets make the units completely 3D, and give players the option of hunderds of units then they wont get bored! However to not balance the units properly makes it pointless as Yuuki has mentioned in detail. (for multiplay)

On the other side for singleplayer should they be balanced? I don't remember reading about wars in history not happening because one faction's army was bigger than the other, in fact in single-player thats the idea! So I guess it shows that CA are still not too bothered about multiplayers, although by the small number of files about multiplayer campaigns in the RTW (or M2TW game, I dont have either) game folders, shows that they were at least thinking about it.

As to the best or worst TW game... I played STW from around late 2000, and loved it. But then at that time there was no MTW, RTW, M2TW, so no comparison. But it seems to me CA are trying to add far too much into each game, and not expanding the previous games actions more. Why would I want amazing graphics that my computer can't handle, when instead I could have a more in-depth game with politics, diplomacy and strategy that it could handle?

So in short...no TW game is the worst. Each has its added bonuses that the others do not...all I want to see is for CA to roll all these added bonuses in each game into 1 game and work on them to make them more diverse. A game engine isn't just about graphics

[Roller]

Interesting thread. Anyways im going to purchase the TW:Eras package and find out, as i have not played any of these games up to 1 week ago. I guess i missed some fun heh.

So far im playing the original STW 1.12 campaign and very enjoying it.

What is the difference between MTW and STW? What would you suggest to begin first with from the above compilation. Graphix i dont care for, gameplay, AI and tactics i do. Shogan: TW looks pretty good for me actually. Good map overview.

[Wasp]

Well, Shogun has less factions and units than Medieval, but better balance. Also, it seems to pull you into the timeline (Sengoku period) better with nice artwork, video's, etc. Medieval, on the other hand, has more options on the strategic map (princesses, generals with virtues and vices).

I'm sure someone else can do this a lot better than me, but it's something at least

[Martok]

Glad you're enjoying Shogun, Roller! It's always a treat to see someone discovering the joy of this game for the first time.

What is the difference between MTW and STW? What would you suggest to begin first with from the above compilation. Graphix i dont care for, gameplay, AI and tactics i do. Shogan: TW looks pretty good for me actually. Good map overview.

Well although I believe the engine was tweaked so that MTW looks a little bit better, both games are still essentially the same from a visual/graphics standpoint. The main difference between the two is that MTW features more options (especially on the campaign map) and greater complexity at the cost of less-than-optimized balance and AI. I would also say Medieval's atmosphere isn't quite as superb as Shogun's (although it's still very good IMO).

MTW has more playable factions, more political/diplomatic intrigue (trying generals for treason, dynastic marriages/alliances, civil wars, etc.), and a more sophisticated & involved religious model/system (Crusade, Jihads, Inquisitions, ex-communications, etc.). Your dramatis personae -- kings, princes, generals/governors, etc. -- are more personalized now, as they have ratings for their Influence/Loyalty, Dread, Piety, Command, & Acumen, as well as possessing various Vices & Virtues which affect their abilities on & off the battlefield. Finally, Medieval includes a Glorious Achievements mode as an alternative to playing your standard Domination/conquest game, which -- while not perfect -- offers the player an alternative way to beat the game without having to conquer the whole bloody map.

All that said, there are a number of things in which MTW is noticably inferior to its predecessor. The AI (on both the campaign and battle level) isn't quite as good as in STW, probably due to the game's increased complexity. There are fewer "chokepoints" on Medieval's map -- which makes it harder for the AI to cope with the larger strategic situation -- plus the game has a lot more "hybrid" units (troops that are proficient in both ranged & melee combat), which the AI doesn't really know how to handle. In addition, Medieval's AI seems less able in its ability to decide when to go to war with other factions and/or backstab its allies; many of us MTW players talk about how our 20-province superpower was attacked by a 2-province kingdom.

Also, as Wasp already pointed out, Shogun is much better balanced that Medieval. There's no "uber" unit in STW -- everything troop type can be countered by another -- nor is any clan unwinnable (although the Hojo & Uesugi nearly always do well, of course). MTW has quite a few units which are either over- or under-powered, and the same can be said of some of the game's factions -- the French & Egyptians nearly always become superpowers, for example, while the Turks & Aragonese are often eliminated inside of the game's first 50 turns.

Finally, while Medieval has a great atsmosphere, Shogun's is still unquestionably superior. The artwork, the sounds, the voicework, and the music/soundtrack all combine together to really draw the player into feudal Japan and the world of the Samurai. When I play STW, I really *feel* like I'm there leading my clan to greatness (or ignominy, if things aren't going so well ). MTW does a pretty good job of sucking me in as well, but to a lesser extent.



So to sum up: Medieval has deeper, richer, more complex, and more dynamic gameplay than Shogun does. It also has greater replayability, since it has "more" of everything: units, factions, etc. In conrast, Shogun is a relatively simple game, but its elegant simplicity is part of its charm & appeal: It has fewer factions & units, and so is much better balanced. In addition, the game's AI and overall atmosphere remain unrivaled by any of the other Total War titles, MTW included.

In the end, you can't really go wrong either way. Both are excellent games in their own right, and both have their strong points & weaknesses.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Between the two, my personal favorite is Medieval (mostly because I really like that era in history). That said, Shogun is still the better game overall IMHO, and I still play it -- it'll always have a spot on my hard drive.

[Tony Furze]

MTW I can quite happily play for fun-I dont mind how many times I have to restart, and the choice of units...well, your spoilt for choice,and with any mod its even bigger.

(Is there a mod that reduces the number of units?)

However,Shogun is quite serious fun. I get quite irate and emotional and every man counts. You really feel bad about losing soldiers,so you try to preserve units. There s no real such thing as a "junk unit".