Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

[carbz]

Im going to have a go at buying STW after this. I came to RTW after playing an awful lot of rise of nations, i love RTS and micro management, but dislike turn based games like CIV that have no RTS element. Indeed RTW is turn based to an RTS gameplayer like me.

Overall I think RTW fails in its attempt to incorporate RTS elements to it, but i do like its complexity and the myriad elements, its just a shame they dont friigin function properly and have limited strategic scope! However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations. We will see though.

i do agree though, RTW tried to be all things to all people and managed to dissappoint seemingly everyone!

certainly I wouldnt be shelling out big cash on buying any new TW game, but im going to dig out an old copy of stw because of teh well written and well argued comments in this thread.

kudos to all.

[Wasp]

Enjoy the game then, carbz! You'll find the battles a lot more balanced and exciting than in Rome. The strategic map doesn't have all the options that Rome has, but I don't find it boring or anything.

[Gregoshi]

...RTW fails...but i do like its complexity and the myriad elements... However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations.

carbz, I'm not sure by your comments that you will enjoy STW. In comparison to MTW and RTW, the STW campaign is rather shallow. Many of the campaign features in the later TW games came out of suggestions made by STW players because of things lacking in the Shogun campaign. The main focus of STW was the battles and the campaign map gave meaning to those battles. I remember the Org when STW came out. Nearly all discussion of the SP campaign died out after a month or two simply because there wasn't too much depth to the campaign, whereas, SP campaign discussions of MTW were quite lively at least up through the release of RTW.

That said, the other features of STW more than made up for the lack of depth in the campaign game. The throne room, the movies, the music, the variable harvest, the four seasons, and even the cool Risk-style campaign map add an immersion faction that is powerful - as many posts in this forum can attest to. Throw in the battle features and you have one amazing game.

If you go into STW with realistic expectations, maybe you will find it enjoyable, but your comment about liking RTW's "complexity" made me wonder if you might be going into STW with a expectations the game won't be able to meet.

BTW, STW is my favourite TW game despite its shortcomings.

[vcklfjw64]

MTW was not so fundamentally flawed on it's release (yes it was bugged but not to the extent of RTW).

Uh, you mean aside from the fact that it CTDs about every 10 minutes, due to CA's programmers' epic failing of nVidia compatibility class? A problem which has never been fixed to this day, 3 years later? I've never heard of RTW crashing like that, not even straight out of the box. The fact that it has more patches than MTW doesn't mean it NEEDED more patches. It means it GOT more patches. What NEEDS more patches is MTW. But from the perspective of tech support, MTW is now abandonware, and has been for years.

For many of us the abstract Risk style map and more abstraction and less micromanagement in general is in fact more immersive than the RTS style map of RTW and later.

LESS options equals MORE immersive? I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level. Ridiculous artificial unit balancing, like you'd find in Starcraft . given that you're talking about a turn-based game of grand strategy, which is in fact not 100% combat-oriented, but rather includes espionage, assassination, politics, economics, rebellions, naval warfare. Pretty much unlike an RTS in every conceivable way, except that there is strategy on the table. You could have compared it to Civilization Note that Civ isn't an RTS franchise, because it conspicuously lacks the RT, being TB instead.

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level? If I want to play Risk, I'll go play Risk. RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before, and it was done brilliantly. I don't know if you notice, but the entire map, EVERY traversable cell on the campaign map, has a unique battlefield, and they actually connect together. That is, the entire game world is rendered in the battle map. And changes in the campaign map are reflected in the battle maps. If you fight at the tiptoe of Italy, you can look west during the battle and actually see the Strait of Messina, and Sicily on the other side of it. If you had ships in the strait when the battle started, they will BE there when you look. That's what the word "immersive" actually means. . I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

[Gregoshi]

LESS options equals MORE immersive? Yeah, pass that crack pipe, man...

Have you ever played an RTS? Do you actually know what the letters in "RTS" stand for?

Might want to look that up, since apparently it's complicated to figure out.

That's what the word "immersive" actually means. You're apparently confused about that, and think it means something totally unlike, and possibly the opposite of, immersive. I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

There is no need to be rude and condesending vcklfjw64.

I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level. Ridiculous artificial unit balancing, like you'd find in Starcraft (which is an RTS, in case you didn't know). If you think STW is a credible war game, you've never played a credible war game.

Again, no need to be insulting. However, are you maintaining that unbalanced units = a good game? What good are 100 different units if only 10-20 of them "useful" in combat and are the only ones ever built? All good games have some form of balancing, else there is no challenge for one side or the other.

That probably has something to do with the fact that you think RTW's campaign map is "RTS style", which couldn't be further from reality.

I believe it was CA that was throwing around the RTS label. Most STW/MTW fans only complained that CA was "catering to the RTS crowd" with some of the features and user interface changes. There is no argument in my mind that all the TW games are turnbased.

Why are you kids...

This 48 year old kid wants to know what you have against kids?

RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before, and it was done brilliantly. I don't know if you paid attention...

Sure, the marriage of the RTW campaign map to the battle maps is a first and is brilliantly executed. Too bad the battles don't live up the visuals. It seems that the most positive comments RTW fans can make about their game have to do with the stunning visuals. Excuse me while I inject a bit of humour here: RTW is the "dumb blond" of the TW series (my apologies to the blonds out there) - she sure is hot to look at, but don't try to hold a conversation with her. I certainly don't find RTW battles to be immersive when I'm pulling my hair out because my cavalry can't catch up with the fleeing infantry. Of course, maybe if I was looking at those boats out in the water, I'd be more calm about those slingers who should be running in the Kentucky Derby. Maneuver is essentially pointless in RTW once contact is made as the battles are over (for better or worse) before I can complete that brilliant flanking move I'd ordered. And I've said this in another thread, but I find 90% of the RTW battle maps boringly similar - relatively flat with little or no terrain to speak of. No hills, maybe a bit of trees if I'm lucky. At least that is my experience with RTW.

I really wanted to like RTW - Legions, greats visuals, lots of "improvement" on the strategy map. But I eventually reached a point where I realized the strategy part of the game wasn't as good as I thought it would be and the battles were completely unsatisfying to play. So I just stopped playing the game.

[Tony Furze]

Where s that lynching rope, Mouzafphaerre?

Seriously, I m not a fan of Risk at all, in fact I used to find most games too difficult and hard to put my attention to for any length of time. I ve actually devolved to STW from , first , MTW to MTW/VI then to RTW then back to MTW now to Shogun Total War.

I m seriously considering STW to be the best.

The RISK map is, as I ve mentioned before, decisive. Your decisions are crucial to your progress and build up. It s more of a chess-like feeling. So the RISK comparison may be deceptive.

As to what is immersive, that s a more complex issue. Its a lot to do with projection of imagination and being faced with (once again) decisions that count. On any level. I ve not worked it out yet,and I may never do so, but there is something quite involving about the choices you make in STW with "additional"
factors that really get to you.

I ve been thinking of beginning a thread sort of along these lines but have nt thought it out fully yet-after all I don t want to spoil the fun of the game by over analyzing it.

To cut it short: theres something very gutsy about Shogun Total War.

[Drisos]

LESS options equals MORE immersive? I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level.

Speaking of 'LESS options'... as I said here before, in RTW:BI a 20-Cav army beats any other army to the last man within seconds. Even with a tribe with weak cavalry. (saxons) and even against spear units. and even on expert level. I must say, this 'more options' in rtw is realy giving me exciting and intresting battles... (not)

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level? If I want to play Risk, I'll go play Risk.

this comparison is ridiculous. STW and risk have 1 thing in common and you say you'll play Risk as if it's almost the same?

RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before,

Does that matter? It didn't add much.

has a unique battlefield, and they actually connect together.

ah indeed.. yet the forests are incredibly ugly (not to mention, the entire battle map?), and the great height-advantage thing in STW was totally lost with the release of RTW. how brilliant is that?

[Wasp]

I agree with those defending Shogun; it seems like vcklfjw64 (seems like a troll to me, good to see he's gone) has never played the game and only wanted to cause some ruckus. I'm glad to see the Sword Dojo react so well to it, though!

Not much more to add to the other guys, only that the terrain in Shogun seems to be the best one in the series to me.

[ReluctantSamurai]

you're talking about a turn-based game of grand strategy, which is in fact not 100% combat-oriented, but rather includes espionage, assassination, politics, economics, rebellions, naval warfare.

ASSASSINS

Let's see........in STW you can get assassins quite early (one only needs a ninja house to train them) and as you upgrade the dojo you get better & better assassins until (if one so chooses....I don't) you can produce the ultimate STW assassin-the Legendary Geisha. In RTW, you have to wait until a settlement's size is big enough to build/upgrade the appropriate building (usually many years into the campaign) and you are NOT guaranteed to get a higher level assassin, but often you only get one with ......."talent."

Sorry, but for all the money spent, and I'm STILL subjected to a "roll-of-the-dice" to get a trained assassin??? I prefer the STW method.

ESPIONAGE

Let's see.....in STW I can train many, many shinobi and send them out to create unrest in enemy lands even to the point of rebellion. It is, in fact, one of my favorite phases of the game......keeping an opposing Daimyo hustling around trying to calm rebellions and away from my REAL objective, which is usually far away. In RTW, I can train spies which have to infiltrate a city to lower its loyalty to the point of rebellion. All well and good. I can get tossed out of one of my own cities at around the 40-50% loyalty level. I've repeatedly seen the AI let an opponent keep its city at 25% loyalty or less......no matter how many spies I piled into a particular city. Frustrating to the extreme. I have, on a few occasions, managed to get a city to rebel, but with the absolutely a$$inine method RTW uses to conduct city sieges (often a handful of units conducting a siege on an army much larger than itself) the city will be back in their hands in short order. For the money and effort spent to such short-term ends, I finally gave up.

POLITICS

If you mean sending out swarms of diplomats to bribe enemy armies, sell map rights, etc., I don't see that as politics. If you play a Roman faction, family members can be elected to Senate posts, which nets you Command, Management, or Prestige points. Big deal If you mean negotiating alliances.......well not much has changed since STW. Your ally will more than likely turn on you in the not-so-distant future. In the several dozen RTW campaigns I played, only once did an ally keep the alliance until the end.

ECONOMICS

The single most tedious aspect to RTW, bar none. Having to micromanage dozens of cities just gets to be boring after awhile. Using the Automanage feature doesn't always get you what you want, when you need it. By the middle of the game, when some cities start approaching the 30,000 mark, the only way to keep the squalor under control is to move the entire garrison out of the city, and massacre the populace when you regain control. Nice feature!..........NOT.

NAVAL WARFARE

I saved the biggest snafu for last. In addition to the overuse/abuse of family traits, the stupid method chosen to represent naval warfare is the other reason RTW will remain on my bookshelf collecting dust for quite awhile. If I wanted to play pinball, I'd go to the nearest mini-mall and head for the arcade room. That fleets have to be surrounded at all point of the compass to be sunk is ludicrous, at best. That an enemy fleet can totally ignore ZOC when fleeing is even worse......that it can do so repeatedly and often times end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially true when troops are embarked) is the ultimate screw-up. And would someone please explain how you can cram all those troops on a single bireme??? (I've seen an entire 20-unit army on one of these ) I'd rather have the naval aspect built-in as in STW (simple as it is), than be subjected to playing naval pinball.....

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level?

The FEELING, my friend, the feeling. My very first battle in STW was the "historical" recreation of Oda Nobunaga's battle at Okehazama. Ok, so the Battlefield Ninja probably aren't all that historic, but the feeling of fighting in a crashing thunderstorm (which are a joke in RTW).........of having to hold the flanking attack until the right moment (visions of Mel Gibson in BraveHeart as the English heavy cavalry approach....."Hold.............Hold............Hold...................NOOOWWW!) and the whole atmosphere of the era reflected by the Throne Room decor, etc. I played that battle over again several times just for the thrill of it......

And fighting in near blinding fog....my favorite! I absolutely love fighting in heavy fog....oh the traps one can set.............

Only once in RTW, in several dozen campaigns, did I ever get emotionally involved...............once.

That's what the word "immersive" actually means. . I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

To each their own, my friend.........I can easily get "immersive" for a STW campaign, not so for RTW. Too bad so much time and energy, not to say all the money, to create a game that is average.......................................at best.

[carbz]

carbz, I'm not sure by your comments that you will enjoy STW. In comparison to MTW and RTW, the STW campaign is rather shallow. Many of the campaign features in the later TW games came out of suggestions made by STW players because of things lacking in the Shogun campaign. The main focus of STW was the battles and the campaign map gave meaning to those battles. I remember the Org when STW came out. Nearly all discussion of the SP campaign died out after a month or two simply because there wasn't too much depth to the campaign, whereas, SP campaign discussions of MTW were quite lively at least up through the release of RTW.

That said, the other features of STW more than made up for the lack of depth in the campaign game. The throne room, the movies, the music, the variable harvest, the four seasons, and even the cool Risk-style campaign map add an immersion faction that is powerful - as many posts in this forum can attest to. Throw in the battle features and you have one amazing game.

If you go into STW with realistic expectations, maybe you will find it enjoyable, but your comment about liking RTW's "complexity" made me wonder if you might be going into STW with a expectations the game won't be able to meet.

BTW, STW is my favourite TW game despite its shortcomings.

mmm well the post directly above mine has only augmented my feelings that stw will be fun. I agree entirely that whilst rtw tries to be clever and immersive with regards to the economy and alternatives to fighting, it actually fails miserably.

[Gregoshi]

Well, then go for it carbz! I was just concerned with some of you comments that you might be going into STW with false expectation regarding aspects of the TW game you said you liked. I hope you find it as enjoyable as the rest do here.

[Puzz3D]

However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations. We will see though.

That's exactly what STW is mostly fighting battles with little economic management. I would suggest you get Medieval/Viking Invasion because it has more management aspects than Shogun, and unlike RTW the management stuff works properly. Also, the battle mechanics are improved over Shogun, and the AI is just as good except that it doesn't handle artillery very well. You can always add the Samurai Warlords mod to turn MTW/VI into Shogun (there is no artillery in Shogun), and there are other excellent mods available for MTW/VI.

[Spongie]

Uh, you mean aside from the fact that it CTDs about every 10 minutes, due to CA's programmers' epic failing of nVidia compatibility class? A problem which has never been fixed to this day, 3 years later? I've never heard of RTW crashing like that, not even straight out of the box.

a quick bit of googling (which, incidentally, is how I found this site) and the graphics setting problem was quickly fixed.

Also, a newer game being more compatible with newer hardware? Who'da thunked it?

[Krasturak]

Motorcycle Cavalry that move like a flock of swans... Gah...

*opens coffin*

*creeps out of coffin*

Gah! Krast agrees! Gah!

... but then again, Krast *mostly* does agree.

Except when he's hungry.

/OOC

So, having tried the STW, STW/MI, MTW, MTW/VI and RTW, it is clear to this game player that the original STW was the best game experience.

Not the best visuals. Not the best sieges. Not the best flying motorcycles.

But certainly the most interesting and exciting puzzle, to figure out how to command the 16-unit army (play chess, anyone?), to set up flexible armies, to get online and face off against other players ....

It's maybe hard to nail it down, but the original STW brought out more of the personality of the players in the way they fought their armies. Something instinctive was possible, even not knowing any of the numbers behind the game mechanics. The companies of soldiers were worth something and moved with graceful purpose.

MTW was too technical for this to happen. You could win by knowing which of the 100 units to select from its overbalanced attributes. You could win with the same army over and again, regardless of terrain. Even the most glorious cavalry charge was missing grace. It was a technical maneuver, the timing didn't seem to matter, the outcome was decided when you made the unit purchase before starting the battle.

I wanted MTW to be good, to be better than STW. And in some small ways it was, but overall it fell short. I tried to make this work for myself, but it didn't last. The game couldn't support my needs.

Before I bought STW, I saw an add for it. I thought it was one of the RTS-style games, and didn't expect to try it. RTS was never my bag. When I discovered the idea of STW, I got excited and the rest was history. In RTW I discovered everything I feared about the Totalwar series. In exchange for the 3d models, I got nothing I wanted. Gameplay wasn't just ho-hum, but actually horrid. The strategy game side obviously learned nothing from decades of development in comparable board games such as "Republic of Rome".

And to dream, how it might have been ....

Well, there it is.

/OOC

Gnish! Gnash! Gni!

*waves axe*

*creeps back into coffin*

Gah!

*closes coffin*

[Drisos]

Hey Krast!

You could win by knowing which of the 100 units to select from its overbalanced attributes. You could win with the same army over and again, regardless of terrain.

To this day I still never tried MTW well enough to speak of it.. but the words above fit to my vision on RTW as well.. though I didn't play online much, people brought the samen factions, same armies, etc.. no variation at all. No significant terrain or weather stuff. It's simply boring. And I've not even mentioned the presence of waaay too many waaaay to annoying/childish people in the foyer.

Before I bought STW, I saw an add for it. I thought it was one of the RTS-style games, and didn't expect to try it. RTS was never my bag. When I discovered the idea of STW, I got excited and the rest was history.

Also recognizable! I never liked the turn-baser strategy stuff.. I only liked cossacks, age of empires, etc. Yet, STW did it for me. By far my favourite. There's way more time to think, etc, because of the turn system.

Btw, have you heard of Samurai Wars, or considered trying it? (mod for MTW:VI, with an MP crowd.)

[TosaInu]

Hello Krasturak.

[caravel]

Welcome back Krasturak

I agree with those defending Shogun; it seems like vcklfjw64 (seems like a troll to me, good to see he's gone) has never played the game and only wanted to cause some ruckus. I'm glad to see the Sword Dojo react so well to it, though!

I'm always suspicious of those that register with gibberish names to make one single post full of absolute bile in a particular thread, targeted at a particular post or individual, in perhaps the least busy forum on the board and then proceed to disappear. I suppose IP addresses reveal the whole truth...

I must say that I for one don't relate immersion to eye candy and eye candy alone. A tiled map that loads up a representative battle map from the tile on the campaign map doesn't really do it for me, especially when 99% of these maps are the same boring flat land on or around the roads. That alone doesn't cause me to sit there stunned at the brilliance of it's conception, it doesn't amount to "immersion" either. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it doesn't shine through as a brilliant feature that I'd want to shout about.

On the whole the STW map may be risk-like, but the RTW map still reminds me of Transport Tycoon or Sim City, as at the end of the day it's a tiled map, nothing amazing and certainly nothing new. The one thing you can say about STW/MTW is that due to the Risk-style map, every battle had some meaning as every battle was for the control of the province itself and not simply a throwaway border skirmish, that you'll probably have to play again in an identical fashion in a few turns time. This is aside from the fact that most battles in the newer games tend to be boring and heavily bugged sieges as opposed to open battles anyway (cue the "historically most battles were sieges blah blah blah" claptrap).

I'd also have to debate the so called failing on "nVidia compatibility class". This issue simply doesn't exist. There are flaws in STW/MTW when trying to run it on newer graphics hardware, but this is a failing of many older games in fact and not just TW games. It is also a failing of the graphics card manufacturers not maintaining backwards compatibility in their drivers as older driver releases usually solve the problem.

[Drisos]

The one thing you can say about STW/MTW is that due to the Risk-style map, every battle had some meaning as every battle was for the control of the province itself and not simply a throwaway border skirmish, that you'll probably have to play again in an identical fashion in a few turns time.

So true! In RTW, battles in open field are kind of useless. (unless you murder family members in battle)

It's all centered in 'settlements'.. they are your only goal. forts are useless, armies in open field are useless. etc. makes the game more boring.. (even more! )

[eddy_purpus]

hey man .
i been hearing alot about Shogun Total War .



so


that game comes with the total war eras pack ?

[Martok]

hey man .
i been hearing alot about Shogun Total War .



so


that game comes with the total war eras pack ?

Yes it does. Pick it up and play it -- you'll be glad you did.

[caravel]

So true! In RTW, battles in open field are kind of useless. (unless you murder family members in battle)

It's all centered in 'settlements'.. they are your only goal. forts are useless, armies in open field are useless. etc. makes the game more boring.. (even more! )

Precisely, it's a tedious settlement micromanagement game.

[eddy_purpus]

Yes it does. Pick it up and play it -- you'll be glad you did.

Ok

LoL I would like to play Shogvn Total war one of these days .
i will get it sooner than later


thank you

[TosaInu]

Shogvn Total war

Romanvs.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Precisely, it's a tedious settlement micromanagement game.

Exactly When I got to the point where a two-hour long turn was an hour and three quarters managing settlements and 15min of resolving battles, that's when I decided to put the game back on the shelf...........................

[eddy_purpus]

Romanvs.

Lol it because i like the v better than u letters in a word.
i dont know why i just like the way it looks in phrasses =P

[TosaInu]

Lol it because i like the v better than u letters in a word.
i dont know why i just like the way it looks in phrasses =P

[Brave]

Not a chance is it the worst, it is the forefounder of all happiness.

[Yesugey]

As you guys can easily see; we older players have strong emotional connection with STW and MTW, and it effects our decisions.

But newbies have a mistake too: surely RTW and M2TW is far more better than older ones, but better graphics and units are not everything, STW is better on some points, no matter how old it is.

As for my opinion:

After every new TW game, TW series lost things and won new features. On MTV, we had general's unit. With RTW we had really enjoyable unit type variations, Elephants, Chariots and alot more.

But producers of TW never been able to put everything we like on one basket. Weirdly, they always fix some mistakes, but beside making new ones, they also corrupt some good ideas.

You see; When we play Shogun, we wanted to take prisoners. So producers added taking captives option, which is really good improvement. But on RTW, they excluded that very basic feature.

And now in M2TW, we have captives but we cant kill them on the battlefield, which is very annoying because you have to release all prisoners if you want to gain some cash from captived enemy King.

On RTW, we like to watch wall defenders fall from the walls. But on M2TW, no one ever falls during fight!

On RTW, we had cool unit flag bearers for some unit types. (Urban Cohort has two.) I was so curious about the unit leaders of M2TW, but they were removed!

I liked the berserkers of RTW, but there are no Berserker, or Chanter unit on M2TW.. Pilgrims could be great chanters, for example.

On MTW and RTW, we were able to hit the buildings and burn to the ground. But on M2TW, there is no way to collapse a normal house! We cant hit an enemy unit if it hides behind a house...

There are tons of more examples.

I am ok with mistakes, and i believe TW series gets much much better with every new game. But they have to determine some points of the game.

[G. Septimus]

As you guys can easily see; we older players have strong emotional connection with STW and MTW, and it effects our decisions.

But newbies have a mistake too: surely RTW and M2TW is far more better than older ones, but better graphics and units are not everything, STW is better on some points, no matter how old it is.

As for my opinion:

After every new TW game, TW series lost things and won new features. On MTV, we had general's unit. With RTW we had really enjoyable unit type variations, Elephants, Chariots and alot more.

But producers of TW never been able to put everything we like on one basket. Weirdly, they always fix some mistakes, but beside making new ones, they also corrupt some good ideas.

You see; When we play Shogun, we wanted to take prisoners. So producers added taking captives option, which is really good improvement. But on RTW, they excluded that very basic feature.

And now in M2TW, we have captives but we cant kill them on the battlefield, which is very annoying because you have to release all prisoners if you want to gain some cash from captived enemy King.

On RTW, we like to watch wall defenders fall from the walls. But on M2TW, no one ever falls during fight!

On RTW, we had cool unit flag bearers for some unit types. (Urban Cohort has two.) I was so curious about the unit leaders of M2TW, but they were removed!

I liked the berserkers of RTW, but there are no Berserker, or Chanter unit on M2TW.. Pilgrims could be great chanters, for example.

On MTW and RTW, we were able to hit the buildings and burn to the ground. But on M2TW, there is no way to collapse a normal house! We cant hit an enemy unit if it hides behind a house...

There are tons of more examples.

I am ok with mistakes, and i believe TW series gets much much better with every new game. But they have to determine some points of the game.

But on ETW, the Unit "Officers" and "Bannermans" were back, and there were some 4 guys of Fifers/Drummers
but the bad thing we need Steam to play it.
I never Played STW before. my First TW game Was MTW, then RTW, then ETW,
never bought M2

[caravel]

Another ancient thread resurrection and now way offtopic. Closed.