What Total War do you think is the best and why?

[The Wandering Scholar]

The factions are repetitve though as they feature similar if not the same units. Not sure how shallow can be used in this case.

[Puzz3D]

When you zoom out the graphics in STW and MTW are superior to any other Total war game. Also, in STW the units are more distinguishable from each other, and in STW/MTW more distinguishable from the ground textures than in the games since RTW. This is extremely important when playing multiplayer.

I think your preferance seems to be dictated by which TW game you played first.

Not in my case. I was perfectly willing and did migrate to the new releases, but the quality of the battlefield gameplay in multiplayer continually declined after the first release. I finally stopped migrating to the new release after trying RTW.

The A.I's problem is not that it's stupid, its that its too clever and tries what appears on the field to be the easy way, which in battle is not always the best way.

The problem is that features have been put into the game that the AI doesn't know how to handle. The AI then makes stupid moves. Also, starting with RTW, the AI was made to attack with inferior forces and use inferior units for frontal assault. That is stupid especially when morale is low because the AI routs and suffers massive casualties.

Most mods do thier best to fix some of the more glaring issues, however. I've noticed in RTR, IBFD, Rio's, and RS that the A.I seems 'smarter' on a certain level, especially about unit selection and general tactics.

The mods can't fix any of the problems I mentioned in my previous post. Even the creators of EB don't claim any improvement of the AI other than some benefit from using the Darth formations. The best mods can do is remove stuff from the gameplay that the AI doesn't know how to handle.

[Puzz3D]

The factions are repetitve though as they feature similar if not the same units.

All the factions in STW have access to the same unit types, but the facions are not the same. There are diffences is topography, income, quality of generals and distribution of resources, and each faction has a different personality and reduced cost for different unit types that alters their building and training strategy. The AI techs up its units properly as well and every unit is useful, so you don't have AI factions full of useless obsolete units. The game is challenging because the AI makes good moves within the simplied game structure on both the strategic map and the tactical battlefield, and gives the impression of being more intelligent than it actually is.

In contrast, the RTW AI seems stupid to me because it makes too many mistakes. RTW is more complex, but it hasn't been fine tuned. Also, Creative Assembly has admitted that they dumbed down the battlefield gameplay because new players would be confused if they had to manage fatigue or morale or such things as downhill combat bonus. So these tactical aspects were minimized so that they have almost no effect anymore. And, the strategic AI doesn't know how to handle the new style map where movement is calculated by distance.

[Baby Boomer]

How can you say the factions are "shallow" and repetitive if you've never actually played the game? Also the graphics are not a "step back" as this is actually an older game.

I've heard that commonly stated; it was merely stating a opinion I heard beforehand. I also know the game is a older game; hence the reason the graphics are a step back... I have heard the Battle AI to be good and the Weather Effects seem better then the newer TW games.

I will be certian to try STW if I get time and my PC can handle it (No, my PC isn't that bad; perhaps being a older game it can't run I meant)

[caravel]

STW has atmosphere, elegance, superb battles, excellent in game movies that add to the immersion factor and the best music of all the TW titles. The campaign is simple and intuitive, not overcomplex leaving the main focus on the battles. The main thing is that the campaign does work and the campaign AI can handle the map reasonably, unlike in later titles where it clearly cannot.

In terms of graphics I'd say they're acceptable. The terrain is a bit low res and blurry and the seams are visible between sections. MTW doesn't have this issue. Apart from that and a few of the silly units, and unit imbalances introduced in the MI expansion you can't really fault it.

What I hate about later TW titles is getting the sense that I'm only winning because of how poor the AI is.

[Orda Khan]

Plus of course, it has the finest weather conditions of the lot. Even the improved graphics of M2TW can not match STW when it comes to conditions like snow, rain and fog

.....Orda

[Gregoshi]

Plus of course, it has the finest weather conditions of the lot. Even the improved graphics of M2TW can not match STW when it comes to conditions like snow, rain and fog

.....Orda

And don't forget the thunderstorms!

[The Wandering Scholar]

STW has excellent in game movies that add to the immersion factor and the best music of all the TW titles.

I apologised for confusion fact with oppinion, I think you should do the same here.

[caravel]

I apologised for confusion fact with oppinion, I think you should do the same here.

Firstly you made no such apology, secondly no such apology was required. Thirdly why should I apologise for an opinion? It is a fact that STW had excellent in game movies, such as the assassination movies and the throne room. It is also a fact that it had the best music of the series so far.

BAFTA 2001 Award for Video Game Original Soundtrack, Shogun: Total War - Warlord Edition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_van_Dyck

RTW won the same award for it's music, but I've never known anyone that preferred the RTW music to that of STW. When people have visited me in the past I've had STW on pause a few occasions with the music audible. Most people have commented to the effect of "what is that lovely music?". Most can't believe it's coming from a computer game when I inform them of this. The only comparably good music in RTW is probably the Roman faction campaign map music or the theme music. Though overall it is pretty good and better than that of MTW, but not on the same consistent level as with STW.

Gregoshi and Orda Khan are also correct about the weather effects, which have never been bettered IMHO. It's all about immersion, not plastic looking eye candy and polygonal models. The weather in STW was perfectly in tune with the music and environments. As soon as a battle began you would hear the mournful sound of those "pipes" on a foggy morning. You could almost imagine being there. It all connected perfectly into one big audio visual symphony.

You see the difference between my argument and yours is that mine at least has some basis and I did not repeat the same illogical and ridiculous statement as fact several times over. You see, the fundamental of your statement amounted to: better cosmetics = better functionality. This implies that if one's car has broken down one should get it resprayed and valeted - problem solved. Not very scholarly.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

although i dont like to pick a favourite game in my favourite series i would have 2 say that my favourite is shogun total war. i think that the ai is better and provides a bit more of a challenge whereas in RTW the ai can often be poor. i do however think that rome has much better graphics but i disagree with the wandering scholar because i feel that this doesnt compensate for poor ai.

[The Wandering Scholar]

*sigh* when will you two bob gamers ever learn? Modern gaming is the whole package, casual gaming a sense of self achievement, what do you achieve by getting your ass kicked round a battle field? Self determination so you must stay up till 3am each night to finally win one battle?

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"

What about the joys of managing an empire? Please, do not start banging on about being the bobby fischer overlords that you aspire to be.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

*sigh* when will you two bob gamers ever learn? Modern gaming is the whole package, casual gaming a sense of self achievement, what do you achieve by getting your ass kicked round a battle field? Self determination so you must stay up till 3am each night to finally win one battle?

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"

What about the joys of managing an empire? Please, do not start banging on about being the bobby fischer overlords that you aspire to be.

your obviously a respected member more so than me because your a member and im not, and as much as i respect your opinion i have to disagree. i think that you get a better sense of achievement from beating complex and realistic ai who provide some sort of a challenge rather than ai who cant use all the functions that the human player can making them easy to defeat. sorry if i offend anybody here i honestly do respect your opinions!

[The Wandering Scholar]

your obviously a respected member more so than me because your a member and im not, and as much as i respect your opinion i have to disagree. i think that you get a better sense of achievement from beating complex and realistic ai who provide some sort of a challenge rather than ai who cant use all the functions that the human player can making them easy to defeat. sorry if i offend anybody here i honestly do respect your opinions!

I have to applaud you on your manners Majar Sam. Your polite manner and willingness to overcome previous wrongs should grant you member status in no time at all.

Or maybe you get an increased sense of achievement in winning more battles, taking more settlements, rising to the top? (edit) in the same amount of time

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

well thankyou, i do try to be as polite as possible. and as a matter of fact i feel asthough ive achieved more if ive worked for something as opposed to it been gifted to me.

[The Wandering Scholar]

That is the attitude to have.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

ill take that as a compliment shall i?

[Martok]

Or maybe you get an increased sense of achievement in winning more battles, taking more settlements, rising to the top? (edit) in the same amount of time

Only if one has defeated an opponent who's actually challenging (which the AI in RTW never was). Otherwise such victories are meaningless.

[caravel]

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"

The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better music = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better music = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all.

Quite true indeed.

[Puzz3D]

OK. I went back and played a Shogun campaign (STW/MI Warlords Edition) to see how hard it was. It depends on which clan you play, but since I never played Shimazu and I have a Shimazu campaign (normal difficulty setting) in progress with Samurai Warlords I chose Shimazu on normal difficulty. The only changes I've made to Shogun is to return the gun stats to the original STW v1.12 stats, and a couple of other minor alterations. The guns didn't play a role in my Shogun campaign because nobody got guns before the end of the campaign.

I started on Friday night and finished the campaign on Sunday morning. I played out all the battles except for auto-resolving 3 battles near the end of the campaign. I won all but two or three of the battles. I made use of the geisha to eliminate Uesugi late in the game, but he was going down to defeat very soon anyway. I always had enough money even though Shimazu is supposed to be a poor clan. I had conquered 30 provinces after 100 turns (25 years), and conquered all 60 provinces in 136 turns. No AI clan presented formidable resistance, and I never lost a province once I had taken it. It appeared that the AI clans were weakened by fighting among themselves, and a single AI clan had not yet taken over the other half of the map at the point I had half. Once I had half, it only took me 36 turns to take the northern half. To make this campaign challenging I would have to play on expert difficulty, and I may give that a try.

For comparison, in my Samurai Warlords Shimazu campaign, which started in 1467 with 1 turn per year, I was only able to capture 15 provinces after 104 turns, and 20 provinces after 234 turns. The game ends around 1865, so I only have about 166 turns left. The economics limits to a greater degree how many troops a province can support, and you have to disband low loyalty units to avoid civil wars. The threat of clan re-emergence also slows down expansion and the AI might be having trouble managing this, but it doesn't seem to benefit the human player except to prevent one AI clan from dominating the map. The vices and virtures may tend to reduce the number of good generals. In any case, I definitely have less good generals available than I did in my Shogun campaign. I lost many battles in this campaign. The battle AI is slightly stronger than the Shogun battle AI in that AI generals don't suicide and cavalry tries to flank. The AI uses a good selection of units, and guns come into use fairly soon in the campaign.

In both games the battle AI is good and doesn't make blatant mistakes but it's predictable, so the human player can use that to gain an advantage. The AI doesn't use ranged units as well as it uses melee units.

On the strategic side in Samurai Wars I use the command line argument, -loyalty:180, so that the AI doesn't let province loyalty drop too low, but it doesn't seem to disband low loyalty units and that causes the AI clans to have periodic civil wars. The human player can take advantage of this to expand by a few provinces, but it's very easy to overextend and get into trouble. I also had one civil war myself which seemed almost inevitable, despite my best efforts to avoid it, due to some very low quality heirs which you can't disband and a low influence daimyo. This campaign is hard even at at the normal difficulty setting, and I think Shimazu is one of the easier campaigns. I lost 7 times in a row playing Takeda, but I did well with Oda and Ashikaga. There are 24 playable clans in all.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Only if one has defeated an opponent who's actually challenging (which the AI in RTW never was). Otherwise such victories are meaningless.

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.

[The Wandering Scholar]

The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better graphics = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all.

Apart from better graphics = bettter gameplay

[Martok]

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.

So you derive more satisfaction from defeating an easy opponent than you would had you beaten a tougher enemy. Well to each his own, I guess.

[The Wandering Scholar]

You can just sit back, chill out and have a fun relaxing time. Rather than having full concentration for hours on end, there is a mass audience for passive gamers, one which CA chipped into with RTW

[caravel]

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.

No, I would say it's more so: meaningful to you but meaningless to the "average gamer". Try not to bring the "average gamer" down to your level just to try and support your argument. Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics this does not mean that the "average gamer" doesn't either.

Also I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term "passive gamer". That sounds like a load of poppycock as well. Does the "passive gamer" sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side? I think you'll find that all gaming is interactive in some way and it is this that makes a game, a game after all.

[The Wandering Scholar]

No, I would say it's more so: meaningful to you but meaningless to the "average gamer". Try not to bring the "average gamer" down to your level just to try and support your argument. Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics this does not mean that the "average gamer" doesn't either.

Also I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term "passive gamer". That sounds like a load of poppycock as well. Does the "passive gamer sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side? I think you'll find that all gaming is interactive in some way and it is this that makes a game, a game after all.

As a matter of fact I do not class myself as the average gamer, when have I said that? So therefore Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics is a PA.

A passive gamer is a gamer who lets life pass him by ie he gets in from work, plonks his ass, chills out with a ice cold drink and has fun. Not sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side. An active gamer would sit forward, engage and be determined to challenge ones self and hence go for harder games.

[caravel]

As a matter of fact I do not class myself as the average gamer, when have I said that? So therefore Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics is a PA.

All of your comments so far have placed you firmly in your "passive gamer" category. But now we're on to the "average gamer" I see?

A passive gamer is a gamer who lets life pass him by ie he gets in from work, plonks his ass, chills out with a ice cold drink and has fun. Not sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side. An active gamer would sit forward, engage and be determined to challenge ones self and hence go for harder games.

Ah, now I get it. So from this I can conclude that the "average gamer", after gently setting his backside down, relaxes with a nice beverage at room temperature and has a pretty spiffing old time looking at the nice graphics? But does not sit forward so much as to necessitate a visit to the chiropracter?

[Puzz3D]

You can just sit back, chill out and have a fun relaxing time. Rather than having full concentration for hours on end, there is a mass audience for passive gamers, one which CA chipped into with RTW

That's right. They increased sales by dumbing down the game, and I expect this trend to continue in Empire Total War. The increased diplomatic features in RTW were useless because you can completely ignore diplomacy when playing the campaign. As far as battles go, I've seen the naval interface for ETW, and it's less comprehensive than Privateer's Bounty which is a much older game. The land battles in ETW have also been simplified in an as yet unspecified way.

[The Wandering Scholar]

That's right. They increased sales by dumbing down the game, and I expect this trend to continue in Empire Total War. The increased diplomatic features in RTW were useless because you can completely ignore diplomacy when playing the campaign. As far as battles go, I've seen the naval interface for ETW, and it's less comprehensive than Privateer's Bounty which is a much older game. The land battles in ETW have also been simplified in an as yet unspecified way.

Thankyou Puzz3D, they made the game easier and sold more copies... A nice move by CA.

All of your comments so far have placed you firmly in your "passive gamer" category. But now we're on to the "average gamer" I see?

Completely unfounded.

Ah, now I get it. So from this I can conclude that the "average gamer", after gently setting his backside down, relaxes with a nice beverage at room temperature and has a pretty spiffing old time looking at the nice graphics? But does not sit forward so much as to necessitate a visit to the chiropracter?

*Another sigh* Caravel, are you an obnoxious person? You have purposefully mis-quoted me for your own ends, again. You seem to be having difficuly grasping the whole idea of a passive gamer.

[Caerfanan]

Well... I'll say that each one has it reasons to prefer a game on another. Some other person have as well a reason to "fight" about what is best and why. But here's a difference. When you play a game to get rid of the heavy thoughts of the day, you don't play the same game as when you have been in holidays for a week and are bored: that's why shooting at stupid rabbits while jumping everywhere is a good game sometimes, and managing a whole empire is a good game at other times.

Some people listen to music to ease their mind, some to analyze technically the use of an instrument (I know some of those), some to get some energy, some to sleep.. They could argue for ages, and try to be "objectively saying that their view is the best because"... Forgetting that they don't have the same goal first...

All games have a reason to be the best for someone. Speaking of why you like it can then give to someone else the idea of trying it - but you won't logically force anyone into doing anything.