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

[Veles Shadow]

My Fav is RTW because I know all the fations there I've played it loads and I have about 3 Mega Campains ! It is also the First Total War game with Really Good Graphics My Fav Faction is Seleucids.What TW Games are your Fav and why?

[Shieldmaiden]

You know the thread will just turn into a graphics vs gameplay argument? As usual...

But, my personal favourite TW is Rome, because of its playability (the older TW's have a clunky interface IMHO) and my interest in the period

However, for pure gameplay I'd pick Shogun Its just a classic, and still feels fresh years later (I find its tactical depth - and especially AI - superior to Rome).

[The Wandering Scholar]

I have played Shogun, Medieval and ome, out of them I would say Rome purely because better graphics means better gameplay. Rome has a campaign map which is smooth instead of clunky ie you can move anywhere on Rome, you can only move into the next province on MTW and STW. PLus the time period is more interesting IMO although there was wars galore in the other time frames. ETW/ M2TW should be better, yes you guesse4d it better graphics = better gameplay. Even though the time frames are not as interesting with them two more recent games. R2TW if it is ever brought out would top it all IMO. It would be good to see a replica of the enormous barbarian armies in that game even if that means that the graphics are sub-par.

[Charge]

better graphics means better gameplay

Now that is

or

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

M:TW, although I must confess that Shogun was a classic also.

Graphics in a game a relatively irrelevant factor in enjoyment I can get out of it. In my opinion, they are only really needed to show the player the essentials of what's going on. Yes, it may be nice to have a photo-realistic experience, but when it comes down to it other factors are much more critical.

On that note, M:TW/S:TW style graphics actually serve the purpose of showing the player what is going on better than Rome and it's successors. Units are easier to define when zoomed out - in Rome everything transforms to a blur of sprites. This is essential for players such as myself, who prefer to watch a battle from overhead rather than from down on the soldier's level of things.

Moving away from the eye-candy perspective, M:TW and S:TW has much better AI both on the field and on the campaign map. R:TW has the major issue of an AI that lacks power and tactical ability. This was effected by the campaign map's change from "risk" style map to a more RTS style map and the complete rewrite for the battle field AI. The AI seems incompetent at flanking and skirmishing. It also doesn't deal with many player tactics correctly, often leaving it vulnerable to exploits which the player can use. This cam make battles unchallenging for a more experienced player.

Another key issue is battle speed. R:TW runs like a Charlie Chaplin movie on fast forward - in other words, painfully fast. Although I could tolerate it when I first entered the TW series, when moving back to it from M:TW, I was forced to tediously modify the files to give units more hitpoints. This speed also leaves less room for both the player and the AI to use any tactical abilities that it may want to.

M:TW is feature filled with epic civil revolts, treason, plot and political intrigue. When it comes to this sort of thing, R:TW is, well, fairly empty. Although it does have some nice new features, such as the "improved" diplomacy, these are often completely broken or the AI simply doesn't know how to use them. There isn't the depth that M:TW has in pretty much every respect.

R:TW is also too easy. I've managed to build up a small Empire (all of Spain and part of Italy to a thin strip of upper Greece) in M:TW, but it took me from the start of the early period to 1453 to actually complete. I was also not the most powerful faction - the English were a lot more successful that me, and the Byzantines were battering me on the Greek front. Building up this empire took me many attempts. Several times I failed in my take over bids and had to start again. Also several times I foolishly declared war on the English, and had them landing in all my coastal provinces within a matter of a few short turns.

In R:TW I've only lost a campaign once and, regardless of who I play as, I always seem to end up controlling a large mass of land very quickly. This isn't helped by the ease of fund raising - in my largest M:TW empire I've never earnt more than 2,000 florins per turn (after costs have been subtracted). In R:TW a similar sized empire would be granting me infinite funds of about 50,000 denarii+ per turn.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Well said. Still eyecandy is important to me.

[Horseman]

Well I've played them all many times over and they all have their unique points. But overall my fave is RTW - Mainly because its the time period I am most interested in.

I do still play all the others though, depending on my whim at the time!

[Ravie]

Shogun... 'nuff said.

[Punicus]

I've played MTW and RTW. MTW was my first game and is just a pure classic, but I gotta say RTW is my favorite. I liked the campaign map system better and the battle system seemed to run better. They're both great but if I was given a choice, one or the other, I'd go Rome.

[TruePraetorian]

I own RTW, but Ive played a campaign and multiplayer in each one. I have to say Rome. Not only because of the time period, but overall enjoyment. Im from the US, so I can't relate to the great empires of Eurpoe, but the aniquity era influences every culture.

I also love the Roman's for thier plain organization

[Martok]

M:TW, although I must confess that Shogun was a classic also.

Graphics in a game a relatively irrelevant factor in enjoyment I can get out of it. In my opinion, they are only really needed to show the player the essentials of what's going on. Yes, it may be nice to have a photo-realistic experience, but when it comes down to it other factors are much more critical.

On that note, M:TW/S:TW style graphics actually serve the purpose of showing the player what is going on better than Rome and it's successors. Units are easier to define when zoomed out - in Rome everything transforms to a blur of sprites. This is essential for players such as myself, who prefer to watch a battle from overhead rather than from down on the soldier's level of things.

Moving away from the eye-candy perspective, M:TW and S:TW has much better AI both on the field and on the campaign map. R:TW has the major issue of an AI that lacks power and tactical ability. This was effected by the campaign map's change from "risk" style map to a more RTS style map and the complete rewrite for the battle field AI. The AI seems incompetent at flanking and skirmishing. It also doesn't deal with many player tactics correctly, often leaving it vulnerable to exploits which the player can use. This cam make battles unchallenging for a more experienced player.

Another key issue is battle speed. R:TW runs like a Charlie Chaplin movie on fast forward - in other words, painfully fast. Although I could tolerate it when I first entered the TW series, when moving back to it from M:TW, I was forced to tediously modify the files to give units more hitpoints. This speed also leaves less room for both the player and the AI to use any tactical abilities that it may want to.

M:TW is feature filled with epic civil revolts, treason, plot and political intrigue. When it comes to this sort of thing, R:TW is, well, fairly empty. Although it does have some nice new features, such as the "improved" diplomacy, these are often completely broken or the AI simply doesn't know how to use them. There isn't the depth that M:TW has in pretty much every respect.

R:TW is also too easy. I've managed to build up a small Empire (all of Spain and part of Italy to a thin strip of upper Greece) in M:TW, but it took me from the start of the early period to 1453 to actually complete. I was also not the most powerful faction - the English were a lot more successful that me, and the Byzantines were battering me on the Greek front. Building up this empire took me many attempts. Several times I failed in my take over bids and had to start again. Also several times I foolishly declared war on the English, and had them landing in all my coastal provinces within a matter of a few short turns.

In R:TW I've only lost a campaign once and, regardless of who I play as, I always seem to end up controlling a large mass of land very quickly. This isn't helped by the ease of fund raising - in my largest M:TW empire I've never earnt more than 2,000 florins per turn (after costs have been subtracted). In R:TW a similar sized empire would be granting me infinite funds of about 50,000 denarii+ per turn.

^^^ What he said.

Medieval is my favorite, with Shogun an extremely close second. I place MTW first since I enjoy the time period more, but STW is actually the better overall game IMO.

Rome and Medieval 2 are both far, far behind the other two titles. As Omanes has said, pretty graphics are nice, but are absolutely no subsitute for great gameplay.

[Judge]

i must say i have stw, mtw/vi, rtw,bi, mtw2 and kingdoms............

without a doubt the best game i played is MTW/VI

[caravel]

out of them I would say Rome purely because better graphics means better gameplay

ETW/ M2TW should be better, yes you guesse4d it better graphics = better gameplay.

So as a somewhat fitting analogy: better CGI equals better acting/plot/storyline!?

[The Wandering Scholar]

Since when has a TW game had acting, plots and storylines? these are not plausible criteria.

I seem to have been ridiculed slightly by my opinion of graphics meaning better game play, yes I may have confused opinion with fact but generally they are all the same, different timescales with a campaign map and battles so therefore the game which portrays that campaign map and that battle map should be the best.

The graphics of the later titles are far better than the earlier ones which obviously the case. Therefore IMO (not fact) the later titles are better. Since RTW is IMO the most interesting era RTW is the best game.

[caravel]

Since when has a TW game had acting, plots and storylines? these are not plausible criteria.

It was an analogy and an entirely plausible one. You are effectively saying that "if it looks good it plays good". This quite simply isn't true. There is no way that any amount of eye candy can rescue an otherwise crap game.

I seem to have been ridiculed slightly by my opinion of graphics meaning better game play, yes I may have confused opinion with fact but generally they are all the same, different timescales with a campaign map and battles so therefore the game which portrays that campaign map and that battle map should be the best.

Some might say that you've invited ridicule with that statement, simply because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The graphics of the later titles are far better than the earlier ones which obviously the case.

True.

Therefore IMO (not fact) the later titles are better.

That's fine if it's your opinion. But in your previous post you were making the statement "better graphics = better gameplay".

Since RTW is IMO the most interesting era RTW is the best game.

I agree that RTW is loosely based upon what is quite arguably the most interesting period - just to make it clear that we agree on that point. What I disagree with is the statement that RTW is the best TW game which it clearly is not.

As far as graphics are concerned RTW has been surpassed by M2TW and for the record I don't think it's low poly clone armies were ever that much to get excited about anyway. In terms of gameplay, balance and AI, RTW is found severely wanting in all three departments. Also as far as historical accuracy is concerned RTW is probably the worst title in the series for this.

You need to ask yourself why RTW has been the the most heavily modded TW game in terms of historical realism and gameplay mods based on the same era as the vanilla game. Yes RTW is more moddable than previous titles but why is it that the most popular mods are not those based on other eras and settings, but are the realism and gameplay ones? This points to pronounced deficiencies and shortcomings in the vanilla game.

[The Wandering Scholar]

It was an analogy and an entirely plausible one. You are effectively saying that "if it looks good it plays good". This quite simply isn't true. There is no way that any amount of eye candy can rescue an otherwise crap game.

What I said was better graphics make better gameplay ie the Halo series. With this example I am not talking about the campaign which is not what interests people. So therefore people buy the game for multiplayer (stay with me here) and why do people buy 1 then 2 then 3? The answer is simple better graphics, better weapons etc. This does not mean that Halo 1 was bad just the improvement in technology makes Halo 3 more appealing.

Some might say that you've invited ridicule with that statement, simply because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I like you caravel, you structure your arguments in a way which is most pleasant. I have to take it back with that dross. How does my comment not make sense? In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up. Therefore the later titles should be the best and they are but I have not played anything later than RTW (or TW3) therefore IMO RTW is the best game.

I agree that RTW is loosely based upon what is quite arguably the most interesting period - just to make it clear that we agree on that point. What I disagree with is the statement that RTW is the best TW game which it clearly is not.

I agree ETW should be the best.

As far as graphics are concerned RTW has been surpassed by M2TW and for the record I don't think it's low poly clone armies were ever that much to get excited about anyway. In terms of gameplay, balance and AI, RTW is found severely wanting in all three departments. Also as far as historical accuracy is concerned RTW is probably the worst title in the series for this.

Historical accuracy is a difficult subject I think that CA tried (and could well have failed) to appeal more to the casual gamer in RTW who are not bothered about historical accuracy. It is mainly critised on forums for the game like this one where the majority of members are interested in history, casual gamers IMO are not interested so much. The low poly clone armies are much better in RTW than they were in STW and MTW. Although sprites are an issue but are not nearly enough to put Rome last (or for that matter second).

You need to ask yourself why RTW has been the the most heavily modded TW game in terms of historical realism and gameplay mods based on the same era as the vanilla game. Yes RTW is more moddable than previous titles but why is it that the most popular mods are not those based on other eras and settings, but are the realism and gameplay ones? This points to pronounced deficiencies and shortcomings in the vanilla game.

But there are gameplay mods for previous titles. More could suggest a larger following.

[Nem]

Got to say MTW/VI. Shogun is a close second but didn't have quite the same depth.

I only play the MP side of TW so RTW and MTW2 are a total non starter.

[Puzz3D]

In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up.

The gameplay deteriorated when the graphics was improved. It's not the same game with better graphics.

[Spartan198]

I own and have played all but Kingdoms (which,on par with advice from my fellow Orgahs,I'm avoiding until the SecuRom thing is dealt with),but Rome and Alexander come up an even tie for first. The faction selection is varied and unique in Rome,but I like the Macedonian troop roster in Alexander better.

[caravel]

What I said was better graphics make better gameplay ie the Halo series. With this example I am not talking about the campaign which is not what interests people. So therefore people buy the game for multiplayer (stay with me here) and why do people buy 1 then 2 then 3? The answer is simple better graphics, better weapons etc. This does not mean that Halo 1 was bad just the improvement in technology makes Halo 3 more appealing.

No, in fact you said "better graphics = better gameplay". You were quite specific and you said it twice. Also FPS games are an wholly different animal. Some may buy the latest title due to better graphics, though most buy it due to improvements in physics, netcode and in terms of features, i.e. better weapons and vehicles etc.

I like you caravel, you structure your arguments in a way which is most pleasant.

I have to take it back with that dross.

How does my comment not make sense? In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up. Therefore the later titles should be the best and they are but I have not played anything later than RTW (or TW3) therefore IMO RTW is the best game.

You've obviously not played anything earlier than RTW either? Your statement makes no sense because you had stated that "better graphics = better gameplay". RTW is not STW/MTW "spruced up" it is a different game engine with a different campaign map. This is a known fact. STW/MTW had better tactical/battle AI and balance than RTW and so in some ways it did have better gameplay. RTW, the newer game, should have been superior in every way to the old engine. It wasn't.

I agree ETW should be the best.

Let me guess... because it will have "better graphics"?

Historical accuracy is a difficult subject I think that CA tried (and could well have failed) to appeal more to the casual gamer in RTW who are not bothered about historical accuracy. It is mainly critised on forums for the game like this one where the majority of members are interested in history, casual gamers IMO are not interested so much. The low poly clone armies are much better in RTW than they were in STW and MTW. Although sprites are an issue but are not nearly enough to put Rome last (or for that matter second).

The sprites in MTW and STW were perfect for the range they were normally viewed at. The RTW sprites that kick in once you're zoomed out to a certain range are inferior. The 3D models are only good if you're going to spend time up close inspecting your men. If you're doing that then you're clearly not keeping your eye on the battle as a whole - which is what TW battles are all about (well it's what they used to be about anyway). Really this is just a gimmick that is not needed and at the time served to distract from RTW's major shortcomings.

But there are gameplay mods for previous titles. More could suggest a larger following.

There are a few balancing mods for MTW, but there are more total conversions and others that simply add more factions, more provinces, more units and try to address some of the gameplay issues. This is understandable as it is the earlier game. What MTW doesn't have is it's own EB or RTR. It lacked a grand project of this kind. These kind of projects are ones that set out to fix problems with the game and resolve balance issues, while also addressing problems with historical accuracy. IMHO both of these mods fix a lot of historical innacuracies but deal less with the gameplay/balance side of things. This is probably due to the fact that only so much can be done with a game engine that is inherently flawed.

[Raz]

Of all posts, I thought Puzz3D's would be the longest.
The Best? That's tough.
My Favourite? That's easy. MTW-VI. Finding the optimum balance of graphics vs gameplay is difficult, RTW was a nice game, and still is for some. But I now seldom play RTW or M2TW. I've clocked up countless hours on MTW-VI, and even more when you throw in the modifications.
It's able to absorb you and eventually, destroy your entire life from your very own living-room.

In fact, the last time I played it was a little less than thirty minutes ago according to my PC's clock. I would turn that into a poll - how long has it been since you last played Total War? But I'm too lazy.

[The Wandering Scholar]

No, in fact you said "better graphics = better gameplay". You were quite specific and you said it twice. Also FPS games are an wholly different animal. Some may buy the latest title due to better graphics, though most buy it due to improvements in physics, netcode and in terms of features, i.e. better weapons and vehicles etc.

= is makes, same difference. Your points about FPS are exactly mine. Later titles tend to improve. That is why people buy them.

You've obviously not played anything earlier than RTW either? Your statement makes no sense because you had stated that "better graphics = better gameplay". RTW is not STW/MTW "spruced up" it is a different game engine with a different campaign map. This is a known fact. STW/MTW had better tactical/battle AI and balance than RTW and so in some ways it did have better gameplay. RTW, the newer game, should have been superior in every way to the old engine. It wasn't.

But it has a campaign and battle map which plays a pivotal role in the game.

Let me guess... because it will have "better graphics"?

I was thinking more of improved technology as a whole.

The sprites in MTW and STW were perfect for the range they were normally viewed at. The RTW sprites that kick in once you're zoomed out to a certain range are inferior. The 3D models are only good if you're going to spend time up close inspecting your men. If you're doing that then you're clearly not keeping your eye on the battle as a whole - which is what TW battles are all about (well it's what they used to be about anyway). Really this is just a gimmick that is not needed and at the time served to distract from RTW's major shortcomings.

Like I said sprites cannot play a major role in this discussion.

This is understandable as it is the earlier game.

You hit the nail on the head there.

[caravel]

= is makes, same difference.

You're blatently trying to worm your way out of the absurd statement that you have made that "better graphics = better gameplay". I am going to make this response my last, as we're clearly getting nowhere here.

Your points about FPS are exactly mine. Later titles tend to improve. That is why people buy them.

Of course, but not only do they improve graphically, they must improve in terms of gameplay. No one goes out and buys a game again simply because it's had a facelift.

RTW promised epic battles of thousands of men, superior AI and a better campaign map and diplomacy, this is why TW players went out and bought it. It failed to deliver on this. AI and Diplomacy are indeed a joke.

But it has a campaign and battle map which plays a pivotal role in the game.

And that's pretty much where the similarity ends. To quote Mouzafphaerre, M2TW is MTW "in name only", it is not MTW and doesn't have the tactical battles of MTW. RTW battles are simple bumrushes of a confused mass of units all jumbled together. Generally cavalry charges rout almost everything, Roman units are superior and phalanxes turn chariots into soup. Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.

Like I said sprites cannot play a major role in this discussion.

Why not? The sprites in RTW should have improved, the gameplay should have improved, battles should have improved. In fact the only thing that improved were the 3D models for the units and buildings. How does improving these to the detriment of all else make for "better gameplay"?

[Puzz3D]

I would turn that into a poll - how long has it been since you last played Total War? But I'm too lazy.

Played a 7 hour session of Samurai Wars multiplayer yesterday, and a few turns of its SP campaign. That's STW ported to the MTW/VI engine which is really the best of both worlds. The best game matched to the best engine.

[TosaInu]

STW has 4 turns per year, only one harvest season and winter battles. MTW has none of this (yes, winter battles are there, but normally not in the campaign).

The campaign being short can be fixed (in more than one way: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local...php?linkid=639 ), but one harvest season and winterbattles?

[Ramses II CP]

Personally, for sheer joy of campaign, I'd take MTW: Viking Invasion over all the others. It had a tolerably good strategic AI, a fun story line, a good campaign length, and some truly excellent battles at times. Plus the factions were clearly not all equal, so if you wanted an easy campaign you could take the Vikings, and if you wanted a hard one you could take the Irish.

Shogun is a close second. Loved the battles, but the heavy cavalry dominance got to be a bit much late in every campaign.

MTW2 is third. I love the game, but by all the gods the strategic AI is terrible, and evidently nearly unfixable. The battle AI is, if anything, even worse. Has anyone ever lost a citadel to the AI?

I never bought Rome. I was waiting for the most damaging bugs to get sorted out, and lost interest before they were (...by mods evidently).

[The Wandering Scholar]

I was not going to reply but them question marks were just staring at me. I understand that you are not going to reply so I will try not be controversial.

You're blatently trying to worm your way out of the absurd statement that you have made that "better graphics = better gameplay". I am going to make this response my last, as we're clearly getting nowhere here.

Of course, but not only do they improve graphically, they must improve in terms of gameplay. No one goes out and buys a game again simply because it's had a facelift.

RTW promised epic battles of thousands of men, superior AI and a better campaign map and diplomacy, this is why TW players went out and bought it. It failed to deliver on this. AI and Diplomacy are indeed a joke.

And that's pretty much where the similarity ends. To quote Mouzafphaerre, M2TW is MTW "in name only", it is not MTW and doesn't have the tactical battles of MTW. RTW battles are simple bumrushes of a confused mass of units all jumbled together. Generally cavalry charges rout almost everything, Roman units are superior and phalanxes turn chariots into soup. Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.

Why not? The sprites in RTW should have improved, the gameplay should have improved, battles should have improved. In fact the only thing that improved were the 3D models for the units and buildings. How does improving these to the detriment of all else make for "better gameplay"?

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to. I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.

I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing? Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.

Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire. Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were. Oh and take for example the battle between Caesar and Sertorius in Spain where legions on legions were in a stalemate before Caesar ordered his cavalry to charge the flank of Sertorius' troops, as soon as they they hit Sertorius' tired army broke and ran. This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.

[Martok]

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to. I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.

Adding new features to a game is pointless unless the computer is able to use said features with a reasonable degree of competency/proficiency. Therefore, the campaign map in RTW/M2TW is actually worse than the STW/MTW map because the AI handles it poorly.

I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing?

"Slightly" easier?

Rome's AI doesn't use tactics in battle; it doesn't flank or attemp envelopment, it sends units into battle piecemeal instead of as a cohesive whole, and it doesn't know how to utilize most units effectively. On the campaign map, it constantly sends pitiful half-stacks of troops at your armies that are easily mowed down.

And to be quite blunt, diplomacy *is* a joke in RTW (although to be fair, it's been a weakness in all the Total War titles, STW & MTW included). Sure, Rome's diplomacy model is more sophisticated than the 2 earlier games; but again, this is another "feature" that the AI doesn't know how to use properly.

Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.

I highly doubt that. It was painfully obvious from the beginning that with all the emphasis on Rome's new battle engine and its shiny graphics, the AI was a low priority.

Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire. Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were. Oh and take for example the battle between Caesar and Sertorius in Spain where legions on legions were in a stalemate before Caesar ordered his cavalry to charge the flank of Sertorius' troops, as soon as they they hit Sertorius' tired army broke and ran. This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.

Setting aside that Caesar fought against Pompey's sons (not Sertorius) in the battle of Munda, it's still beside the point. Rome was famous for its infantry legions, and justly so -- it was they that did the bulk of the fighting. I'm not saying that cavalry didn't play its part, but it certainly didn't take center stage on the battlefield as a general rule.

So it is indeed ironic that cavalry in RTW is so powerful, when it's the infantry that should be supreme (especially with respect to the Romans themselves).

[Myrddraal]

I most enjoyed MTW:VI.

Just because it was great fun. Perhaps not so historical, but really good gameplay.

[Puzz3D]

Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.

So, it's not the same game with better graphics. It's an inferior game with better graphics. BTW, multiplayer gameplay has also been in decline ever since the Mongol Invasion add-on to STW.