MTW demo vs game

[Alastair]

I downloaded the updated MTW demo, and I really liked the battle of Jaffa. However, I don't know how that battle ranks compared to the other battles in the full version. Could someone enlighten me as to whether Jaffa in the demo is the least of the full version battles, the best, or in between?

Thanks in advance,

Alastair

[1dread1lahll]

Demo does not hold much...get the game...

[Alastair]

That wasn't a very helpful reply. Perhaps someone else could actually inform me about the game rather than simply telling me to get it?

[muffinman14]

some battles can range from 60 men vs 60 men to about 6000 men vs 6000 men.
in a custom battle i had 8000 peasents on a field attacking my 640 elite calvary units...I killed 6422 of em and i only lost 170 of my men.

[martin4444]

the battles works the same, ofcourse the demo does not have a prayer against the real thing, on the other hand i played the game nonstop 8 hours+ per day for a month and then I shelved the game. So it was worth buying! The only reason I gave up on it because the AI is to weak in my opinion, and the multiplayer needs alot of work.

I can forgive the AI is laking in the tactical battles..very hard to code, but the way it handles itself on the Strategic map is plain dumb, to easy to fool, unless you assign yourself your own ironman rules but by that time I was bored with it anyway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by martin4444 (edited 11-03-2002).]

[Alastair]

I'm sure that in a fight the demo would lose, as you said. However, I am not interested in a fight between the two, since I'm not exactly sure how that would happen. My question was not whether the battles work the same, but rather how the battle of Jaffa in the demo ranks in terms of tactical challenge among the battles in the full version.

Thanks again for replying,

Alastair

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Alastair:
I'm sure that in a fight the demo would lose, as you said. However, I am not interested in a fight between the two, since I'm not exactly sure how that would happen. My question was not whether the battles work the same, but rather how the battle of Jaffa in the demo ranks in terms of tactical challenge among the battles in the full version.

Thanks again for replying,

Alastair[/QUOTE]

Ok, ok I can see nobody is helping you with your problem. I'll be quite frank with you, all the battles included in MTW suck. By contrast Jaffa was a challenging fun scenario, the historical campaigns suck as well as the battles. Bannockburn and Stirling are a major waste of time, as theres no real strategy or tactics. Dont believe the BS on the box about battles with 10,000 guys. When I tried playing the historical battles it wouldnt let me use huge units even though I could in campaign, so its basically like playing Stirling and Bannockburns twin little borthers. Fear not my friend, theres a scenario editor to be out soon in which you can create big historical scenarios, or you can play big epic battles online. Anybody who plays the game will find the battles and campaigns are a real waste of time and make famous battles such as agincourt look like the little drummer boy and his toy gun. If you play the strategy map you can get some big intersting battles but the strategy map is quite tedious and full of micro management. So to answer your question how does Jaffa compare well you'll waste your time playing with the turdy battles includded in the game, of course CA put the best scenario on the demo so you would buy their game. Buy their game but dont expect their battles to be any better than jaffa, buy the game because when all is said and done you will be able to build your own epic games and play them online.

[muffinman14]

yes the agincourt battle sucked because u got mabye 40 kills with ur longbowmen.......but some battles in MTW are fun but some arent. I have just played three long battles and it was in 2 and a half hours time and finally quit because I was exhausted. I think they should make 1 army be able to control 2000 men, not a puny 960 man army.

[deejayvee]

Quote I have just played three long battles and it was in 2 and a half hours time and finally quit because I was exhausted. I think they should make 1 army be able to control 2000 men, not a puny 960 man army.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, you can. Just increase the unit size.

Secondly, if you increase the unit size the battles are only going to get longer and you more exhausted.

[muffinman14]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Nov. 04 2002,04:00)]
Quote[/b] ]I have just played three long battles and it was in 2 and a half hours time and finally quit because I was exhausted. I think they should make 1 army be able to control 2000 men, not a puny 960 man army.
Firstly, you can. Just increase the unit size.

Secondly, if you increase the unit size the battles are only going to get longer and you more exhausted.
Tis true deyavjee

If they make a naploenic totalwar, how will the developers make the game realistic like putting in 100000 men on the battlefield? I think the only way to go "right now" is to go Ancient Total War.