So, is RTW a fluke?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I post this thread and poll to try to get some feedback and opinions about what is your overall opinion of the game. Try to justify your vote by submiting game examples of what you agree/disagree, like/deslike.

Thank you all for your opinions... :bow:

[SpencerH]

Somewhere between 2.5 and 3. Time will tell.

[Sir Robin]

This game is amazing...

Crushing a besieging Scipii army in Sicily by attacking them from the rear, hidden in the woods, while the city garrison sallies.

Killed two Scipii generals in that one and bought some serious breathing room for my Carthaginians.

But it can also be annoying...

Have a Julii campaign saved Summer 243 BC, went a little assassin crazy and have six plus running around. Tough to keep track of and consistently CTDs within a few turns whenever I load that saved game.

Also amazing...

Your generals and their retinues. "Just a little something I picked up on the frontier..." ~;)

And annoying...

Where is the hotkey to just cycle thru diplomats?

Yet again amazing...

The Senate saving my trade by stomping on Carthaginian fleets. :duel:

Also annoying...

No option to turn the Battle Timer off?

It is an amazing game that is definately a change from earlier Total War games. There are definately some quirks and bugs that should be tweaked.

It will not be everyone's cup of tea but it certainly is mine. :charge:

[Spino]

No doubt about it, Rome Total War is a great game. In fact after four days of nearly continous play I consider RTW to be one of the best games I've ever played. However RTW is not without its problems... it has bugs, 'quirks' and shortcomings that MUST be ironed out by CA otherwise it's long term value will come into question. Beyond the complaints regarding unit speeds and killing power my biggest issue is with the strategic and tactical AI, specifically at the Hard level of difficulty (for both the battles & strategic map).

[andrewt]

It's great but it has a few balance problems and quirks. For example, once you get a huge city, you could actually save money by destroying your farms in some cases. Why? Each level of farm adds 1,000 people to the max population you can have, which reduces public order by 5%. The increased garrison size you need, even using peasants, is actually more expensive than the bonus income the farm gives.

Also, my family breeds like modern day people in industrialized nations. 1-2 children each and some don't have any at all. It's seriously holding me back.

It's also hard trying to fins your assassins, diplomats, spies in the campaign map.

Pathfinding AI in sieges still sucks big time. Your troops will use so many long cuts through arrow fire instead of using shortcuts away from the arrow towers.

[TinCow]

RTW is bloody brilliant. It is (so far) everything I've hoped and more.

[Doug-Thompson]

As I said elsewhere, 1.25, but I'm a single-player. Judging from these forums, multi-players have problems more serious than mine.

Still, the new strategy map is a marvel.

[Steppe Merc]

I voted 3. I liked the derection they tried and go in, but they killed it by destroying all Non-Hellenized or Latin units. Heck, the Scythians are identical to the Gauls and Germans, just with horses! :wall:
But it's worth it, and will be far better after we mod the game. But you may want to wait untill the mod comes out, since I know you demand perfection. ~;p

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

But it's worth it, and will be far better after we mod the game. But you may want to wait untill the mod comes out, since I know you demand perfection. ~;p
HE!HE!HE! :grin: I don't demand perfection, but excellence and seriousness. Two different things... :wink:

BTW, the latest images and videos have made my life very difficult... :stunned: ...they are soooo good graphically!!! :surprised:

[Longasc]

UPDATE:

The Prologue Campaign and battles are quite bad - but things get better afterwards.

Still, Cavalry is too strong and too fast, Phalanx Formation is terribly ineffective and stuff like that but...

I can stand the game now. Not yet the full MTW flair, but it is at least no longer as unbearable as I said below - it is quite good after the weak introduction.


I got it today.

Well... it runs too fast. Even on highest Detail.

Battles are a matter of 2-3 minutes. The speech of the General in the beginning takes longer if you do not click it away! :(

OK, this was just the Prologue. Besides the Advisor I will probably soon switch off, as both the General and the Priestess are getting on my nerves, I must say:

I hope it gets better tomorrow.

The Sons of Mars Campaign so far was a letdown, the city sieges/battles are unstrategical charge and slaughter, running so fast that I have to pause all the time.

I should have tried Warhammer: Dawn of War.


But perhaps it will become better. But I am neither amazed by the graphics, they look not noticable better than before in the usual view nor by the strategical map that I was looking forward so much.

But well, I am still in the intro campaign, just took Tarentium.

[Sethik]

The only complaint I have (voted a 2 btw) is the quirky AI. Sometimes when I order one unit, which was grouped with another before, to attack the other unit comes with! That's especially annoying with Cav who can move quickly and leave a painful gap in your line.
:oops:

I also got this wierd thing when I had 2 units of Phalanx fighting 3 units of enemy Phalanx in a siege. We were on of the broader roads, but It was still too narrow from more than one unit to fight at time. I go to try to keep my general from joining the fray and when I come back the Phalanx are standing SIDEWAYS. They rotated 90 degrees and were taking a pounding from the enemy. I almost lost the battle and lost almost all of my Phalanx.
:oops:


Aside from that, the game is amazing. I love the improved speed and killing rate. I really hated the ineffectivness of Cav charges in MTW and the way some battles literally took hours (see: Golden Horde). Now when a unit routs and you have Cav, you can be sure of slaughter. :knight:

:2thumbsup:

Fake edit: I miss ransoms and the agents tab tough... ~:mecry:

[Steppe Merc]

Everyone, try putting the units on huge. It makes it almost managable...

[Thoros of Myr]

Or download the speed patch? there's a thought...

[khelvan]

Fake edit: I miss ransoms and the agents tab tough... ~:mecry:

Try right-clicking on the Agents tab in the UI, whether it is active or not. You will get a list of agents similar to MTW.

[Longasc]

I have a question:

Unit Scale Settings
The Unit Size option found in the Video Options screen will affect the gameplay experience of a Campaign, as well as being a performance setting. Using smaller unit sizes in the game will use up less population when you train new units and therefore affect the amount of Denarii you gain from taxes. Using larger units sizes will also result in units gaining more experience in battle, but will be more of a drain on your population. Players should bear this in mind when changing this setting and may use it to choose the style of gameplay which best suits them. Please note: This setting cannot be altered mid-campaign. The unit size setting selected at the start of any campaign game will apply through that entire game.

For what unit size is the campaign designed? Or is the impact of this setting rather low?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Voted #3

CA gave us nice shiny gladii (is that plural of gladius?) but took our nice scabbard and gave us a cheaper one.

That is, nice 3D engine and plenty of tiny stuff, but some of the bread and butter, like an original and effective USER INTERFACE and other previous nice touches are not there, and there is even less attention to historical accuracy then in previous Total War titles.

I have my concerns for the future.

[DisruptorX]

Vote 3.

The good: Speeches, graphics, seiges, atmosphere.

The bad: unit speed, new interface, voice acting for the non-romans, not as addictive as MTW.

The Ugly: The way cavalry school like fish and automatically win if they outnumber an enemy by constantly recharging them over and over again while still in combat. Looks like a feeding frenzy.

@longasc: I'm playing on large, and it seems good. Any smaller is not good.

[discovery1]

I would say 2.4. The game is generally great. I love how the cavalry automtically disengage and recharge. Also they disengage more quickly than in MTW. The graphics are great, and I love the new assaults. The graphic are excellent. However, the voice acting sucks, and that's an understatement. Also it seems that the non Roman, or at least the Greek cities, don't have speeches that are nearly as detailed as the Roman's. Then there is historical accuracy, of course. Even the 'historical' battle of Ralphia uses fantasy units ~:mecry: . But the greatest faw, imo, a battle bug. Sometimes when a order a formation foward, it rotates as much as 180*. Then I have to move every unit foward manually. This wouldn't be a problem, due to pause, but it's a pain to reallign all of my hoplites every time I want to move my line foward. Oh, and I was disappointed that Selucia didn't have it's own intro vid, although that's relatively minor. Oh, and I hate how cavalry are rather effective against spears. Shouldn't the horses hesitate when charging a wall of spears?

[son of spam]

I would say 2.4. The game is generally great. I love how the cavalry automtically disengage and recharge. Also they disengage more quickly than in MTW


Funny... I hate how the cav disengages so fast. The ability to constantly recharge plus the fact that they have rocket engines attached to their horses = instant rout for enemy once his units are engaged with mine. Kinda ruins the fun for me to win so easily every time.

Oh yeah the wardogs have got to go. WTF is this thing? Auto replenishing attack dogs that kill hoplites? How...erm...realistic. Before I played RTW I never realized that half of all Brutii armies should consist of attack dogs.

[Doug-Thompson]

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the Roman "dogs of war" were used to hunt down -- literally -- fleeing troops after the battle that were trying to hide from the victorious side.

[discovery1]

Wardogs are effective? The senate gave me one as a reward. I used it in a battle against Macedonia. Sent them against some spears and they were owned. Afterward I would always disband they if they were a 'gift'

[Colt374]

Well, I give a hearty round of applause for the game... It's a great game and a great step forward. It just has a couple of quirks still to rectify, so I gave it a two. Here's my issues :

Speed - I have to pause the battles ever five to ten seconds.... I admit I paused it in MTOW, but never had to do it anywhere near as frequently.

Grouping Problems - Issues with giving orders to groups have to be fixed... It seems orders given to one group also get given to other groups whether they are selected or not, esp. in sieges.

Unit/Agent Micromanagement - it's be nice to have displayed on the agent/unit/fleet lists whether a unit has moved or not or whether it has a movement path set already. It's a real pain to click through each unit on th list to see if you've given it orders yet or not.

Carthage weakeness - Why isn't Carthage stronger??? It seems the main nation capable of standing up to Rome is the egyptians, and where's the histprical accuracy in that? Carthage gets wiped out by Rome way too fast... no challenge at all.

CTD's - We all know about this problem.

Aside from these points, the game is great, and I'm enjoying it immensly. Three Cheers CA!!!!

Colt.

[Thoros of Myr]

It definatly grows on you once you wrap your head around some vague/questionable areas. If you are a big MP player then a 3 would be in order IMO but I mainly play SP games so gave it a 2. A patch or two could make it even better.

[Morindin]

The game is great provided you dont treat it like MTW2 or have come to accept MTW as being "realistic".
Infact there are so many improvements over MTW its just people love to concentrate on two issues.

I can think of more things wrong with MTW 1.1 than I can with RTW 1.0, wrong in terms of bugs, AI, glitches, and personal ideas about "reality" too.

I think when people slug through the game and come to realise that this isnt MTW2, but a new game it its own right, all the moaning will calm down and people will appreciate it.

I bought MTW 3 or 4 weeks ago and RTW last week, and I doubt I can ever go back to MTW.

Enough said.

[andrewt]

Wardogs are effective in chasing routing units. Very effective. They have minimal maintenance costs, too. I think they're much better than cavalry against routing units because they're more cost effective for it.

Of course, they suck at battle. I generally only use them against routing units.

[Morindin]

Wardogs are effective in chasing routing units. Very effective. They have minimal maintenance costs, too. I think they're much better than cavalry against routing units because they're more cost effective for it.

Of course, they suck at battle. I generally only use them against routing units.

Wardogs are pretty good against light cavalry too, or attacking a pinned enemy. Actually you can use them a lot like light cavalry, but they're uncontrollable.

[son of spam]

Wardogs are effective? The senate gave me one as a reward. I used it in a battle against Macedonia. Sent them against some spears and they were owned. Afterward I would always disband they if they were a 'gift'

So what if they got owned? The point is you can always retreat the handlers and *poof* 72 new wardogs appear! What fun! ~D

[Inuyasha12]

To not bore u, i think rtw is a great game but it has its quirks.

Anyways i have not tried wardogs in battle yet, they sound pretty useless unless u already won the battle. Anyone tried flaming pigs yet.. ~D

[discovery1]

So what if they got owned? The point is you can always retreat the handlers and *poof* 72 new wardogs appear! What fun! ~D


Well, I doubt the breeding dogs would be sent into battle, and 6 months is more than enough time to breed replacements, I think.

[DisruptorX]

The game is great provided you dont treat it like MTW2 or have come to accept MTW as being "realistic".
Infact there are so many improvements over MTW its just people love to concentrate on two issues.


I bought MTW 3 or 4 weeks ago and RTW last week, and I doubt I can ever go back to MTW.

Enough said.

I don't care too much about realism as long as it *feels* realistic. RTW feels less so due to the movement speed. Check out how fast units turn in the middle of combat, it is fast forward. A human cannot travel 2 meters in less than a second.

I bought MTW at the beginning of this Summer, and we'll see, but so far signs are pointing to it being the better game.

[Morindin]

There is no way that MTW "Feels" more realistic.

To start with, units act as one big entity. RTW units are MUCH better at act like a bunch of individuals than MTW units, hey MTW units dont even split up into sub groups.

Secondly, how many times have you had a large number of troops slug away and away and away at a small number of troops to no avail, they dont even bother surrounding them. How many times have you had a general kill half your army?

Thirdly, your units dont even break a sweat defending in MTW, at least in RTW they get tired as soon as they enter melee.

Fourthly, in MTW you cant see where the enemy is deploying, not like you cant see them!

I could go on and on and on, at the end of the day there are SOME issues with RTW but MANY issues with MTW, i wont even go into the strategic map. If you base your games on realism then even with the speed issues taken into consideration (which is only really infantry charging when they are fresh and skirmishers) then RTW is still miles more "realistic" than RTW. Even with increased killing speeds etc RTW units wear A LOT less armour than their medieval equivalents, horses included, so an increase of speed (not as much of course) is MORE realistic.

Personally I doubt I could ever go back to MTW now, too many annoyances in the game that CANT be modded.

[DisruptorX]

There is no way that MTW "Feels" more realistic.

To start with, units act as one big entity. RTW units are MUCH better at act like a bunch of individuals than MTW units, hey MTW units dont even split up into sub groups.

Secondly, how many times have you had a large number of troops slug away and away and away at a small number of troops to no avail, they dont even bother surrounding them. How many times have you had a general kill half your army?

Thirdly, your units dont even break a sweat defending in MTW, at least in RTW they get tired as soon as they enter melee.

Fourthly, in MTW you cant see where the enemy is deploying, not like you cant see them!

I could go on and on and on, at the end of the day there are SOME issues with RTW but MANY issues with MTW, i wont even go into the strategic map. If you base your games on realism then even with the speed issues taken into consideration (which is only really infantry charging when they are fresh and skirmishers) then RTW is still miles more "realistic" than RTW. Even with increased killing speeds etc RTW units wear A LOT less armour than their medieval equivalents, horses included, so an increase of speed (not as much of course) is MORE realistic.

Personally I doubt I could ever go back to MTW now, too many annoyances in the game that CANT be modded.

I thought I just said that I don't really care about realism. Its a video game. For every 1 thing you claim is unrealistic about 1 game, I could find 2 others in another.

To answer your questions:
I have never had a general kill half an army.

Fatigue happens more often and much quicker in MTW, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

You most definately CAN see where enemies are deploying in MTW, only seiges, just like RTW. There is absolutely no change in this system at all. I have no idea why you brought it up, as you are simply wrong.

"Feels" is most definately an opinion, but fast forward and feeding frenzy horses certainly don't do anything but make me quit to desktop. RTW feels like film in fast forward, the troops buzzing around looks so silly it is beyond words.

[hotingzilla]

I voted 3. Since I don't have one of the best cards around, I do suffer when playing really huge battles. And in the campaign map, though I have now accustomed, my mouse moves slowly.

Some improvements, such as unit detail, building detail. I love the diplomatic options avaliable.

However, minor bugs like pathfinding AI in sieges is poor. And sometimes ships get stuck.

[ToranagaSama]

I thought I just said that I don't really care about realism. Its a video game. For every 1 thing you claim is unrealistic about 1 game, I could find 2 others in another.

To answer your questions:
I have never had a general kill half an army.

Fatigue happens more often and much quicker in MTW, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

You most definately CAN see where enemies are deploying in MTW, only seiges, just like RTW. There is absolutely no change in this system at all. I have no idea why you brought it up, as you are simply wrong.

"Feels" is most definately an opinion, but fast forward and feeding frenzy horses certainly don't do anything but make me quit to desktop. RTW feels like film in fast forward, the troops buzzing around looks so silly it is beyond words.

Don't argue with this guy, he quite obviously doesn't have a clue about what he's talking. Think about it, the guy bought MTW 3-4 WEEKS ago!!! H'es a complete Newbie, and his comments attest such, he should be quiet. This "Poll" should be for Veterans only.
JMO.

[Morindin]

I thought I just said that I don't really care about realism. Its a video game. For every 1 thing you claim is unrealistic about 1 game, I could find 2 others in another.

To answer your questions:
I have never had a general kill half an army.

Fatigue happens more often and much quicker in MTW, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

You most definately CAN see where enemies are deploying in MTW, only seiges, just like RTW. There is absolutely no change in this system at all. I have no idea why you brought it up, as you are simply wrong.

"Feels" is most definately an opinion, but fast forward and feeding frenzy horses certainly don't do anything but make me quit to desktop. RTW feels like film in fast forward, the troops buzzing around looks so silly it is beyond words.

1. You get Jedi generals that kill entire units alone. Are you denying this? You quoted me as saying half an army, which I never said. RTW more realistic here.

2. Fatigue is rarely a problem in MTW if you are on the defensive side. In RTW my men end up exhausted after one melee and stay that way. MTW you could easily defeat piles of enemy reinforcements with one army. RTW more realistic here.

3. I know about the Sieges in MTW, but heres obviously were your inexperiance is coming to play. RTW you can actually see where the enemy general is deploying in non-sieges too. A big improvement over MTW because unless you were ambushed you'd have a general idea where the enemy was located through patrols and scouts. RTW more realistic here.

4. Unit speeds are fine in RTW if reduced 10%. They dont feel fast at all, actually have you seen exhausted units move in RTW? They are barely crawling. Killing speed is an issue and skirmisher infantry move way too fast. Yes, that is a problem with RTW that mods have thankfully addressed, however at least these things are modable unlike many stupidly unrealistic things about MTW.

Oh, and my very first post here was in praise of MTW and of what a great game it was despite all the unrealistic things about it. I guess thats the difference between you and me.
I can enjoy a game for what it is and can adapt to the way different games play.

ToranagaSama
Ive conquered the world as the Byzantines on easy in MTW and have for all purposes conquered it again on Hard as the English. After completing that I probably would have played strictly multiplayer only as there isnt much more to have explored in the MTW world, apart from playing the campaign _again_ as a small faction. I've probably put in a good 100 hours of MTW and see no real reason to go back. While there are flaws in the battles of RTW for those who cant adapt, as a whole the game is much more stimulating and imposes clever restrictions so end game doesnt become the tedium bore of most other turn based empire games, including MTW.

[Red Harvest]

I bought MTW 3 or 4 weeks ago and RTW last week, and I doubt I can ever go back to MTW.

Enough said.

Wow, this explains a lot about your approach to MTW and RTW. Sheesh, a newbie.

[Morindin]

Wow, this explains a lot about your approach to MTW and RTW. Sheesh, a newbie.

How about we play a multiplayer game some time - MTW or RTW, and you can "show me the some skills" oh mighty experianced player.
You know, all these tactical manouvers you seem to go on about that you cant seem to do in RTW.

Being a completely unexperianced newbie without the mental ability to grasp tactics since I enjoy RTW, you should have no problems. Right?

[Red Harvest]

I don't play battles with jerks I don't like. It is people like you that led me to lose interest in MP long ago. I used to take challenges like yours in other games, but I got tired of shellacking mouthy idiots. Go talk trash elsewhere.

[andrewt]

I've played MTW since the time it came out and fatigue is definitely more of a factor there. Your troops get tired more quickly and don't get it all back by resting. I prefer RTW's approach in allowing troops to go all the way back to fresh but RTW's terrain penalties are much lesser.

RTW's speed is what I don't like. Running speed and killing speed (especially the overpowered cavalry charges) are way too fast. Walking speed and missile shooting speed is fine, though. All the new additions are hardly noticeable since I have to react to so many new things at once.

[Morindin]

I don't play battles with jerks I don't like. It is people like you that led me to lose interest in MP long ago. I used to take challenges like yours in other games, but I got tired of shellacking mouthy idiots. Go talk trash elsewhere.

~:mecry:

[Morindin]

I've played MTW since the time it came out and fatigue is definitely more of a factor there. Your troops get tired more quickly and don't get it all back by resting. I prefer RTW's approach in allowing troops to go all the way back to fresh but RTW's terrain penalties are much lesser.

RTW's speed is what I don't like. Running speed and killing speed (especially the overpowered cavalry charges) are way too fast. Walking speed and missile shooting speed is fine, though. All the new additions are hardly noticeable since I have to react to so many new things at once.

I never had RTW troops go back to fresh ever after battle. The best they've ever gone back to is "Very tired". This is infantry, not cavalry.

I've purposely paid a lot of attention to this too.

In MTW my troops get pretty fatigued after long scraps but most of the time they have 1 bar unless in the desert. RTW my troops always end up exhausted which is the equivalent of 0 bars or "completely exhausted" in MTW. I guess thats why people think they get more tired?
In MTW cavalry gets way worse than RTW, but that's what you'd expect with all that barding.

I'd like to hear CA's input on this actually. I realise the terrain effects have been made weaker, but are still apparent.

[son of spam]

Well, I doubt the breeding dogs would be sent into battle, and 6 months is more than enough time to breed replacements, I think.

Yeah. If only your human units also auto-replenished...

[Red Harvest]

Andrewt is correct. In MTW heavily armoured units fatigued badly, especially in the desert. Just standing they would go from fresh to exhausted in the desert. In RTW my troops all return to fresh after running for awhile. I haven't watched to see if they all recover after combat though. I've had some do so, not sure if all. The only time it seems relevant is in sieges and I've rested troups to get them back to fighting form before taking the plaza. Don't recall if I got them all back to "fresh" or not. Other times the battle is over after less than a minute of hand to hand, so it is irrelevant whether I could rest them for the remaining few minutes on the timer.

[Thoros of Myr]

I'm waiting for a mod to make them very rare or remove the dogs myself. I don't mind that they are in the game but there is way too many of them in the various armies and the fact that units can't attack the dog directly is just...GAH!

[ToranagaSama]

Morindin,

The reason you're being called a Newbie is because you are making STRONG statements, as if from some GREAT knowledge or experience. Yet, your comments are belieing your lack of INTRICATE knowledge of MTW and less than GREAT experience.

First regarding "jedi" generals, are you talking about Player Generals or AI Generals? There's a difference.

Second,


Fatigue is rarely a problem in MTW if you are on the defensive side.

This as it's written is a RIDICULOUS statement. If you meant something other than what's written then you need to elaborate; but then I think I can explain your perspective and its a classic NEWBIE mistake.

Third, you made some comment incredulously wondering why doesn't an engaged unit "surround" its opposing enemy unit? First, what *type* of unit are you talking about? It would be hard and stupid for a Phalanx/Spear type unit to brake ranks and attempt to *surround* an opposing unit. If you don't understand WHY, then, again, you demonstrate your Newbieness. You *might* have an argument regarding Sword and Horse units.

Fourth,


Secondly, how many times have you had a large number of troops slug away and away and away at a small number of troops to no avail, they dont even bother surrounding them. How many times have you had a general kill half your army?


Answer: NEVER!!

Your questions is non-sensical, as written, perhaps you meant something more. By "large number", do you mean multiple units? If so, then WHY are you waiting for THEM to do the surrounding???!!! Why are you not issuing orders to maneuver your units into position to "surrround"??

Sounds as if you, for example have a *single* line crashing into a single line of enemy. Further exampling, given 10 your units vs. 5 of the AI, what are you doing? Banding or Group all 10 units an ordering them to simultaneously attack the entire enemy group?

Realize the answer you give is going to expose your knowledge and experience.

FIFTH,


3. I know about the Sieges in MTW, but heres obviously were your inexperiance is coming to play. RTW you can actually see where the enemy general is deploying in non-sieges too. A big improvement over MTW because unless you were ambushed you'd have a general idea where the enemy was located through patrols and scouts. RTW more realistic here.

Does ANYBODY know what the heck he's talking about???
On Offense the AI deploys before you attack, you see all of the AI's manuevers, if any.
On Defense the AI deploys before it attacks, you sell all of the AI's manuevers, if any.
So what is he talking about?

Lastly, let's see how he blies himself, AGAIN!


ToranagaSama
Ive conquered the world as the Byzantines on easy in MTW and have for all purposes conquered it again on Hard as the English. After completing that I probably would have played strictly multiplayer only as there isnt much more to have explored in the MTW world, apart from playing the campaign _again_ as a small faction. I've probably put in a good 100 hours of MTW and see no real reason to go back. While there are flaws in the battles of RTW for those who cant adapt, as a whole the game is much more stimulating and imposes clever restrictions so end game doesnt become the tedium bore of most other turn based empire games, including MTW.

What, oh, what, is one to say.....

You bet the game with the EASIEST faction on the EASIEST setting, ONCE!
You bet the game with the British (forget how they rate), on Hard!


After completing that I probably would have played strictly multiplayer only as there isnt much more to have explored in the MTW world, apart from playing the campaign _again_ as a small faction.

Dude, people are LAUGHING at you and you don't even know it!

Try playing the game on EXPERT, try playing one of the smaller factions (or landlocked factions), try playing Sicily or the Danes. Try using the "Hardcore Rules"!!!!

Better yet, trying playing the MedMod, on EXPERT, Play as Sicily, and use the "Hardcore Rules"----you'd be outta money in 5-10 turns!! I guarantee. (This guy is probably wondering what's the "Medmod" and has no idea about *rules* hardcore or otherwise.) Oh, and don't forget *Green Generals* too! Better yet, all the above pre the last patch, where your generals died YOUNG.

If only there was an un-editable "progress log" for TW games, I'd challenge you to beat the Medmod.


I've probably put in a good 100 hours of MTW and see no real reason to go back.

Excuse me, may I have a little backup please, or am I the only one, Rolling On The Floor, Laughing Out Loud, and Peeing In My Pants.....

---

Well, I guess it's official, ToranagaSama is BACK!!! RudddeeeBoyyy.

Now, if I could only get this game to install....

TS, wonders whatever happened to Campaign MP??

[Red Harvest]

ToranagaSama,

Yes, he sure talks big for a newbie. I can't believe anyone would think they really know MTW after playing on Easy as Byz or Hard as the English. Both are easy factions to begin with. If he has done the Swiss on Expert, then he has something to brag about (he probably doesn't know how to mod to play them though.)

He's definitely out to lunch with regards to fatigue in MTW.

If you want some amusement, read what he had to say about elephants and then look at his screenshots. He actually proved my whole point with those.

When talking with him have you begun to feel like you are having a war of wits with an unarmed opponent?

[Morindin]

I know exactly what medmod is. Infact it also exists in call to power 2 also made by wes and has pretty much the same effect. Having never purchased VI though my choice of mods in MTW are limited. Im still waiting to try out the WoT mod and LotR mod if they ever get finished, I might even purchase VI for them.

Why bother restarting as HRE or Danes when RTW is out? Perhaps one day ill go back to MTW but I find RTW much more enjoyable. I agree it would be much more challanging but the strategic AI as a whole has some fundamental flaws that allow the human to win in the end. Once you get to a critical mass point that's it.

English one of the easiest race? now now. They're not the easiest, easy yes. They're backed into a corner yes - but you do end up with quite large borders to defend. The early use of Hobilars though is very effective against the other factions. Yes they do become extremely powerful later on though when you can get billmen and longbowmen. Longbowmen are purely awesome in so many regards.
Play on expert? I was considering that but I dont like to play any game on any setting where the AI gets a blatant advantage (+4 morale). It just doesnt feel right to me.

The game was easy on hard but since you mentioned it I did impose some "hardcore rules" and still found it easy, mainly due to the strategic AI being incredably silly. For example I only traded in realistic places so I didnt wrap up massive profits and had the ability to move my army from England to the middle east in one turn. I kept my profits around 5000 Florins per turn and no more. I also didnt attack unless attacked first, which allowed some of the AI factions to grow and become more challenging. Also the fact you could subdue AI provices fairly quickly was quite unrealistic. There were some ones that revolted constantly and were not worth holding due to the garrison required to keep them.

Player Generals and AI generals. They both have numerous lives which turns them into invulnerable tanks, particulary if they're Katanks, which I believe is where the term "Jedi" came from. The main difference that I can tell is that the AI doesnt do a very good job of looking after his :)

As for the fatigue comment I think that fatigue is probably quite similar in both games. I think the reason it has SEEMED like its more noticable in RTW is due to the massive difference in movement rates. They're still there in MTW but more subtle since you dont have infantry racing around initially then crawling later.

Yes spear units refuse to surround an enemy unit due to their formation, but I was more refering to the way units act in MTW as being unrealistic. They get "stuck" on other units and refuse to act in an individual manner. Units that have "surrounded" a small group of units (or worse, even one) are limited to something like 2 of them attacking. This usually results in generals in particular sitting there for 5 minutes before they die, so you have to order your archers to kill him resulting in masses of friendly fire.
Or try and let him "retreat" but if he hasnt rounted this is a problem, you HAVE to engage him and if your cavalry is tied up elsewhere he will do serious damage.
Again I dont really have a problem with this as its one of the quirks of the game, just making a point about realism in MTW vs RTW.

Thirdly yes im quite wrong in the surrounding issues. Units tend to surrounded other units (naturally spears dont because they're on hold formation), but end game situations in MTW are equally as absurd as they are in RTW with the opposite effect. My main point here is the amount of time it takes 50 melee guys to kill 8 melee guys in MTW. Again I have no problem with it. I just "pretend" the remaining 8 are putting up a valient last stand, however it CAN be annoying when 8 of X end up killing 15 or so of Y because of the limited number of melee units in MTW that can attack another unit at any one time.

My 10 units vs ai 5. Let's assume they're all infantry (swords and spears) for the sake of arguement. Swordsmen drawn into 3 ranks (I play on "large" sized units as opposed to normal, otherwise id have them in 2 ranks. battles feel more epic that way) so they can wrap around enemy units. Advance with Spears/Pin units to the front and swords unit placed behind to flank after the pin. Like so: x = spears, - = swords, . = gaps in formation.

..........xxxxxxx...............xxxxxxxxx.............xxxxxxxxx
----------..... ----------------....--------------....-------------

Of course, Spears are all but useless in MP but in SP when you have cost effectiveness to worry about they can be pretty good.
Units are grouped from left to right, with ctrl-1 = left flank ctrl-2 middle ctrl-3 right flank, etc. Cavalry occupy 4 5 6, and archer ranks occupy 7 and 8. I usually have one group of archers to the front who fire on the enemy and one behind my main line, upon him engaging in melee I can draw my front line behind my infantry line without stopping my fires upon his forces. Also on large troops its quite impractical to have large numbers of archers infront of your main force as they take up way to much space.

Sieges, forget about sieges. Im not talking about Sieges, however RTW's multiplayer aspect is MUCH improved when it comes to deploying in sieges.
Im talking about normal battles. In MTW you have no idea where they are if you're attacking apart from somewhere in their magic circle. In RTW you see a star on the map indicating where the general is located. This is more realistic. A few times in MTW i've accidently positioned my attacking force RIGHT NEXT to the enemies force taking me by surprize. Not like I wouldnt see them sitting there and we'd both "magically" appear next to each other, right?

Have you followed my advice and got the game going yet? Probably not. Im sure you'll figure it out for yourself.

[DisruptorX]

I am still going to have to disagree with you on fatigue. In Medieval it was much MUCH stronger. Not to the point of unplayable or unfun, but very, very, very noticable.

Command a unit to move while it is the middle of another unit in RTW, do it. What you will see is men running around like ants at at least 2 times the speed of a human. It looks like a swarm of insects. Humans do not move like that at all. Oh, and of course there is the wonderful new feature of units getting stuck in other units. You got your phalanx spears down? Tough, your troops are too stupid to go around, they try to walk through the spear wall, get stuck on the spears and walk in place.

In RTW, you can watch phalanxes "fight". It is quite humourous. The units face different directions and ignore each other. A couple guys on the very far flanks will then begin to poke each other. Stunning "realism" (hey, you were trying to argue it, not me)

I don't know why you bring the AI into this, it is the same in RTW. In fact, you can automatically win every single seige map by not repairing holes in your wall and placing your entire army behind the hole, pikes ready. The enemy will drop their battering rams and charge towards the gap at full speed. It is the funniest thing I have ever seen besides the "ant swarm" detailed above. They charge right into your pikes and lose their entire army. Without exception, this happens every time.

If you want to go on, for every irregularity you find in Medieval, I can find a new one in Rome. Some people prefer MTW, get over it.

[Cazbol]

[Snip...]You quoted me as saying half an army, which I never said.

Referring to the post at the top of the page:

How many times have you had a general kill half your army?

[Bob the Insane]

:inquisitive:

Man, this thread is getting a bit rough.....

We need less :furious3: and more ~:grouphug:

[Catiline]

Tthis thread is indeed getting rough. Various of you have been warned and served cease and desist orders via PM. This is not the place for squabbles over who is newbie. Keep the thread on track or it will be closed.

[ToranagaSama]

this thread is indeed getting rough. various of you have been warned and served cease and desist orders via PM. THis is not the place for squabbles over who is newbie. Keep the thread on track or it wil be closed.

We're not fighting over who's a newbie, we're *discussing* the validity of the comments made in regard to the topic of this thread.

I'm the one who brought the term newbie, and it was done in a descriptive use, and not with a derogatory tone.

The member it was applied to responded in a most admirable manner, even if his positions are unsupportable.

Losen up, there's nothing wrong with this thread.

Oh, I see, I just read the "Stupid Things" thread. Believe it or not, I hadn't read it until now and after I finished the incredible long post I'm about to make. So, I wasn't the first to bring up one's Newbieness. I said it while being blind to the previous thread. Nuff said.

BTW, I thought we had *solved* this Newbie/Veteran issue by way of implementation of the "Entrance Hall". Apparently, there needs to be a bit of tweaking to the formula. I, for one, don't believe it is proper nor right, for a Newbie to the game and most especially to the Org, to show such little regard for a Veteran, not only of the game, but of this forum. Particularly, one who has been so helpful to the Org. There are a good number of Veterans, who have been here from the VERY beginning and have been playing the Total War series from the first day of the Shogun DEMO. Members who have spent a great deal of time and effort in disecting the game and sharing their knowledge and experience with EVERYONE. Such individuals, should not be afforded equal status within the Org as that of someone just out of the Entrance Hall. To do so, would make this not the Org, but more like the .com site.

Many members of the Org have earned my respect, even one's I've disagreed with. Should Newbies to the Org, afford these members less respect than I and other veterans?

I hope you Admins and Mods see it coming, in the weeks and months to come this is going to be a real issue. Veterans vs. Newbs. MTW vs RTW. How about a Veterans Hall? So, we can fight knowledgably, intelligently and passionately with each other, while not being disturbed. Hey, CA has already dissed us, so wtf!

While Red Harvest's tone might have been more strident than my own, I support him ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!

Now...onto my ridiculously long post.

[ToranagaSama]

Dude, I don't really mean to come down on you so hard, but its just that, any veteran player, can see the error in your comments. Of course, in your lack of veteran experience and knowledge you don't realize the limits of your experience. I don't comprehend why you *think* you know it all, when others with VASTLY more experience and knowledge are telling you, that you don't. This is what's so annoying.

Anyway....


Having never purchased VI though my choice of mods in MTW are limited.

Well, see, there you go! You left this little bit of information out. Without this IV (its 4 not 6, btw), then you haven't experienced the changes it brought, and without the patch(es), your experience and knowledge is at an even greater disadvante. Also, without having experiened the MedMod, with ALL DUE RESPECT to the other modders, you're at a complete lost to comprehend the game on a *veteran* level! The other mods don't even begin to approach the depth of the MedMod in terms of Gameplay.

For example:


For example I only traded in realistic places so I didnt wrap up massive profits and had the ability to move my army from England to the middle east in one turn. I kept my profits around 5000 Florins per turn and no more.

You say you didn't "wrap up massive profits", but, yet you had ships lined from England to the Middle East. It's IMPOSSIBLE *Not* to wrack up massive profits with such an array of ships. A port, etc., in a middler eastern provice, along with a port in Britain, and whalla! mucho Florins!!! Perhaps, you didn't put a Port and a Merchant, etc. in the Middle East, but I don't it, specifically with the Gold and Gems available. [Note: I haven't played this game in months, since Homeworld 2 came out!!]

Curious, what would you say was your average level of Florins? Sorry, I just read 5000 florins PER TURN!!! This is what I'm talking about, when I play (and aothers), I'm LUCKY to get FIVE HUNDRED per turn, more like 200-250, and a third of the time less than HALF that. So, you see, in effect, you're playing a different game.

More to the point, with the MedMod you wouldn't have been able to array ships from Britain to the Middle East, the mod doesn't allow for it.


I know exactly what medmod is. Infact it also exists in call to power 2 also made by wes and has pretty much the same effect. Having never purchased VI though my choice of mods in MTW are limited. Im still waiting to try out the WoT mod and LotR mod if they ever get finished, I might even purchase VI for them.

You *may* know what the MedMod *is*, but you have NO idea, what the effect it has, and how it changes the game from the original that you've played.


Why bother restarting as HRE or Danes when RTW is out?

Perhaps, THEN, you would *know* what you were talking about, and have a TRUE basis for comparison of all that MTW is capable of vs RTW. Not to mention, you would then have experience a bit more on par with the vets of the org.


Perhaps one day ill go back to MTW but I find RTW much more enjoyable.

This is cool, just don't think you've experience it all. Gosh, you've never even played Shogun: TotalWar!


I agree it would be much more challanging but the strategic AI as a whole has some fundamental flaws that allow the human to win in the end.

Quite correct, but this is main aim of the MedMod, to correct, and where correction wasn't possible to make adjustments to compensate, for such flaws. WesW did a MASTERFULY job, simply Masterful!!! It's unfortunate that you haven't experienced it.


Once you get to a critical mass point that's it.

I hate to say it again, but this is a CLASSIC Newbie viewpoint. Simply CLASSIC. You feel this way because, you-haven't-played-on-EXPERT, or possibly haven't played the game all the way through (frankly few have....). On Expert, things are a bit different. Once you hit "critical mass", that's when things start going to Hell in a handbasket. Particularly, if you're not generating 5000 Florins per turn, which allows you to build a formidable Army in just a couple of turns.

If you have experienced "Massive Rebellions", think try to imagine attempting to deal with ONLY a couple of hundred Florins per turn. It takes a different strategy and an intrincit (sp?) knowledge of the game to succeed. If you haven't done it, then you, simply, don't know!


English one of the easiest race? now now.

There are SEVERAL factions that are a good deal tougher, that particularly don't have the advantages of the Brits, along with all the disadvantages. Though, the real thing is that you have no idea how the MedMod changes the Map/Factions.

The Brits are a Sea Power and sea power means Money. Money equals Easy.
Having ONLY played the original MTW, you've always played with more than sufficient income.


Play on expert? I was considering that but I dont like to play any game on any setting where the AI gets a blatant advantage (+4 morale). It just doesnt feel right to me.

Again, this is a Newbie comment. Yes, the AI gets an advantage in regard to troops, etc., BUT as you've have made a continual point in stating that the Campaign/Strategic AI is quite "flawed". So, don't you think as a Human, you're advantage is FAR, FAR, FAR greater!?

More to the point, you haven't played it, so how would you know? I guess, you're just thinking of TW as a RTS game. (CA must be happy!)

If you feel this way, then MedMod, might not be for you, and :nuttermode: would give you a heart attack!!


he game was easy on hard but since you mentioned it I did impose some "hardcore rules" and still found it easy, mainly due to the strategic AI being incredably silly....

...Also the fact you could subdue AI provices fairly quickly was quite unrealistic.

Right, rules are certainly necessary, but you missed the OVERALL point:

YOU HAD TOO MUCH MONEY!!! Yes, its a flaw in the game (which to some degree is address in the patch and IV), but that fact doesn't dismiss the point. Too much money.

With 5000 Florins per turn, it is extremely simple and easy to build an Army capable of subduing AI provinces quickly. Imagine, if you didn't have that money, then you couldn't build such Armies, and you have to be more strategic in your efforts. You wouldn't be able to *bulldoze* your way across the map, and you would find yourself in a great many more tactically disadvantaged circumstances, which require you to hone your tactical skills to a greater level. (To a different level, than MP requires.)

Frankly, you'd know MUCH more about *Fatigue* in MTW, if you had to consistently fight battles with 1/2 a Stack to the AI's Full Stack plus Reserves. Battle, after Battle, after Battle, with NO money to train replacements and NO money to buy troops for Garrison, and your Generals are dying off from old age, every time you turn around!! Crappy Kings, Crappy Generals and NO money to *buy* you're way out!!!

If the Battles worked in MTW the way they do in RTW, then the above scenario would be hopeless, because the RTW battle doesn't allow for HIGH Tactical play. At least, that's what I've determined from the Demo and the comments posted to the Org. At least, NOT on the level of RTW. It is this circumstance that have many veterans whinning.

Until you've played the above game, you haven't played MTW in its full *modded* glory, and you lack *veteran* experience and knowledge.


Player Generals and AI generals. They both have numerous lives which turns them into invulnerable tanks,....

Precisely, as I thought, and comments above have proved.

You don't have enough experience. Jedi Generals??? Newbie comment!

*Peasants* on Wedge, Hold Formation and Hold Position can kill a KNIGHT!! (at least on a good day :) ) They CERTAINLY will *Hold* long enough to take another unit an flank the Knight, in which case he's dead. Though it may take awhile, you can basically forget about him and go on to other things. I've said this time and time again. Many people never seem to grasp this, or never mastered the technique. There are no "Jedi" generals, there are simply Players who don't know how to kill them.

Regarding "numerous lives", again, you haven't played IV with the Patch, so you have no clue regarding *Green Generals*!


As for the fatigue comment I think that fatigue is probably quite similar in both games. I think the reason it has SEEMED like its more noticable in RTW is due to the massive difference in movement rates. They're still there in MTW but more subtle since you dont have infantry racing around initially then crawling later.[/qutoe]

How would you know?

A statement based on limited, knowledge, experience and fact. You're just not qualified to comment with such *definition*. This may be *your* experience, that doesn't make it fact.

[QUOTE]Yes spear units refuse to surround an enemy unit due to their formation, but I was more refering to the way units act in MTW as being unrealistic. They get "stuck" on other units and refuse to act in an individual manner. Units that have "surrounded" a small group of units (or worse, even one) are limited to something like 2 of them attacking.

First, this statement CLEARLY shows you DIDN'T read the Manual, thoroughly! As in the manual, this is clearly explained!

Secondly, what basis do you have to support your preposition, that such actions is *un-realistic*?

I don't have a manual at the ready, so if anyone would be so kind as to quote the manual, or explain, please be my guest.


This usually results in generals in particular sitting there for 5 minutes before they die, so you have to order your archers to kill him resulting in masses of friendly fire.
Or try and let him "retreat" but if he hasnt rounted this is a problem, you HAVE to engage him and if your cavalry is tied up elsewhere he will do serious damage.
Again I dont really have a problem with this as its one of the quirks of the game, just making a point about realism in MTW vs RTW.

I suppose you think (or thought) this was the ONLY way....

Dude, Dude, Dude, this is not a result of a game flaw, but the result of poor Generalship on your part. You just haven't played (or studied) the game long enough to have developed or learned better tactics or strategies; and, because you always had SOOOOO much money, you were never pressed to learn or develop them. :no:

[Never a better example of why CA developed Rome the way they did. ]


My main point here is the amount of time it takes 50 melee guys to kill 8 melee guys in MTW.

I see your point, and frankly, it is a VERY GOOD question!! I can see TOTALLY why you question this, but the answer is very simple and realistic.

Ok, think about this, using your example 50 on 8. Ask yourself, if 50 people were to surround and charge 8 people. Would the 50 then kill all 8, rather quickly? Of course, you think yes, and you'd be fairly correct.

Now, ask yourself this: Would it be possible or probable that, at least, ONE of the 50 would have been killed, as well? Think about it.

If you see, that the probable, or, possible, answer is Yes, then you can begin to comprehend that the behaviour is QUITE realistic.

NO ONE wants to get killed! 50 rush the 8, the 8 are all killed and 1 of the 50 are also killed. Oh well, too bad for that 1! Not so, if *you* happen to be that 1, and no one wants to be that 1. Get it?

In addition, if 50 were to rush 8, then there's also the likelihood that one of the 50 might, accidently, kill another of the 50. Rushing willy nilly leads to mistakes.

So you see, no matter the odds, every sane person will act rationally and cautiously with their own lives. "I'm not gonna charge. Why'd don't *you* charge. Not me, how about *Mickey*! (inside American joke for baby boomers ;) )

This mentality is particular so, when the odds are so in your favor, what's the rush?

Lastly, realistically, only a certain number can attack simultaenously at any given time. Also, as a result of this and other factors, such is the way they were trained. Particularly, in the case of a Phalanx, which is all that a Spear type unit is.

Well, this seemed to be one area that urked you most, I *hope* I've done well in explaining this. Probably not, if anyone else would care to step up, please do.


My 10 units vs ai 5. Let's assume they're all infantry (swords and spears) for the sake of arguement. Swordsmen drawn into 3 ranks (I play on "large" sized units as opposed to normal, otherwise id have them in 2 ranks. battles feel more epic that way) so they can wrap around enemy units. Advance with Spears/Pin units to the front and swords unit placed behind to flank after the pin. Like so: x = spears, - = swords, . = gaps in formation.


Guy, I can sympathize with you. The thing of it though, is that you are applying your own *personal* rationality to what you see. This is quite human and no flaw. The problem and danger in doing so, is that unless you apply true or known facts, your rationality has NO basis in what truly is, was or can be, and as such is a fantasy.

Your example, might appear sensical, but the facts are that that's just NOT how men fought. I am NO expert on the subject, there are many here at the Org with a great knowledge. So y'all please fill my gaps.

For example, the Phalanx was created by Greeks of Alexander's age, hmmm, I suppose that s/b Macedonians, right? The point is that they developed a way of fighting using long spears and shields. The method they developed was virtually undefeatable, and allowed Alexander and his fellows to conquer and create the greatest empire of his time, certainly the largest, I believe. I'm digressing.

The point is that the it was the first row of a Phalanx, that did the equivalent of "pinning" (while also defending with their Shields); and the second row did the killing (thrusting their spears past the front row; the remaining rows did NOTHING except wait for one of their comrades to fall, and subsequently take their place in line. So you see, probably ONLY a THIRD of the group were actually fighting at any given time.

The is simply a parenthetical example, and is subject to error in detail, though I believe the basics to be correct. In any event, the example serves the purpose.

I imagine, that from Alexander's day to advent of of Modern Gun based warfare, that is this way men fought. Their first priority was not to kill, but not to get killed.


Of course, Spears are all but useless in MP but in SP when you have cost effectiveness to worry about they can be pretty good.

So some have said.


Units are grouped from left to right, with ctrl-1 = left flank ctrl-2 middle ctrl-3 right flank, etc. Cavalry occupy 4 5 6, and archer ranks occupy 7 and 8. I usually have one group of archers to the front who fire on the enemy and one behind my main line, upon him engaging in melee I can draw my front line behind my infantry line without stopping my fires upon his forces. Also on large troops its quite impractical to have large numbers of archers infront of your main force as they take up way to much space.

This is WHY I moan for Campaign Multiplay.

I would rout and defeat you with this formation and use of troops.
I believe so would an Expert AI, I'm even more sure of in the case of the MedMod, where AI armies are MUCH stronger. For one thing, there aren't any Peasants.

The Archers are on the Front Line? Or, in *front* of the *Main* Line (which is worse)? I'm confused as to what is the main line and what is the *infantry* line. Also, I take it, that the Archers are in the Middle?

If you came with Archers in your Front Line, UNPROTECTED, I would charge the Archers. Possibly with Fast Cav, Fast Foot, or, more probably with a unit of *strong* Knights closely followed by a unit of Spears/Swords. Depending upon how you responded (your Archers are sure to make a hasty retreat), I'd pull up the Knights and allow my Spears/Swords to pass by them and hit your line. Your Archers running for their lives would notch up the *FEAR* level of the surrounding troops, which plays right into my game.


In MTW you have no idea where they are if you're attacking apart from somewhere in their magic circle. In RTW you see a star on the map indicating where the general is located. This is more realistic. A few times in MTW i've accidently positioned my attacking force RIGHT NEXT to the enemies force taking me by surprize. Not like I wouldnt see them sitting there and we'd both "magically" appear next to each other, right?

I'm still don't know what you mean. Let's take this slowly, who are "they" in your first sentence? The AI army is right in front of you, depending on the map, the distance between your troops and the AI's can vary, BUT they are ALL within eyesight, save a couple of units that the AI *might* hide in a forest.

Possibly, on a map with a heavy forest, a good many of the AI units might be hidden. Is this what you mean?

Also, what do you mean by "magic circle".


MTW i've accidently positioned my attacking force RIGHT NEXT to the enemies force taking me by surprize. Not like I wouldnt see them sitting there and we'd both "magically" appear next to each other, right?

Still a bit confused. This happened when you were on the Attack, and after you have clicked out of the Battle Setup Screen in the Campaign game, correct?

If so, then all I can say is, you must be *rushing* and making POOR use of your scouts. Yet, I don't think this is quite the case, something you're doing is not correct.

No, I haven't got the game going, I'm too busy typing these posts!

I don't understand your stance upon *realism*. Are you saying that knowing PRECISELY where your enemy is located is MORE realistic??!!

If I get a moment, I'm going to see if I can dig up one of my saved battles to send to you. I think you'll be shocked at my tactics. :laugh4:

I'd love to see one of yours.

Re my copy of the game, I'm taking it back and see if I have the same trouble with a new copy. I read at the .com site, where someone has returned SIX copies.

[Please excuse the typos! Too much to proofread.]

~ToranagaSama

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

The game is great provided you dont treat it like MTW2 or have come to accept MTW as being "realistic".
Infact there are so many improvements over MTW its just people love to concentrate on two issues.

I can think of more things wrong with MTW 1.1 than I can with RTW 1.0, wrong in terms of bugs, AI, glitches, and personal ideas about "reality" too.

I think when people slug through the game and come to realise that this isnt MTW2, but a new game it its own right, all the moaning will calm down and people will appreciate it.

I bought MTW 3 or 4 weeks ago and RTW last week, and I doubt I can ever go back to MTW.

Enough said.
You bought MTW 3-4 weeks ago and you still have the nerve to say that one is better than the other and say why? :stunned: When we exchanged ideas, in another thread, about unit kill ratio I tought you were just a stuborn guy with some serious issues, but I now see that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

And to think that I could consider your opinions as valuable ones!!! :laugh4:

You won't get any comment from me anymore!! And I believe nobody who as really played the TW series will give you much consideration... ~:joker:

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I don't play battles with jerks I don't like. It is people like you that led me to lose interest in MP long ago. I used to take challenges like yours in other games, but I got tired of shellacking mouthy idiots. Go talk trash elsewhere.
Pay no attention to him, Red Harvest. Ignorance and arrogance mixed are not worth the bother and agravation of commenting. :juggle2:

[DisruptorX]

I bought Medieval Total War this June, and I am just now feeling that I have a good understanding of the game. I certainly don't think I'm an expert, and there are lots of things I probably still don't know about how it works. There is no way one could make arguments about the core mechanics of the game after playing it for only a month.

Though to be fair, my first four weeks of MTW involved many, many all-day marathons. ~;)

The facts as I see it is there is simply no way RTW can contain the depth of MTW when most of the battles last for less than 5 minutes. Heck, there is pretty much no discernable bonus from elevation, and the proverbial "up hill battle" can't happen because a unit attempting it would rout in seconds.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Dude, people are LAUGHING at you and you don't even know it!
He REALLY doesn't!!! :grin2: It's increadible!!! He has no clue whatsoever about ANYTHING!!! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Bob the Insane]

Come on lads (and ladies ~D ), let it go... Chill out a little and get back on topic... (i.e RTW.....) ~:smoking:

Personally I can't answer this poll until Friday (being in the UK) so I am very interested in everyones opinion.... :2thumbsup:

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Try playing the game on EXPERT, try playing one of the smaller factions (or landlocked factions), try playing Sicily or the Danes. Try using the "Hardcore Rules"!!!!

Better yet, trying playing the MedMod, on EXPERT, Play as Sicily, and use the "Hardcore Rules"----you'd be outta money in 5-10 turns!! I guarantee. (This guy is probably wondering what's the "Medmod" and has no idea about *rules* hardcore or otherwise.) Oh, and don't forget *Green Generals* too! Better yet, all the above pre the last patch, where your generals died YOUNG.

If only there was an un-editable "progress log" for TW games, I'd challenge you to beat the Medmod.
Forget it!!! He has no idea about that!!!

100 hours of gameplay!!! :laugh4: It's sooooo ridiculous!!!

As he any idea of the tens of thousands of hours that vets have played STW and MTW? :wink:

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

BTW, I thought we had *solved* this Newbie/Veteran issue by way of implementation of the "Entrance Hall". Apparently, there needs to be a bit of tweaking to the formula. I, for one, don't believe it is proper nor right, for a Newbie to the game and most especially to the Org, to show such little regard for a Veteran, not only of the game, but of this forum. Particularly, one who has been so helpful to the Org. There are a good number of Veterans, who have been here from the VERY beginning and have been playing the Total War series from the first day of the Shogun DEMO. Members who have spent a great deal of time and effort in disecting the game and sharing their knowledge and experience with EVERYONE. Such individuals, should not be afforded equal status within the Org as that of someone just out of the Entrance Hall. To do so, would make this not the Org, but more like the .com site.

Many members of the Org have earned my respect, even one's I've disagreed with. Should Newbies to the Org, afford these members less respect than I and other veterans?

I hope you Admins and Mods see it coming, in the weeks and months to come this is going to be a real issue. Veterans vs. Newbs. MTW vs RTW. How about a Veterans Hall? So, we can fight knowledgably, intelligently and passionately with each other, while not being disturbed. Hey, CA has already dissed us, so wtf!
Agreed 100%!!! :bow:

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

The facts as I see it is there is simply no way RTW can contain the depth of MTW when most of the battles last for less than 5 minutes. Heck, there is pretty much no discernable bonus from elevation, and the proverbial "up hill battle" can't happen because a unit attempting it would rout in seconds.
You are correct!! :yes:

[Adrian II]

He REALLY doesn't!!! :grin2: It's increadible!!! He has no clue whatsoever about ANYTHING!!! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:If this reflects the attitude of veterans on this board, then I'm proud to be a newbie. Reading the above exchange is enough to take away any sense of respect an enthusiastic newcomer might have. It doesn't detract from my enthusiasm, it just means I'll be skipping your posts from now on.

[TosaInu]

Could this stop now please?

[Kraxis]

If this reflects the attitude of veterans on this board, then I'm proud to be a newbie.

And I'm beginning to be embarassed to be a vet... :embarassed:
If we treat people this way how can we expect to get any respect (which apparently is what is important).

One thing is to be wrong or have too little experience to base your conclusions on, another is to say that everybody is laughing at him (which I most certainly didn't, so make it everybody minus 1) and to say he has no clue at all. I have met enough newbies in my time with TW to realize that even the newbiest of newbies can at times lay a golden egg, my 4 years experience tells me that.

You guys more or less continually attack him for having oppinions on the game. He likes it better than you and argues (flawed perhaps) for it... But hey, you can't argue with someone who has a lot of experience, that is disrespectful ~:rolleyes:. And that is despite the fact that he has been rather tactful compared to others, if perhaps a bit stubborn (but he most certainly hasn't been alone in that).

I thought the elitism here had vaned... apparently it hasn't, instweadt it seems it has in fact increased.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

If this reflects the attitude of veterans on this board, then I'm proud to be a newbie. Reading the above exchange is enough to take away any sense of respect an enthusiastic newcomer might have. It doesn't detract from my enthusiasm, it just means I'll be skipping your posts from now on.
This reflects a reaction to his arrogance and rudeness on several threads. Some people might find it easy to roll over and sit, but I certainly don't. Presumption, bad education and arrogance aren't well acepted in my book.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

And I'm beginning to be embarassed to be a vet... :embarassed:
If we treat people this way how can we expect to get any respect (which apparently is what is important).

One thing is to be wrong or have too little experience to base your conclusions on, another is to say that everybody is laughing at him (which I most certainly didn't, so make it everybody minus 1) and to say he has no clue at all. I have met enough newbies in my time with TW to realize that even the newbiest of newbies can at times lay a golden egg, my 4 years experience tells me that.

You guys more or less continually attack him for having oppinions on the game. He likes it better than you and argues (flawed perhaps) for it... But hey, you can't argue with someone who has a lot of experience, that is disrespectful ~:rolleyes:. And that is despite the fact that he has been rather tactful compared to others, if perhaps a bit stubborn (but he most certainly hasn't been alone in that).

I thought the elitism here had vaned... apparently it hasn't, instweadt it seems it has in fact increased.

Seconded.

:no:

Louis,

[Catiline]

For veterans harping on about respect some of you should really think about stones and glass houses. This has been one of the least edifying displays I've seen on .org. Newbie or not some good comments were made, and howls of protest about how you've been playing this game longer serve no purpose.

Some people have not risen to the bait but have continued to post civilly. Others are behaving like spoilt kids because someone's come into their den.

We will have no elitism here. We will have no special veterans forum. We will have no hierarchy based on whether your name is known enough or you've won a lot online. I will not tolerate as moderator to receive emails from long term members who lurk but rarely post complaining about the behaviour of supposedly senior and respected members of the community, and even Assistant moderators towards enthusiastic new members of the community.

This thread is closed. Do not carry this argument elsewhere on .org