Is R:TW better then Medieval?

[Kralizec]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome.

I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?

[Es Arkajae]

Well RTW is a later game and so has more features, unfortunately it also threw away some of the good features from MTW.

The battles though which are the main draw of TW games are also the main problem they ARE inferior to MTW, they've been dumbed down considerably so that they're over far too quickly the AI is also inferior to MTW (which is really unforgivable IMO) and battles require no where near the level of thinking or at least planning that one needed for MTW which is a real shame.

The game is still worth it I think as it does have a nice variety of factions to choose from and some of the new strategic features are nice, however if you're not sure then perhaps you should wait until the expansion is brought out or some mod comes along that restores the quality tha MTW presented to a player and you can ask other fans for some feedback before spending your money.

I don't dislike the game, I certainly enjoy it but not as much as I still enjoyed MTW when I had been playing it for this length of time.

So to answer the question plainly, no, RTW is not better than MTW.

[SpencerH]

RTW has the potential to be a much better game than MTW because of the improved strategic game but the short answer is that I'd wait before buying.

[Musashi]

I actually prefer Rome's battles to Medieval's, just because the spear > cavalry > sword > spear balance works MUCH better in Rome. In Medieval I didn't think it held true at ALL. To the point where sword infantry was pretty much useless throughout.

[MacBeth]

I still play MTW but gave up on RTW weeks ago.

[moerty]

MTW had the ability to give me a great feeling of dread when i encountered that 10 star 10 dread general, RTW not so much.

i do enjoy playing with RTW much more, everything else has been improved and now strategic borders makes sense, with mountains and rivers and passes limiting entrance to your territory. also for me the diplomacy is an awesome aspect, i haggle with the factions now, they bring a proposal i counter it and negotiations can get up to 4 counter offers before we agree or disagree. diplomacy only seems to be effective if you're not the 500lbs gorilla in the block taking everybody's territory, you have to respect other peoples territory in order for them to parlay with you. factions tend to be A LOT less accomodating when you have taken just one of their provinces.

all in all i say RTW is a buy, don't listen to the jaded fanboys they whipped themselves into a frenzy expecting this game to be perfect and couldn't live with having their illusions shattered. ~:grouphug:

[Vlad Tzepes]

Strategically, RTW is better - more options, many possible developments.
Tactically - battles were better in MTW, the AI had more initiative. In RTW AI is surprisingly dumb and this makes the game dull sometimes.
Talking about graphics - RTW rulz (though some miss the Shogun weather effects)

If you're a TW fan, RTW is a must.

[Dutch_guy]

I would say I like RTW better , I have MTW , it;s just the Time-frame and the graphics which are great.
AI was probably smarter in MTW but I don't mind that to much.

Also look at teh mods that are / coming out , like EB and there is even a BFME mod in progress , great stuff.

[sunsmountain]

MTW had a standard army setup. This meant it usually had cohesion, and attacked as 1, or camped as 1.

Rome has a dynamic setup (it never camps). Its units react to almost everything, from getting in range (leading to stupid parade shows in front of your archers) to seeing reinforcements. Unfortunately, it doesn't react clever as it should (ie, camping - sometimes, standing still in general). People who would like to feel some of the power of a dynamic setup, do the AI trick:



Open Data\descr_formations_ai.txt, then search for (second formation entry):
Code:

;****************************************************************
;Standard formation. Infantry line in front, missiles behind
;cav on the wings
;************************************************* ***************
begin_formation ai_standard_line
;
;
; purpose flags attack defend ai_priority 2.0


Change ai_priority 2.0 to 0.6 or even less.


This still doesnt guarantee success, but if people are honest, neither does MTW. It's just that far less can go wrong in MTW, whereas there are many options in RTW (and therefore, also, reasons for it to stray)...

I liked MTW, but when i go back to it, it's ugly, and limited. The campaign map is not very dynamic, it's all about the battles. This does give it more focus, but you can automate Rome to get the same effect. Problem is nobody does, because if you CAN manipulate something to your success, hardcore gamers WILL, automatically losing focus in Rome:TW. They didn't have this problem in MTW.

The strange thing is, even though Rome:TW battles are faster, the game is slower to play than MTW. Whereas I could get to the High Age in MTW within a reasonable amount of time, i have not succeeded in getting a single campaign beyond 200BC in Rome, for a comparable number of turns. And yes i attack during winters (of course)

[The Stranger]

eh that's beacause the years are 6 months a turn and you have to micromanage almost everything to keep your cities in line

[Bob the Insane]

Overall and in my opinion...

Technology - yes
Execution - yes
Immersion - no
The little details - no...

The more I think about the more I come to realise that the RTW engine would have been perfect and worked far better for the MTW style/era game than it does for the ancient world...

[Musashi]

It's funny, I actually found the AI in Medieval to be just as silly... If not more so...

In medieval all you had to do was build a half-square against the battle boundary and the AI would never try to outflank you, because it couldn't send it's troops past the battle boundary. As far as I can tell, you can't deploy at the battle boundary anymore in Rome, and the AI always tries to flank me. I never seem to have quite enough infantry to form a half-square either, I'm not sure why that is, but I think it's a matter of having to deploy infantry in deeper formations in this to get results. In Medieval I could deploy a formation 2 or 3 deep and expect it to hold against heavy cavalry. Doesn't quite work in Rome.

I actually saw more parading in Medieval than I ever have in Rome...

[Red Harvest]

Short answer: Not by a long shot.

Longer answer: The graphics are great, there are many great new features in battle. The strategic map is impressive. Unfortunately, battles are not challenging on any level, and unit balance is whacked. Combat speed is measured in Warp Numbers. The battlefield AI is really quite bad. There are some rather massive remaining bugs that effect the strategic game (load game siege bug and it seem like most of the traits are bugged.) Lots of potential. It could be a great game.

It is worth buying, but don't expect to get hooked like MTW or STW.

[BDC]

Edit a few files, and RTW is almost as good as MTW, and looks much better.

I'd suggest removing city walls, editing the set up formation priorities and a few other things.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

No. There is absolutely no sense of accomplishment in RTW no matter what I do. I played MTW to death for over a year. I have yet to carry an RTW campaign past 150BC. No goals and a busted diplomacy model makes for little enjoyment and almost zero replayability.

[The_Doctor]

RTW is good game, but like playing games in the medieval period more. Which is strange because I can't stand the medieval period when I read a history book.

In RTW you know Rome will win. They have better units and there seems to masses of them and you have the senate with an elite army coming to get you if you invade Italy.

In MTW it was a lot more open and unplanned, anyone come become powerful.

They removed lots of great feature that where is MTW. Loyalty is gone, so there is no more civil wars. Religion has gone, so no more converting enermy provinces until they revolt. Different time periods are gone, so the game gets boring a lot faster. +1 valour provinces gone.

The tech is terrible, it is really simple. I liked the MTW tech tree a lot more. Especially units requiring mutliply buildings. For example, knights needed stables, an armourer and an estate, but in RTW you need one building, where did the legionarys get that armour and sword from?

The temple system is also terrible. Why on earth would building a temple give units better weapons and more experience. Why would cities get better farming, increased growth rate and increased trade items. Why would you need a temple to build a ship?

The campaign map is a lot better, but it looks odd. Rivers with right angles and those bizzare passes in mountains.

Also I miss castle assaults.

I can only play RTW with the Total Realism mod. The combat system is better, the battles are longer because the kill rate has been decreased and the morale of units increased.

That went on a lot longer than I planned.

[The_Doctor]

Another thing, what happened to dismountable units?

[Wishazu]

Rome total war is much better, though i do miss the hours long 18000 a side battles i sometimes had in SP mtw

[hrvojej]

I would advise not to buy RTW. You'll save yourself a lot of stress over what the game could have been and right now is not.

[econ21]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

Yes, this is a big pull of the TW games for me - the historical interest. RTW has some ahistorical things, but is closer to giving you a taste of ancient military history than any other mass market game is ever likely to be. There's a thrill in watching a horde of Gauls batter down on a Roman legion, in standing up to British chariot charge, in commanding a swarm of Parthian horse archers with cataphract shock troops, in seeing a wall of Macedonian pikes advance remorsely on your position...


However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome.

Yes, some people hate it. But I don't understand the "no attack/defend" setup point. At the tactical level, you can set up your armies on attack and defend very easily, just like MTW. Potentially there is equal scope for tactics as MTW and more scope for strategy, but I agree they are less required because the game is easier. The campaign map is easier in RTW - the AI fights less well (it is prone to being defeated in detail). Some folk say the tactical AI is weaker, although I have not noticed that so much.


I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?

There are oodles of unique units - far more variety of units and indeed whole army styles than the rather generic MTW sword/spear/cav/archer units and standardised armies. Parthians really do fight almost all mounted. Rome can rely on legions; Greece and Macedon on phalanxes; Carthage relies on elephants and cavalry etc.

Basically, whether you buy it depends on your expectations. Some people want perfection, some people want a very challenging game, some want a very historical. If you fit one or more class, you might be best to avoid it. But if you can appreciated a game with a lot of historical flavour, a lot of innovation and creativity, but with some flaws in gameplay and historical accuracy, give it a go.

[Quietus]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

....

I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?
It's not even close. MTW is the worst of the three, IMO. RTW is feature packed compared to MTW.

Here's the lingering major problems in RTW (if you ask me):

1) High Speed
2) High Kill Rate
3) The infamous "Siege Bug".
4) Size of battlemaps.

The mod people can fix the first two. No definite word yet on patch 1.3 for 3). Number 4) is simply a personal preference. There's a lot of solid, beautiful maps i've noticed, but you only get to play in the middle section( :dizzy2: ). I'm hoping they give the players a choice of actual battlemap size in the expansion pack.

As for the unique units, there are PLENTY.


However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome. I've said that myself before v1.2 that you need little to no setup in RTW (but they've fixed the skirmishers in patch 1.2 including the pri/sec bug).

However, with MTW, the battles and the setup are the same again and again. Fairly monotonous compared to RTW. I mean, if you've fought against elephants with heavy chariots, you can't turtle, you have to break your army apart or the elephants will smash them really quick. If you spread them too wide, the chariots will cut them one by one.

The battles are much varied in RTW, hands down (due to the range of units that are accessible). Yes, you should get RTW if you ask me.

[Productivity]

Strategically, RTW is better - more options, many possible developments.


Once you get past the bugs though...

[Shadar]

I personally think that many many aspects of RTW is better than MTW. One of the best examples would be the new campaign map system, which makes the game a LOT more challenging to a lot of players - it makes you think on an entirely different strategic level compared to MTW.

I also like the sieges in RTW - manning the walls is cool (even though the computer utterly sucks in attacking stone walls because they get shot to pieces by the defensive towers, i think its very challenging to attack stone walled cities playing as some factions. If you got the time limit on anyways)

Although the battle-field AI may be lacking at times... i think its not horribly terrible. Just bring smaller armies when you're attacking. The battlefield diversity is a really good improvement on MTW though - rather than having some unique units for the different factions, there is virtually a different tech tree for each faction. This makes it so much more enjoyable and a lot of different playing styles originates from that.

[Red Harvest]

Quietus,

IMO, #1 on the negatives should be the lack of competent AI in RTW--it's not even on your list! The rest wouldn't matter that much or could be compensated for. But you can't mod around broken AI. (Not referring to the strategic map load game AI bug either...)

It's certainly subjective rating a game, but AI scores higher in my book than aesthetics. MTW vs. RTW AI is no contest.

I've been playing the new Bull Run game the past several days. What a comparision that makes with RTW. Bull Run certainly has many limitations (focusing on a single battle, no strategic component, etc.) but the AI is competent. It doesn't have beautiful 3D units, but its AI can walk and chew gum at the same time. It has its failings of course, but it is good about maintaining cohesion within brigades and flanking or charging to exploit any perceived weaknesses.

[LordKhaine]

I'd say no... RTW isn't better than MTW. But at the same time I wouldn't say it's worse than MTW. They just both do different things well. When I play RTW I miss many features from MTW... and when I play MTW I miss many features in RTW! I enjoyed many hours playing both of them (and indeed, do continue to enjoy playing them)

Now... what we really need is MTW remade with the rome engine... ~;)

[Big_John]

no.

[The Stranger]

the only thing i think MTW is better than RTW is the era thing, the different type of campaigns (normal and glorious) re-emerging factions (but better structured so factions destroyed 100 years ago can't come back) and the random events like floods famine (though the plague is oke) and the historical generals

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While MTW still holds a place on my HD I play RTW mostly because there is so much to be discovered. I haven't fought with all units yet and not al traits and ancillaries have been sen by me yet.

That being said, tactically MTW is better. While the more sophisticated system of the charge bonus, secondary weapons, shield etc are certainly in RTWs favour the AI let's it down big time. I'm a big fan of the opening skirmish. In MTW I spend more time moving my ranged units about, duelling with their archers then I spend fighting nose to nose with the main body. But skirmishing against RTW AI is like taking candy from a baby. Even if you stop wheeling onagers forward to pelt them till they quit the field with half their army dead. Or stop bringing masses of high qualitry slingers and archers.
And fighting with the main body of your army against theirs in RTW isn't much of a challenge either, though the only reason this is more noticable then in MTW is because now we get nice bonusses to put in the hurt. Let's face it MTW was no genius in this regard either, but sandwiching a unit in MTW only meant heavier morale penalties, it remained a slog until they broke because cavalry didn't plow in and ride down everyone with their backs turned like in RTW. In MTW cavalry were just a way to move swords about quickly, in RTW they really charge home.

[The Stranger]

look in program files/activision/data/text/export_VnV here you can see all the possible traits, look in program files/activision/data/text/export_ancilleries here you can see all the ancilleries

About th dismountable units, i miss it too, but the castle assaults are more realistic (atleast with wooden till 1st stone wall) and the AI in MTW never could really handle a siege in RTW atleast a bit

[Spartiate]

I personnally think that RTW will eventually be proved to be the better game(or engine at least) but i still prefer MTW and its mods,especially Napoleonic Total War.I had deleted RTW from my hard drive for quite some time before just recently re-installing it again with the 1.2 patch.MTW never left my hard-drive for 2 years.Hows that for a comparisson?

[Craterus]

all of you are way too negative about RTW! it's still a goodish game ~;) lighten up guys, you're puttin me off the game

[Arrowhead]

Battles are WAY WAY WAY WAY longer in MTW. I remember a battle where there were two elite armies, mine and my enemy's slugging it out until both were exhausted. I won (but that was my smallest win ever.)

[Craterus]

i've never seen a battle on MTW so I can't comment but I've had a great 40 minute battle on RTW. Two Faction Leader Armies against each other. The Parthian Faction Leader held out for most of the battle but eventually he fell on the charge of a desert cavalry. It was a very close victory.

[Arrowhead]

You used to have 2 hour battles in MTW.

[Craterus]

the battles in MTW aren't very interactive though? so wouldn't it get boring?

[The_Doctor]

I had a battle in MTW that lasted about 1 hour and 45 mins. It never got boring. A Massive pope army against my small Turkish army. They kept coming, but we threw them back again and again, until they were broken and being run down by turcoman HAs. Good times had by all, except the pope. ~:cheers:

[katank]

Fighting the mongols is so much fun. The MTW battles also took a lot more tactical thinking.

[A.Saturnus]

Fighting the mongols is so much fun. The MTW battles also took a lot more tactical thinking.

Well, holding off 10000 Mongols from crossing a bridge (while the other one was free) with one unit of JHI doesn't require that much tactical thinking. And I have much less slaughters a la royal knights vs thousands of peasants. Guess who always fielded the peasants. In RTW, the AI actually manages to build decent armies from time to time. That's maybe because it actually developes its cities.
I must say I don't find the battlefield AI worse in RTW. In a way it just has more options to blunder (and it uses them greatly). I don't think I ever saw a decent flanking maneuver in MTW. In RTW the AI actually tries some tricks (and messes them up because of the lack of coordination).

In principle RTW is the better game because it has so much more features, but it can be quite frustrating because so many of these features are broken/bugged.

[Red Harvest]

Really? I always found the MTW AI eager to flank me when it had superior cavalry. It would even try flanking both sides at once some times. It was much more proficient at flanking than RTW. I agree that RTW does try, but it is more disjointed.

Developing cites? MTW's AI developed its provinces. Its build tree was set up to typically max out a branch per region (rather than a wider unit selection.) If memory serves it would try to build whatever unit that got a bonus in the region when applicable, but wouldn't build structures for other units after that. I often found that the AI had higher level castles than I did on expert. In RTW it is all population growth. And net income in RTW is inversely proportional to population (tax rate per capita declines rapidly, while garrison requirements ramp up.) When the MTW AI had trouble was from province swapping, and from running out of money.

MTW did have its share of low tech armies, but so does RTW. And RTW handicaps itself in the same way by building junk units early. Only in RTW the result is even worse, because then the city can never be upgraded as its population is near minimum. So you have to kill off the junk units in battle so that the AI can start building decent armies from its high growth population centers.

[mxlm]

Semi-off topic, I know, but still haven't played MTW, so...

RTW (vanilla) is a vast improvement over vanilla Shogun. Shogun simply wasn't all that interesting. The strategic mode was extremely lacking, and the tactical mode suffered from interface problems. After a few weeks I went back to Jagged Alliance 2 for my strategy fix.

RTW, for all its problems, is a far better game than STW was. Been playing it for a few months now, won't be stopping soon.

[FURRY_BOOTS]

IMO, they both have their good/bad points, ive redescovered MTW & have been playing it solid for the last 2 weeks, VI that is, current campaign (picts) but just cant bring myself to play rome at the mo, not until rtr 6 is out, which seems to be taking forever ~:handball:

[Zatoichi]

Well, that's a tough call. I miss aspects of the MTW game when playing RTW, but I'm still hooked on RTW and will continue enjoying it for a long time to come. I think I'll go with a 'same same but different' argument, if that makes sense to anyone.

[Musashi]

10,000 mongols? You lucky bastard... I had to beat 50,000 of them with 10,000 troops when I decided that I'd actually fortify that province they appear in in preparation for their invasion.

I won by the way... I had a full janissary army by then and they just didn't have a prayer against my JHI and janissary infantry. Took like 3 hours straight though. REALLY boring. I had deployed in a half square against the out of bounds line, so they couldn't outflank me, they didn't have anything that could break JHI and even if a unit did start to waver Janissary infantry can hold it's own as a relief troop. So it was just a matter of watching them prance around in front of my ranks until they broke, or ocassionally flinging themselves into the meat grinder of my JHI line.

Not terribly interesting.

[Red Harvest]

Musashi--

The best I could tell the size of the horde was dependent on the size of your army in the province. I learned not to upgrade the provinces where the horde typically appeared, and to leave them with small (but well equipped) garrisons. My better armies were in neighboring provinces...

[Colovion]

Is R:TW better then Medieval?

Not yet.

[A.Saturnus]

Really? I always found the MTW AI eager to flank me when it had superior cavalry. It would even try flanking both sides at once some times. It was much more proficient at flanking than RTW. I agree that RTW does try, but it is more disjointed.

In MTW the AI usually tried to attack with its whole army from a profitable direction. It usually was enough to turn my defense line to stop the plan. Then the AI often moved aimlessly under crossbow fire. I have never seen a decent coordination of different divisions in MTW.


Developing cites? MTW's AI developed its provinces. Its build tree was set up to typically max out a branch per region (rather than a wider unit selection.) If memory serves it would try to build whatever unit that got a bonus in the region when applicable, but wouldn't build structures for other units after that. I often found that the AI had higher level castles than I did on expert. In RTW it is all population growth. And net income in RTW is inversely proportional to population (tax rate per capita declines rapidly, while garrison requirements ramp up.) When the MTW AI had trouble was from province swapping, and from running out of money.

I don't know about expert. I played mostly hard and the AI usually never reached the highest level for its provinces. In all of my campaigns, it didn't take long to be the most developed and richest faction. And I play defensive. In RTW on hard, AI factions have cities on highest level and can even manage a decent economy (not all factions though).


MTW did have its share of low tech armies, but so does RTW. And RTW handicaps itself in the same way by building junk units early. Only in RTW the result is even worse, because then the city can never be upgraded as its population is near minimum. So you have to kill off the junk units in battle so that the AI can start building decent armies from its high growth population centers.


True, the AI mismanages some of its cities entirely. But it usually has homelands that are well developed and able to build quality units. That was not always the case in MTW.

[ShadesPanther]

Some battles in MTW were quite close but usually not as hard as Rome (especially with SPQR mod).
Although the closest battles remain online. I remeber winning a huge 4v4 battle with just about 50 men ~:eek: and the rest of my team had about the same number of survivors :duel:

[Quietus]

I was foolish enough to land on Fortress Scipii in Sicily with one army. They had about 7 stacks there (and they owned the three settlements).

I immediately had Messana besieged. When I pressed end-turn, I was attack four consecutive times. The first two I crushed. The third I retreated due to losses from the first two battles. The fourth I was destroyed since I couldn't retreat any longer.

MTW battles were so much easier. There's no difference between the MTW AI and RTW AI as well. In MTW I just pelt the cavalry with arrows while they sashayed in front of my spears.

The mechanics have been changed yes, but that's hardly AI. For example in RTW, you can move back and forth and not receive any penalties, but then again, there was no need for a feint attack in MTW.

RTW battles are more dynamic. Only swipe that they are shorter due the extremely high kill rate. I mean, how do you counter elephants and heavy chariots without pigs and using a mix of medium troops of pre-marian leftovers and light marian units along with a bit of merceneries? ~:)

[hrvojej]

Just one point:
All other thigns aside, so far most people claim they camped on the edge of the map in MTW, and now say the battles were easy. Have you tried taking on the horde *without* camping at the map's edge in a semi-circle, that is without the artifical border exploit?

I'm glad they removed this for RTW, but even without it fighting is still way easier in RTW. Almost ridiculously so. It doesn't matter what the AI might (possibly) be capable of when the enemy army routs on contact (yes, even after I've modded all of it quite a bit).

[Joker]

Rome is great, I'd recommend you buy it.
I love it, except the A.I. needs some tweaking (they are utterly retarded when it comes to besieging cities with stone walls) and the battles would be better if they were longer. Roman units also completely steamroll all competition. At least in Medieval a decent sized enemy army (even if made primarily of, oh say, urban militia) could manage to give my armies enough of a bloody nose that I'd need to keep them well reinforced. In Rome, the major drain on my manpower when campaigning? Garrisons.
Without the dread system or masses of peasants and other low quality units, quashing rebellion has also lost a lot of fun to the point where I just let them be when they pop up.
Also, battles are shorter, which I rather dislike. Everybody dies and routes too quickly, they seem to end as soon as a unit or two routs. They tend to feel like one side simply crushes the other instead of hard-fought battles where you have to constantly recall you're routing men to throw back into the fray, winning (or losing) by the skin of your teeth.

On the other hand, the campaign map adds a lot more to the game, and makes positioning your armies as important in the campaign map as it is to properly position your men on the battlefield. I also like the new siege battles better (I'm a fan of bloody, bitter slogs, even if a lot of my men die...I can replace them after all), with the street fighting and the fighting from ramparts. There's also a lot more of those "oh crap" moments in Rome (those aren't pikemen forming a phalanx across that street is it?) that make the game unpredictable.

[Red Harvest]

If I had to take on 7 stacks consecutively in MTW I would be doomed as well. I don't see your point? And I've seen the AI stand there in RTW and take missile fire repeatedly. In RTW the missile fire is more deadly. The solution in RTW? The AI makes a suicidal disjointed headlong charge with its general/captain and cavalry. That's weaker than MTW.

In MTW when the AI had a good army it could sometimes sweep right over me on expert because of the way bonuses were set up. However, pre 1.2 when the RTW AI got a +7 attack bonus it still didn't have a chance in similar situations.

[[seminoles]shadow]

I like RTW alot better :stupid:

[Quietus]

If I had to take on 7 stacks consecutively in MTW I would be doomed as well. I don't see your point? And I've seen the AI stand there in RTW and take missile fire repeatedly

But it didn't reached the 7th stack. I was destroyed at the third stack. This wouldn't happen in MTW. That was my best general as well. The mighty Oppius the Great!!


In RTW the missile fire is more deadly. The solution in RTW? The AI makes a suicidal disjointed headlong charge with its general/captain and cavalry. That's weaker than MTW. How many missiles do you use in RTW? I use 2-3 per army. In MTW I've used about 3-4 per army. The Cavalry is too strong. If you bring too many Archers, they will break your flanks. That's why I lost the third battle myself. In MTW the general does the same thing with the suicidal generals. No difference at all.



Just one point:
All other thigns aside, so far most people claim they camped on the edge of the map in MTW, and now say the battles were easy. Have you tried taking on the horde *without* camping at the map's edge in a semi-circle, that is without the artifical border exploit?

I'm glad they removed this for RTW, but even without it fighting is still way easier in RTW. Almost ridiculously so. It doesn't matter what the AI might (possibly) be capable of when the enemy army routs on contact (yes, even after I've modded all of it quite a bit).

In RTW you can't camp because it is harder. It not that it is not available in RTW. You are still free to camp, But is not feasible any longer, making the game harder.

In MTW it is much easier to camp because of the uber spears, making the game extremely easy. Even without camping, you just lineup the spears upfront and archers at back, medium and light shocktroops(FMAA, Militia Sergeants, Urban Militia and Woodsmen) and 1-2 steppe cavalry on the side, the AI has zip chance.

[hrvojej]

My point was: don't camp at the edge regardless. Then tell me how many of your troops have you lost before the enemy turned tail in RTW vs. MTW?

I thought so.

And in RTW it's not feasible to camp because of a different map border of the battle maps (no longer artificially elevated), not because of anything else. If you continually used this exploit, a statement that MTW battles were easier doesn't really hold water. Easier to use this exploit, yes, but not easier overall.

[Red Harvest]

But it didn't reached the 7th stack. I was destroyed at the third stack. This wouldn't happen in MTW. That was my best general as well. The mighty Oppius the Great!!


Yes, it would. When I have had to actively fight multiple repetitively without retraining I was often worn down after only two or three in MTW. The reason was simple: attrition. Much more attrition in MTW than RTW. If I fought a well matched battle on expert in MTW, I took some heavy casualties. In RTW I lose very few men in a typical battle vs. a large stack. At that rate I can fight a lot of battles before I need to significantly reinfore my army. In RTW I'll park a half stack of Carthaginians in Sardinia and fight off 5 or 6 armies that are much larger before I have to ship a few units over to replace the losses (since I can't train anything there except town militia/peasants.) These aren't seige defenses. I march out to meet them on the open ground.



How many missiles do you use in RTW? I use 2-3 per army. In MTW I've used about 3-4 per army. The Cavalry is too strong. If you bring too many Archers, they will break your flanks. That's why I lost the third battle myself. In MTW the general does the same thing with the suicidal generals. No difference at all.


??? I use 2 to 3 in RTW and more in MTW (4 or 5 arbalesters for a full stack army--very few archers since they have trouble vs. armour, and no crossbows as they shoot very slowly and have short range.) Why the difference in numbers? Because archery is overdone in RTW, proving my point. If I only have one in RTW the stupid AI still charges it. In MTW the AI would charge with its LINE first with the general charging at a "perceived" gap/vulnerability somewhere.



In RTW you can't camp because it is harder. It not that it is not available in RTW. You are still free to camp, But is not feasible any longer, making the game harder.


In RTW I don't camp because I don't need to! It is so much easier in RTW that I just march up past the AI and turn its flank, then kill it. Plus in RTW there is not an inherent advantage to defense like there was in MTW. The large charge bonuses and lack of spear defense bonuses are quite apparent.

[Quietus]

My point was: don't camp at the edge regardless. Then tell me how many of your troops have you lost before the enemy turned tail in RTW vs. MTW?[ You have to camp in MTW, you have to protect 4 archers with very short range and low very low kill rate.

In Shogun, I have my armies stretched because the archers have better range and effectiveness, no camping is necessary. I even divide them in many different ways, no need for camping.

I rarely lose in MTW in the field even with the kind of troops I'm deploying. You can't really lose in MTW so long as you have many medium spears. In a stack vs. stack, with equal generals and troop quality, a LOT.

In MTW, even with the AI fielding much better troop quality, it doesn't matter because your spears will hold. All you really needs is one winner at the flank that that will liberate other units with one flank.


And in RTW it's not feasible to camp because of a different map border of the battle maps (no longer artificially elevated), not because of anything else. If you continually used this exploit, a statement that MTW battles were easier doesn't really hold water. Easier to use this exploit, yes, but not easier overall. Well, MTW is full of flat maps. As a defender you are even often relegated to lower plane as opposed to a higher plane. I don't camp in RTW because the archers have the range. Also, who needs elevation? you don't need elevation to camp.

Camping in RTW is no longer necessary, useful or doable, plain as it is. Also give me an example of your army composition in MTW. Also how many armies do you use, your average faction treasury after reaching 2/3 provinces and how developed are you lands (for Early campaign).

[Quietus]

??? I use 2 to 3 in RTW and more in MTW (4 or 5 arbalesters for a full stack army--very few archers since they have trouble vs. armour, and no crossbows as they shoot very slowly and have short range.) I don't use arbalest since they are overpowered. Vanilla archers are my buddies, attacking or defending. I've used two arbalest once and in a defense they killed about 400 each in flat map, I've never touched them again.
Edit: Red, here's the old screenshot.
http://i147.exs.cx/img147/851/byzarbs1gl.th.jpg (http://img147.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img147&image=byzarbs1gl.jpg)

Why the difference in numbers? Because archery is overdone in RTW, proving my point. If I only have one in RTW the stupid AI still charges it. In MTW the AI would charge with its LINE first with the general charging at a "perceived" gap/vulnerability somewhere. Because in MTW I spread my archers when attacking or defending. One spear can protect them just right, so I normally have one in the left, one in the right, one or two in the center. In RTW, I have no choice but to centeralize my archers (layers of three) since the spears are pushovers. Im MTW I simply move my archers, when the enemy attacks, I block them with spears quickly, then flank, that's all there is to it. If they don't attack, then I'll decimate them enough and charge them with spears. If they don't break with that charge, then flanking will.


In RTW I don't camp because I don't need to! It is so much easier in RTW that I just march up past the AI and turn its flank, then kill it. Plus in RTW there is not an inherent advantage to defense like there was in MTW. The large charge bonuses and lack of spear defense bonuses are quite apparent. I always deploy dead center in RTW since the range of the archers is an advantage. Maybe because I'm an infantry guy, I rarely deploy more than 3 cavalries including the general, unless the enemies have a bunch and you have no choice but to counter those.

[hrvojej]

I rarely lose in MTW in the field even with the kind of troops I'm deploying. You can't really lose in MTW so long as you have many medium spears.
But I did lose in MTW, and even after many many campaigns. Unlike RTW.

Most of your other points I just don't quite get, but nevertheless lemme try to address them...

When I do camp, I camp precisely when I have long-range archers, not the other way around. Ineffective missiles on my side mean that there is little point in delaying melee.

If my spears held, so did his. Hence the much higher casualty ratio of MTW, and much tenser/closer battles. I've never won MTW battles with such ridiculously lopsided casualty ratios as I did in RTW. And at least a simple cavalry charge wasn't all you needed to achieve those victories either.

Map specifics and elevations wasn't really what I was talking about with respect to camping. Artificial map boundary which protects your rear (or even both flanks as well) was. And it's less attractive in RTW - a good thing, but you don't have to use it in MTW either and if you don't the battles get much harder, especially the massive ones. However, RTW battles aren't hard even without any camping - and consequently there is no need to peruse the (diminished) benefits of the boundary at all. In MTW I was realistically afraid that I might lose, so I huddled the map edge to gain all the benefits I could. In RTW, I just send everybody (or even just the cavalry) forward. I cannot put it more plainly.

My armies depended on how many borders I had to defend, my average faction tresury was lower than it is in RTW since there was no within-faction trading to fall back on when the total war broke out, my lands were mostly specialized for troop types and highly developed, and I didn't play on early much cause I didn't like all the peasant look-alikes that constituted early armies. Which is all beside the point. The point being that before I heavily modified RTW, I could advance when defending, plow my cavalry into a phalanx frontally, and still win with a 15:1 casualty ratio. Which also equals to no real fun for me.

[Red Harvest]

Quietus,

That screenshot is a good illustration of the difference in MTW and RTW. I rarely lose 300 men in a fight in RTW. That would qualify as a very tight battle in RTW. More typical for me in RTW is losing 30 to 100 if the AI has a larger or better army. If the AI has an equal or lesser army I often lose a dozen (and about half of those are friendly fire from javs/pila/slingers/archers.) Most of these casualties are typically cav since the cav are the real shock troups. Archers are there to soften up any problem units, infantry are there mostly as a decoy/meat shield for the general and cover for my ranged units. I might lose a unit of archers/slingers in the front.

Nearly all infantry battles are tougher, true. (They were in MTW as well, tougher actually since I didn't dare face equal infantry on equal terms on expert.) However this is because spears don't work properly, and RTW supports the massive disorganized snowball charge.

The difficulty of the AI certainly has dependency on play style. If you play primarily with sword infantry vs. sword infantry you will have similar casualites in MTW and RTW (both on medium.) But the RTW AI can't use phalangites properly at all. And when I have the phalangite heavy armies the AI can't deal with them either--other than sometimes using heavy cav to smash them frontally or snowball the slow phalanx. If the AI gets lucky and the phalanx gets penetrated with its snowball charge, then it can be tough to contain.

The AI doesn't match the play/kill speed of the RTW combat engine. MTW was better matched to its own combat engine. It looks like CA shot themselves in the foot with the high kill rate.

Arbs are a killer for sure. They are certainly not any stronger than vanilla archers in RTW though. They were a necessity for desert fighting...because they were needed to deal with the masses of cav/camels and desert archers. Melee infantry and spears didn't last long in the desert if they had to fight more than one or two times.

[Musashi]

My big problem with MTW is that sword infantry is utterly useless. Good spears, and in particular armor piercing troops like urban militia or halberds were way overpowered. No cavalry unit could ever break them. They were stronger than the armored hoplite phalanxes or pikemen in Rome by an order of magnitude. Even when I didn't camp at the map edge I could afford to form a FULL SQUARE, because the spears were just that strong.

There's no way you could do that in Rome. One unit of heavy cavalry would ruin your day if you deployed your infantry less than 3 or 4 ranks deep. It'd be a total rout.

Plus you absolutely have to bring close combat infantry now, because they turn spears into dog food in a way that absolutely was not the case in Medieval.

Game better, hands down.

[Red Harvest]

That's odd Musashi. I had pretty good results with swords in MTW. I used them vs. spear units with good success. Pikes and halbardiers were tougher. Pikemen were missile bait. Halbardiers were godawful slow. Swords were good in the woods. Frontally hitting spears with cav was a bad idea in MTW, but from the rear they were torn up. Urban militia were easy to kill, but Almohad Urban Militia were always tough.

The relative unit sizes in MTW made swords a bit tougher. But spearmen morale was quite low so they routed if you flanked them (halbardiers too.) In MTW I brought balanced forces. I don't need that in RTW, just cav primarily. Swords are "dogmeat" for cav in RTW as well. I guess if you really hate pikes and spears, RTW would be clearly superior.

We each have our own tastes. ~;)

[hrvojej]

There's no way you could do that in Rome. One unit of heavy cavalry would ruin your day if you deployed your infantry less than 3 or 4 ranks deep. It'd be a total rout.

But since I am the one fielding the said cavalry unit, you have just put a finger on what I'm trying to say. Which is not really that cavalry is overpowered, but that it takes only one good unit for the entire enemy army to curl up and die.

[Craterus]

i agree, one cavalry unit can ruin an army ~;) ~;)
i used one unit of desert cavalry to win a siege and it eliminated probably 10 units of infantry and 2 units of cavalry on it's own

[Musashi]

Well I'm not a cavalry commander. I bring limited cavalry. Two units, max. I'm an infantry commander at heart. My armies are usually 50% spear, 20% sword, 20% archers and 10% horse. Or something like that. I'm a very defensive tactician. I believe in an overwhelmingly aggressive strategy coupled with incredibly defensive tactics. So I wait for a nation to show me any aggression, then hit them with everything I have until they drop. I focus on one enemy and never let up. In the actual battles I take a very cautious, traditional approach, and it works for me.

I hate losing any men, so I play carefully. I treat it as though I were a real field commander with real men's lives depending on my orders.

So for me Rome is brilliant. The enemy actually gives me a little challenge where in Medieval a full square with the spears told to hold position was damn near unbeatable. The AI could never find a way to beat it.

A full square is just impossible in Rome because you can't stretch your spears that thin and expect them to hold.

[A.Saturnus]

I never camped in a corner in MTW. Still lost few battles. And I often fought many battles with the same army without reinforcements. I lost more men sometimes because running down routers still could cost you a lot men. In RTW running down routers with cav is practically gratis.

I ran an interesting test today. I wanted to test whether phalanx is stronger if the gaps are closed. Three units of pikemen against three swordsmen (gaul). The AI charged its swordsmen actually from three different directions. I never saw that in MTW. Though another thing I once again saw in similar tests is that the AI is hopelessly lost when using pikemen. I think that all tests with the AI using pikemen (or phalanx in general) are meaningless.

[Craterus]

i'm really lenient on RTW.
i don't start a war with anyone but wait for them to attack me lol
i have defensive campaign strategy but offensive battle strategy!
i have a cavalry dominated army... always!

[_Aetius_]

RTW is the biggest disappointment in gaming history as far as im concerned, RTW had everything going for it, it could have been a true step forward from MTW but I played MTW yesterday I havent played RTW in weeks.

I cant understand how they could make such a total mess of RTW, the screenshots we all drooled over months before the game came out looked unbelievable, to good to be true and it proved to be to good to be true indeed.

I dont get any feeling of satisfaction when I play RTW when I kill 1000 gauls I shrug and move on, what does it matter when the battle took zero effort? MTW could be a constant struggle for survival battle's meant something, defeat could mean catastrophe in RTW it just doesnt seem to matter. MTW has infinite possibilities even today thing's are happening that ive never seen before one game the French go crazy and conquer everything the next game the French are dead with 15 years. RTW takes so long to do anything! that it just doesnt matter.

:furious3:

MTW is the only game I have ever played that I can place in the same league as Final Fantasy VII because ive never played a game over such a long period so many times, a game that can excite you 16 months after you first bought it is truly a masterpiece, RTW bored me to death in less than 16 days. Such is the gap between both games.

RTW is frankly a disgrace, how people can release a game so glitch and bug riddled and still call themselves competant is beyond belief :furious3:

~:confused: Just bafflesm e to think they could mess it up this bad.

[brutii_warrior]

i believe rtw is not a digrace, but a stepping stone for the tw series.
i do enjoy mtw a bit more than rtw only becouse your always on your toes and the armies are smaller where a battle means more.
where as with rtw if you lose 2000 men in series of battles your still fine you just need to take a general out on the field and recruite merc.s
i think this next tw game will be sweet. i think it'll have all the in battle objects that a player would want(siege weapons, powerful cav., maybe guns, fantastic castles....)

but for now i'll play rtw and mtw on and off till it comes out.
stw is a true disgrace. the only thing i liked about stw are the movies when you use an assasign.

:duel:

[Musashi]

I think it's come down to a simple equation: If you're a cavalry commander RTW is much easier than MTW. If you're an infantry commander it's much more demanding.

[Red Harvest]

I think it's come down to a simple equation: If you're a cavalry commander RTW is much easier than MTW. If you're an infantry commander it's much more demanding.

Not really. I've also found infantry easier to use than in MTW. When the AI can't use one of the major components, phalanx, in any acceptable form it is really hard for me to see much redeeming in the RTW AI. And then you have missile units...which again the AI can't seem to use decently.

[Musashi]

Well all I know is that the RTW AI gives me a FAR better run for my money than the MTW AI ever did. But I think it's because they made cavalry so much more powerful (Or they weakened spears significantly, one or the other).