MTW or RTW? Which is better?

[PittBull260]

alright, i know graphic wise RTW wins, but what about the gameplay, which one is better??


i played both and truly think MTW's gameplay is way better.

[Shambles]

both shogun and mtw are better than rome

[Quietus]

RTW ~:) :charge:

[The Stranger]

RTW is better, i can't go back after i saw all this. but where MTW was allrounded RTW isnt i call it a tie, slightly in RTW's favor

[Mikeus Caesar]

MTW's winning thanks to me. As enjoyable as RTW may be, MTW still has plenty of enjoyable gameplay.

[sapi]

Even again - you can't deny that rome has lots of innovations - choosing your battleground, diplomacy etc.

[Wishazu]

I voted for Rome, I love all the total war games and i do belive that Medieval has got better AI but you can do alot more in rome, i.e Negotiate treaties in more depth, the naval system is much better, assaulting towns is also much better, freedom to move your armies where you want and picking your own battleground.

[PseRamesses]

RTW, no question about it. Although I do miss some feats from both STW and MTW. Do you remember the ambiance you felt when playing STW or all the little cool in-game movies? I do miss ransomes and crusades amongst other feats from MTW.

[Leftenant Moley]

Rome Total War is waaay better.

I just can't go back to Medieval Total War after playing Rome Total War for its better in almost every way. The only thing I miss is the cool Mediaeval time setting in Medieval Total War. (the Roman time setting is pretty cool too)

[tibilicus]

I voted RTW for game play campaign, better graphics,More choice in units, more fun. But my case for MTW is it was agood game at the time, was less bugy and that time period is probably more interesting. Also who can forget the Crusades?

[CrackedAxe]

There isn't even any competition RTW beats MTW hands down. As great as MTW and STW were, RTW takes the innovation a huge step further, both in the campaign game and the battles.

MTW had a basic 'chess-board' feel to its campaign game and you felt like your were conquering bits of the board rather than actual territories. Plus the armies were so generic through the different factions.

The battle AI was marginally better, though, and the battles were better for their slower pace. You actually had time to implement some tactics in MTW and make the battle your own. In RTW its limited to lining up your troops against the enemies and whipping some cav around the back, thats as far as tactics go, theres no time for finesse.

Still, its a much better game that just needs a few improvements.

[lilljonas]

It's way too easy to win crushing victories with almost no casualties in RTW. A full stack with plenty of cavalry can beat stack after stack of enemies, making the economical side of the wars patheticly easy. The enemy puts all their money into making stacks that any good player can eradicate in one turn. Also, tactically, there's more exploits. For example, any enemy can me completely crushed with minimal casualties if you just attack the flanks and/or rear with cavalry, a tactic that is ridiculously easy to perform in the game, since the AI never guards itself from it. Having one tactic that can win you almost any battle with almost all factions makes any tactical depth meaningless.


The AI is easier to exploit, both tactically and strategically. There are indeed several improvements, but when it comes to overall gameplay, it's a step back. Mind you, M:TW is not perfect either, and it becomes quite easy after a while, too. But it's never as mindboggingly easy as R:TW. However, when firing up S:TW after several years of M:TW on expert, I got creamed. At normal level. That game is much, much harder.

[LordKhaine]

Where's the third option? ~;)

I think RTW and MTW are about the same, both great games. But they both do different things better than the other. Some things MTW does, well RTW does badly. And some of the things RTW does well MTW doesn't do at all. Hopefully the next game will combine the best bits of both and get an even better game! ~D

[Come Together]

MTW, all the way. I can't even stand RTW. With it's terrible AI, handfull of bugs, terrible AI, the way that i never play campaigns out because it just gets boring, and other features that were added that I just dont appreciate (ie. the way the campaign map is now, with units moving in a radius). Not to mention, I just like the setting in MTW better then in RTW.

[Red Harvest]

MTW, hands down. Better battles, more challenge, better unit type balance. An unchallenging game is a dull game, witness Exhibit A: RTW. Now if this is a beauty pageant, RTW wins. And RTW does have more game play potential, but too much of it doesn't actually work and the AI is hideously mismatched to the combat engine and phalanx warfare. Combat/movement speeds in RTW are an order of magnitude too fast, RTS style wrist flicking click fests... :sad3: The combat difficulty levels are actually combat speed levels and therefore mostly useless. VH = Warp 10 fast combat, Easy = normal combat speed.

[Byzantine Prince]

For some reason I enjoy MTW more then RTW. I don't really know why, but the battles are more envigorating. It might just be that my computer plays them better.

I don't think either of them really wins as being better, I can think of ways to make both more enjoyable and challenging. General's point of view in RTW for example makes battles soooo hard.

[Shambles]

I uninstalled rome after playing it like 4 times,
Where as MTW and Shogun tw have never been uninstalled.

I Guess that says it all

[master of the puppets]

love rome, more factions, varied troops, choose battleground, once you mod out all the gay glitches its the best.

[Colovion]

love rome, more factions, varied troops

MTW has more factions and more varied troops

a description from this site for MTW is thoroughly correct:


12 playable factions and over 100 different unit types each with distinct playing styles

Whereas in Rome you have Romans, Barbarians, Hellenics and then a couple random ones like the mysterious ancient Egyptians, Carthage and the Eastern kingdoms like Pontus and Parthia. The play style doesn't really change, whereas in MTW the playstyle for each different faction was incredibly different from faction to faction; as well as it would evolve over the course of the game with the three different eras and events like the Mongol invasion in 1206 or so. Rome is basically a 100 yard dash of a game. Lots of glamour and glitz but it's over so quickly and especially with the "barbarian" factions after the first 40 or 50 turns you've already gotten the most advanced troops.

RTW: Jump the Shark.

[professorspatula]

I think MTW has the edge. I was entertained throughout the game. RTW is very good at first, but once you get a certain way into the game, there isn't much more to it. RTW has so much potential, but it hasn't been realised. Unless the expansion makes a lot of changes to AI, battles and the strategic gameplay, we'll have to wait for the next game in the TW series to see if the potential can be met. Failing that, I hope some other developer comes up trumps and steals Total War's thunder. Ha!

[Uesugi Kenshin]

MTW, by the way I suggest only creating one poll on a subject at once.

[Casmin]

All I know is the more I play RTW, the more I want to play MTW. :furious3: MTW is just such a solid game compared to RTW.

[IliaDN]

MTW had lot's of events such as emerging/re-emerging of factions , civil wars , invention events which changed gameplay a lot !!!!!
Also it was cool , that every unit in MTW had loyalty , which affected game much.
BUT RTW HAVE RATHER GOOD GRAPHICS.
Actually I hope B.I. will bring a lot of changes.

P.S. I don't know what game is better - to hard to choose.

[sapi]

I think MTW has the edge. I was entertained throughout the game. RTW is very good at first, but once you get a certain way into the game, there isn't much more to it. RTW has so much potential, but it hasn't been realised. Unless the expansion makes a lot of changes to AI, battles and the strategic gameplay, we'll have to wait for the next game in the TW series to see if the potential can be met. Failing that, I hope some other developer comes up trumps and steals Total War's thunder. Ha!
The expansion is bound to make those changes. Maybe it's just that i don't have MTW:VI, but i think that while a good game, mtw just couldn't draw me into it like rome could.


MTW had lot's of events such as emerging/re-emerging of factions , civil wars , invention events which changed gameplay a lot !!!!!
Yes, i agree that these would have been great in RTW but you must remember that things were different in RTW's time period. And civil wars are an intergal part of the Roman campaign...but they're not as good/unpredictable.



P.S. I don't know what game is better - to hard to choose.
There should have been a third option

For me, MTW wins it for overall polish, but it pales compared to rome's innovations. A mixture of the two would be great....here's waiting for BI and praying it fixes some things

[The Stranger]

yeah that's the thing. MTW is always fun, RTW is only fun at the beginning, though RTR make up sumthing and EB is going to hit like a bomb. though after playing RTR i couldnt go back to MTW, becuz of the graphics and graphics only

[mfberg]

The load game bug is the deal breaker.

mfberg

[Aetius the Last Roman]

Well, I like Rome but lets face it, its too easy.
MTW and STW were great games because they were challenging.
In Rome all you need is a horde of Archers who manage to sharpshoot anything in sight or alternatively an entirely cavalry army to level the enemy. :charge:

MTW is more varied with its units and has a great deal more depth to it. Look at the variation between the factions and also how each factions varies with each period.

Plus the loss of certain features like factions re-emergence, etc... makes the game lose some of its many amenities.

However...
Rome does have its good points, the game has soo much more stuff than MTW, the diplomacy, the cities, the movement. the problem is that all the AI can do with all this new stuff is give you heaven and earth for your territory map. I think a more polished RTW would be better. :dizzy2:

But...
I really think the STW sytle movies need to make a comeback!

What I would really love is if the next TW title came not only with a polished version of Rome but also bring back the lost stuff from STW and MTW as well as bringing more of a complex civilian political role in things and more complexities into foreign policy other than "Him neighbour, me kill".

I do not wish to tarnish the reputation of any of the TW titles though which in my opinion are the greatest thing since sliced bread. ~:cheers:

[Orda Khan]

RTW has its faults but one thing it has that neither MTW nor STW has is Horse Archers. Those immobile units who ride up, park their ponies and fire were always something I hated about the game and not worthy of the name. As for the issues, let's hope that many will be addressed when BI arrives and that is something I am really looking forward to

.........Orda

[Productivity]

MTW.

The fact that my win:loss ration in RTW is ~250:3 is ridiculous. All the graphics in the world mean nothing to me if the gameplay is shocking.

The gameplay is shocking.

[Hunter KIng George]

MTW all the way... I also enjoy Rome for a while then get somewhat bored, graphics are awesome but the gameplay does not compare to the same level as MTW as everyone knows. I enjoy the challenges MTW brings... something Rome will never have.

[Red Harvest]

MTW.

The fact that my win:loss ration in RTW is ~250:3 is ridiculous. All the graphics in the world mean nothing to me if the gameplay is shocking.


Yep. That is my main problem with it as well. My battlefield win/loss ratio hovered in the 50:1 to 100:1 range through several campaigns. ***BORING***

It is interesting that RTW is getting drubbed in this poll at the moment. Afterall, this is the RTW forum, meaning the folks here have some interest in it (even if for some of us it is now reduced to morbid curiosity.)

[drone]

M:TW. Rome just doesn't have an "edge" to it, it's hard to get sucked in. After the first few years, it's just a job: kill the rebels, build up the rubber-stamp cities, annihilate the hapless enemy stacks, rinse, lather, repeat. It's got cool graphics, but it lacks a mental "flavor".

[Volstag]

Each installment of the TW series has, IMO, come very close to being the "ultimate strategy game". Unfortunately, each installment has failed in one way or another (again, IMO). R:TW has, by far, the most promise/potential but, sadly, it's probably the most "incomplete" of the three. If they squash the bugs and strengthen the AI, they'll have a bonified winner on their hands. It's kinda sad to think that S:TW is, perhaps, the strongest title when it came to challenging gameplay... and each iteration is progressively worse.

Unless the R:TW expansion dramatically reduces the shortcomings of the game, I may end up passing on future TW titles -- or, at the very least, waiting until they're languishing in the bargain bin. Here's to hoping!

[Colovion]

I think that my vote will go to RTW after the XP and EB Mod is released... assuming that the XP fixes all off the known problems with the game and adds a couple little fun features.

My vote goes to MTW now because I played it with the BI and the MedMod and it was utter ecstasy. I do, however, remember becoming entranced with the demo I downloaded which I played over and over until I saved up enough to buy the full version + XP. I even illegally downloaded the full vanilla version but I never got around to playing it more than the tutorial over and over. The game was of such scale to me that I didn't want to miss any immersion factor by playing on a version that might be missing some music files or something.

look forward to the XP with longing eyes hidden behind scarred thoughts of past disappointments. :(

[Sol Invictus]

Sad thing is that I have only scatched the surface of Rome; always seem to be waiting on patches and mods before I finally jump into the deep end. I finally broke down and rebought MTW:VI and now remember all the nice things about MTW that RTW doesn't have. So I find myself playing MTW now and still waiting for patches/Mods/Expack to make it all right. Very sad.

[Magraev]

The question goes to gameplay - there I feel M:TW wins without contest. Unfortunately it's difficult to go back to inferior graphics once you've seen how it can be done.

I still love M:TW the most in the series. If they fix all the bugs in R:TW I might change my mind.

[The Stranger]

just like that is giong to happen

[Magraev]

I can dream can't I? Maybe the X-pack will make my dreams come true too ~:)

[Strongsword]

Choosing MTW over RTW is as confusing to me as the popularity of Will and Grace.

Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW.

The strategic map alone provides depth to troop movements that is not found on MTW--both on land and at sea (amphibious assaults)

Moreover, the AI on MTW is overrated. Similar tactics that are decrided in RTW will achieve the same measure of success in MTW (i.e., engage the infantry and use the cavalry to flank).

I think most players ljust ike the MTW time period better (knights and chivralic men-at-arms) than ancient Rome, which accounts for the favor of MTW over RTW.

[The Stranger]

no, i think most hate the buggy RTW disc, and the weak childish AI, but the good things don't overpower the bad things. the savegame bug is a gamebraker, only god knows what's next. maybe the romans arén't the romans but the evil martians

[Red Harvest]

Choosing MTW over RTW is as confusing to me as the popularity of Will and Grace.

Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW.

The strategic map alone provides depth to troop movements that is not found on MTW--both on land and at sea (amphibious assaults)

Moreover, the AI on MTW is overrated. Similar tactics that are decrided in RTW will achieve the same measure of success in MTW (i.e., engage the infantry and use the cavalry to flank).

I think most players ljust ike the MTW time period better (knights and chivralic men-at-arms) than ancient Rome, which accounts for the favor of MTW over RTW.

Flash over substance. RTW presents the *illusion* of depth. Flash and "depth" falter if not properly supported and fleshed out. Poor execution is worse than not having a feature at all. Better to do the simple well, than the complex poorly. In MTW I can't win nearly as many difficult battles as in RTW. And I can't win them in MTW with virtually no casualties as I can in RTW.

As for increased depth, the RTW AI fails to handle either the tactical changes or strategic changes well, so the increased depth is actually a weakness of the game rather than a strength as it should be. The problems with the huge number of stars that player generals easily get in RTW (and the AI does not) shows another dimension where depth is increased, but so poorly implemented and bugged as to destroy gameplay. As a result, removing all the traits would be an improvement in RTW for gameplay. Some folks have removed all walls to get around the save/load bug. It's bad enough that I gave up on the game as have many others. Yet I haven't given up on its predecessors. So it is very hard for me to see how anyone can rate RTW above the other two.

Time periods don't matter that much to me...if well executed. Pawning this off on some time period bias is not gonna work...especially when you consider the core of STW players out there. I was really looking forward to the phalanx units. But again, the AI can't use them properly at all...and heavy cavalry can cut through phalanx units frontally. Unit balance is an absolute mess. Charge doesn't work in a logical fashion.

Another thing, what about periods...why only one period for RTW? The Marian reforms are a non-issue since they don't effect the campaign (it is over by then.) There is an illusion of depth in RTW at the moment.

In MTW you can't just use a cav rush for everything. The examples you gave are of flash, not substance. Those are gamey non-historic examples. I "solved" RTW as Carthage in my 2nd campaign. I switched to nearly all cav (on VH back when difficulty levels worked) and easily swept the field. MTW required balanced armies and building/maintaining a cav army is expensive in MTW. There is much more depth to battlefield play (terrain) in MTW. And the MTW AI is better about holding its high ground than RTW (not perfect, but much better.)

RTW's missile code is far less developed than its predecessors. We did manage to get FF fixed to match MTW for the most part, but we still have firing sixteen ranks deep, next to no distance attenuation, weak or non-existent weather effects, and very accurate "indirect" fire.

MTW and STW had naval invasions...not sure what you were trying to say.

[Mongoose]

"Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW."


I don't know about you, but when i see a unit of cataphracts(sp?) charge through pikemen and win(from the front)..... :furious3: and you are mostly talking about graphics, which do not add any depth to the game.

EDIT: wow, RTW is getting beatin badly~:eek: i guess it dosen't do so well when the eye candy part of the game is not counted

[Rowan11088]

Well no question, single player in MTW was more challenging. but I don't think it was for the right reasons....the whole province setup left many key areas undefended that wouldn't be inRTW, and RTW is the more realistic in this aspect. Being able to manuever your armies around an enemy while they're camped to surround them, or set up an ambush, are also impossible in MTW. As for units, MTW wasn't very balanced at all IMO. Get some weapon and armor upgrades for your AP axe/sword units and they will cut through ANYTHING, and since archers were so crappy in MTW (short of arbs) they won't be taken out at range. Javelins didn't work at all in MTW either, and as someone said horse archers were annoying but not very effective. RTW definitely has more unique and distinct units, like chariots and phalanxes, and you can't for example make your Carthaginian infantry the equal of the Romans with simply a few armor and weapon upgrades. In MTW I could make Woodsmen that could take out Chivalric Knights if I built up my province right.

[Quietus]

MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you.

MTW battles are the same over and over. Spears and archers upfront then flank = Win. You can't do the same thing to Elephants and chariots in RTW. Siege battles in RTW is the best. Try attacking a city full of elite enemy soldiers. That's strategy, that's fun! ~:)

:charge:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I will compare the two via addiction levels.

MTW/VI: Consumed my life for months. Maybe even a year. Would get up early to play it. Would miss school bus repeatedly if parent's weren't around to correct that. Dinner < MTW. I could never finish a campaign, because I kept being distracted by other factions... Occassionally got whupped on Hard-mode, still loved it. Hell, it even brought me to this forum, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And the mods. *Sigh* the mods.

RTW: After a month or so, lost interest in vanilla. Mods kept me playing for another month. Have stopped playing for about two months. Currently awaiting certain mods to be finished. Expansion pack garnered only mild apathy; not frenzy that VI put me into. Can butcher enemy armies with ease and a few archers. No fear of strategic threats whatsoever.

Red Harvest: do you have a favorite mod for RTW? Just curious.

[Mongoose]

"MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you."

Is there REALLY any diplomacy in RTW? i have not seen any. Maybe i should look harder?

[The Stranger]

MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you.

MTW battles are the same over and over. Spears and archers upfront then flank = Win. You can't do the same thing to Elephants and chariots in RTW. Siege battles in RTW is the best. Try attacking a city full of elite enemy soldiers. That's strategy, that's fun! ~:)

:charge:

'that's true, but most people are dissapointed with RTW cuz it is 99% but not 100% it's good but you see it fail at everything. it is winning till 90'th minute and got beaten in extra time

[Titus Livius]

Personally, I find it very difficult to stick with a game in MTW now that I've played RTW. Graphics, gameplay, units, and the all-important use of terrain make Rome the better game.

And I'd wager that at least a few of you are voting for MTW as a retaliatory measure against CA for all the bugs, lack of customer service, etc.

[Mongoose]

But what about the AI?

[Titus Livius]

But what about the AI?

I've noticed no real difference. The AI in both games will always go for the most advantageous terrain. I have noticed that barbarians in RTW will employ a feint with a small part of their armies, which I've never seen in MTW.

I think a lot of the "difficulty" factor in MTW comes from the fact that all factions had basically the same units. When you field 6 Urban Militia and your opponent fields the exact same thing, sure, it's going to be a bit tougher.

But I also remember being able to drive most enemies from the field with ease in MTW as well as in RTW. Once, with the English, I killed about 2100 Almohads for a loss of 17 of my own boys. Some of that had to do with the fact that the enemy could only bring up reserves as they're units routed off-map, and that could be a pretty damned long walk, so the new way to employ reserves also stands in RTW's favor.

All in all, if one AI is slightly better than the other, it doesn't much matter. I'm a better general than both of them combined.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And I'd wager that at least a few of you are voting for MTW as a retaliatory measure against CA for all the bugs, lack of customer service, etc.

And if we are, who can blame us? Some of those bugs are pretty close to unexcusable. :book:

[Shahed]

RTW is better in that it adds many desirable features. Unfortunately these features have come at the expense of gameplay. MTW wins.

[[seminoles]shadow]

all i got to say is RTW

[Aetius the Last Roman]

I've noticed no real difference. The AI in both games will always go for the most advantageous terrain. I have noticed that barbarians in RTW will employ a feint with a small part of their armies, which I've never seen in MTW.

:singer: What utter rubbish!

Does anyone else but me notice that the AI in RTW is so moronically cavalier that it feels the compulsion to play charge of the 26th light brigade with its generals every battle. In MTW you do not have this problem. :charge:

Does the AI of MTW feel a need to launch itself into unneccesarily impossible battles and siege relief operations?

Has the AI in RTW ever been able to use superior numbers of troops to its advantage like the AI in RTW? (maybe the egyptian horde might be an exception here).

Does MTW make your autoresolve battles ludicrously impossible?

Does any one else notice that the flank attacks in RTW are so misguided, weak and disorganised compared to MTW?

Has anybody been able to win as many mythic (4 kills to 1 loss against an equal enemy) battles in MTW compared to RTW.

As for diplomacy, I've yet to see the super-realpolitik principle of the AI removed, the me see :evil:, me kill :rifle: doctrine of TW diplomacy.

If homogeneity is a problem please explain how MTW actually has more units types available than RTW. Maybe some of the pro-RTW people have not realised this but if they actually managed to beat one faction in MTW and go beyond a culture specific region than the difference in units is very large.

Yes the graphics are good, we've all seen the chariots cut blades of grass but what we have yet to see is an AI that can use chariots.

As for the repitition of MTW, try the super arrow storm in RTW, the Cavalry rush.

The main thing that seperates RTW from MTW is the strategy map which is great but the problem with it is the AI doesn't know how to use it. I'd rather play a simple game with challenge rather than a complex game against the height of ineptitude.

In addition to this, even I have to concede that the reinforcement issues in RTW is far better solved than in MTW, however, I have never got the 10,000 man battles I got on MTW.

However, no one can deny that the only realistic way to lose a battle in RTW is to autoresolve it. :furious3:

[Mongoose]

"However, no one can deny that the only realistic way to lose a battle in RTW is to autoresolve it. "

I've lost battles......but i was out numbered 10:1....and i only had one unit...

[Titus Livius]

:singer: What utter rubbish!

Wow...that's an awful lot of passion over a video game. It's okay, I'm sure it's your father that you're really mad at. Perhaps you should take up another hobby, like botany. It's probably better for the blood pressure.

What about the rest of you guys? What is it with this huge emotional investment in a video game? You obviously pinned a lot of your hopes and dreams on RTW to get so riled up.

[Shambles]

seriously MTW beats RTW hands down,
RTW has 1 thing and thats snazzy gfx.

Its prety much unplayable in single player Well unless you never played any of the other TW games and dont Like a chalange.
RTW really is the worst of the TW seriese,
But as it was given Masses of advertisement you get Lots of people who have never played a decent TW game (by that i mean they only ever played rome) coming here Praizing Rome.
And saying its the best game ever,
possibly I would be one of those people had i not played the other 2 games,
But honestly
Rome dosent even compare,
Its not even in the same league, IMO


What about the rest of you guys? What is it with this huge emotional investment in a video game? You obviously pinned a lot of your hopes and dreams on RTW to get so riled up.

I payed nearly £50 Thats almost $100 for this game,
and i never play it becous it sux,
My emotinal Envolvment about the game is realy Resentment towards CA and there shoddy workman ship,

And i also resent the people who pat ca on there back and say

"GREAT job Worth the money. Now let me spend a nother $100 on a expantion to fix This game you couldnt be botherd finishing in the 1st place."

It undermines All that Real gamers say.
And then ca Decide that they can get away with this sort of shoddy qualaty.
And they dont Need to fix it with a patch,
Simply becous some of the People who are easily impressed say they like it.

I guess simple things really do please simple minds,


To me thats just plain wrong.

[Titus Livius]

I payed nearly £50 Thats almost $100 for this game,
and i never play it becous it sux,

I guess there's one born every minute. I don't pay over $40 for any game, no matter how hyped it is.

I also find it interesting that you "never play it becous it sux" but you're willing to write 500+ posts about a game you hate. I've bought games that I didn't like. I trashed them and moved on to the next thing.

[Shambles]

I guess there's one born every minute. I don't pay over $40 for any game, no matter how hyped it is.

I also find it interesting that you "never play it becous it sux" but you're willing to write 500+ posts about a game you hate. I've bought games that I didn't like. I trashed them and moved on to the next thing.

Have a look in the apothecary,
or sword dojo,
Then come back and tell me where my 500+ posts are.

I owned Shogun total war since it was released.
And still play it to this day,
In fact Im playing in a match tomorrow or saturday in the tourniment i am holding.

I play mtw on a regular basis.

And Rome total war has been Uninstalled and Religated to the pile marked Unwanted

And the game still is not £20 or $40 In this country.
It still equals like $85 now.
So If you lived here I guess you would not own any game untill it was like 12 years old :duel:

[Colovion]

I guess there's one born every minute. I don't pay over $40 for any game, no matter how hyped it is.

I also find it interesting that you "never play it becous it sux" but you're willing to write 500+ posts about a game you hate. I've bought games that I didn't like. I trashed them and moved on to the next thing.

You forget that some people see unspent potential and wish to see that tapped into in the future. Not everyone gives up as easily as you do. Simply because you do not feel passionate about a subject does not mean that it isn't justifiable.

[Red Harvest]

I've noticed no real difference. The AI in both games will always go for the most advantageous terrain. I have noticed that barbarians in RTW will employ a feint with a small part of their armies, which I've never seen in MTW.

I think a lot of the "difficulty" factor in MTW comes from the fact that all factions had basically the same units. When you field 6 Urban Militia and your opponent fields the exact same thing, sure, it's going to be a bit tougher.

But I also remember being able to drive most enemies from the field with ease in MTW as well as in RTW. Once, with the English, I killed about 2100 Almohads for a loss of 17 of my own boys. Some of that had to do with the fact that the enemy could only bring up reserves as they're units routed off-map, and that could be a pretty damned long walk, so the new way to employ reserves also stands in RTW's favor.

All in all, if one AI is slightly better than the other, it doesn't much matter. I'm a better general than both of them combined.

No, in RTW the AI rarely stays put when well placed, or moves to appropriate terrain when it should. It either runs away or charges straight in. When you try to break out of a siege the AI will often pull away from the walls (a good thing)...and then park the lot downslope...rather than backing up to high ground...arrgggg. On regular maps if it has high ground and stays put it will let you march right up to it parallel and turn its flank so that you have higher ground. MTW was far better about engaging while still on the up slope.

I've seen plenty of flanks and feint attempts in MTW. MTW would attempt to use its cavalry on the flanks if it outclassed your own. There is a fine line before it becomes foolhardy piecemeal engagement (Exhibit A: RTW.)

You can't drive most enemies from the field with such ease in MTW on expert. You can in RTW. Yes, I've had MTW battles with extremely lopsided results like that, a low but important percentage. The difference is that in RTW every other battle is that lopsided... And in MTW the AI with a good general on expert would use its advantages to smash my line so hard that it collapsed/routed.

The RTW reserves concept is OK, but there are not enough men on the field in the first place. The reserves of MTW was double edged. Sure if you were purely on defense and didn't have to face waves of missile troops, then you were in good shape. However, if you swept the strong first stack, but were downslope, you would often be in a terrible position when the reserves arrived. And then there was the desert...it really meant something in MTW. Those heavy armoured units didn't last long there... And missile units would rip you a new one when the came in stacks. Sometimes you had no choice but to chase the enemy...and reserves were a killer in that case. The size of the battles in RTW is smaller. I never face two full stack armies from multiple factions in RTW. And I've never seen waves as in MTW (not that it would help in RTW, my troops don't fatigue enough to matter.)

Another factor: in RTW you can see where most units are all the time. In MTW LOS was far more important. The element of surprise was in MTW (and more so in STW.)

I still don't see where you get the idea that all factions were alike in MTW. That's nonsense. There were the standard Western European crusader armies shared by factions, with differences primarily in cavalry and special units. But there were also Byzantines, Danes, Russians, Mongols, Swiss, and three substantially different Muslim factions as well. That dog won't hunt. If you tried to fight desert factions the way you faced other crusaders, you were a goner. And the halbardiers and pikemen certainly played differently than the standard spearmen. Archery had quite a bit of variety, although standard crossbows were weaker than they should have been (reload was just too long.)

The "difficulty" factor in MTW was partly that the higher difficulty levels were indeed more difficult. In RTW the battle difficulty is FUBAR because it is combat speed based.

[avatar]

I voted for Rome, but I do not think it is "better," just different. I do miss the AI from MTW, at least that AI could flank and defend a flanking maneuver. However, my favorite faction/campaign was the Vikings.

[Titus Livius]

And i also resent the people who pat ca on there back and say

"GREAT job Worth the money. Now let me spend a nother $100 on a expantion to fix This game you couldnt be botherd finishing in the 1st place."

It undermines All that Real gamers say. .

Ah, so everyone who agrees with you are Real Gamers.

So that means the rest of us are what exactly? Fake gamers? Imposters? Awfully convenient reasoning.

[Titus Livius]

You forget that some people see unspent potential and wish to see that tapped into in the future. Not everyone gives up as easily as you do. Simply because you do not feel passionate about a subject does not mean that it isn't justifiable.

I've forgotten nothing. There are certainly things in RTW I would like to see changed. The difference between our perspectives is that I think Rome is still a great game despite these flaws, and you think it worthy only of the garbage can.

There was a poll. I answered the poll and gave a short opinion about my vote. When a member asked my opinion about a certain aspect of the game, I gave a truthful answer. What followed was another member taking a very aggressive attitude and absurdly declaring my opinion "wrong." That you think I've "given up" on the game shows your inability to grasp that other people have opinions which are the opposite of your own.

Get over yourself.

[Shambles]

It's okay, I'm sure it's your father that you're really mad at.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess there's one born every minute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What followed was another member taking a very aggressive attitude .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

your inability to grasp that other people have opinions which are the opposite of your own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get over yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prehaps these quote's are directed at yourself?
Some 1 needs to check there attitude
This is not the back room.

Say no more

[Strongsword]

Flash over substance. RTW presents the *illusion* of depth. Flash and "depth" falter if not properly supported and fleshed out. Poor execution is worse than not having a feature at all. Better to do the simple well, than the complex poorly. In MTW I can't win nearly as many difficult battles as in RTW. And I can't win them in MTW with virtually no casualties as I can in RTW.

As for increased depth, the RTW AI fails to handle either the tactical changes or strategic changes well, so the increased depth is actually a weakness of the game rather than a strength as it should be. The problems with the huge number of stars that player generals easily get in RTW (and the AI does not) shows another dimension where depth is increased, but so poorly implemented and bugged as to destroy gameplay. As a result, removing all the traits would be an improvement in RTW for gameplay. Some folks have removed all walls to get around the save/load bug. It's bad enough that I gave up on the game as have many others. Yet I haven't given up on its predecessors. So it is very hard for me to see how anyone can rate RTW above the other two.

Time periods don't matter that much to me...if well executed. Pawning this off on some time period bias is not gonna work...especially when you consider the core of STW players out there. I was really looking forward to the phalanx units. But again, the AI can't use them properly at all...and heavy cavalry can cut through phalanx units frontally. Unit balance is an absolute mess. Charge doesn't work in a logical fashion.

Another thing, what about periods...why only one period for RTW? The Marian reforms are a non-issue since they don't effect the campaign (it is over by then.) There is an illusion of depth in RTW at the moment.

In MTW you can't just use a cav rush for everything. The examples you gave are of flash, not substance. Those are gamey non-historic examples. I "solved" RTW as Carthage in my 2nd campaign. I switched to nearly all cav (on VH back when difficulty levels worked) and easily swept the field. MTW required balanced armies and building/maintaining a cav army is expensive in MTW. There is much more depth to battlefield play (terrain) in MTW. And the MTW AI is better about holding its high ground than RTW (not perfect, but much better.)

RTW's missile code is far less developed than its predecessors. We did manage to get FF fixed to match MTW for the most part, but we still have firing sixteen ranks deep, next to no distance attenuation, weak or non-existent weather effects, and very accurate "indirect" fire.

MTW and STW had naval invasions...not sure what you were trying to say.
With respect to amphibious assults, in MTW it was just "teleport" your army to the target region, and there was a battle.

In RTW, you can pick specific parts of the coast to land. Perhaps you send two armies, one to land at a point where it can quickly lay seige to the city, and the other to land at a point where it will ambush the enemy army outside the city.

Just the procedure of having to ferry troops (i.e., the travel time and the risk of the ships being attacked en route), forcing strategic choices of whether to attack by sea or through overland paths.

Moreover, in RTW you can move your army through neutral territory to attack another without automatically declaring war. In fact, armies in the same territory can avoid battles altogether through maneuvers. This was not possible in the "board game" environment of MTW.

Finally, the "flash" of better battle graphics of RTW doesn't mean that MTW battles were more challenging. Part of the entertainment of the game is to see the realism of battle. MTW can't compare in this aspect.

[Colovion]

You're forgetting that you're grasping on the few straws which RTW has over MTW. The core gameplay is shallow, but it looks nice and has a couple features that the older MTW didn't.

There's problems with both, no question, but RTW introduced new gameplay aspects which opened a can o' worms of problems to solve.

In conclusion: RTW is the whore to MTW's lady debonair.

[Titus Livius]

No, in RTW the AI rarely stays put when well placed, or moves to appropriate terrain when it should.

This has not been my experience. Perhaps the AI reacts differently to different tactics.


I still don't see where you get the idea that all factions were alike in MTW. That's nonsense. There were the standard Western European crusader armies shared by factions, with differences primarily in cavalry and special units.

This is what I was talking about. Of course you can't say that every faction in MTW was EXACTLY the same. That's absurd. My point was that England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sicily, Aragon, etc...these all shared units like Urban Militia, Militia Sergeants, Feudal Men-At-Arms, Chivalric Men-At-Arms, and so on. That's a lot of basic units to be sharing. In RTW, you really don't get that beyond everyone having a basic Peasent and Levy unit. The units of Rome are very much different from that of Greece, whose units in turn are different from those of Macedon, and so on and so forth.

[Titus Livius]

Some 1 needs to check there attitude
This is not the back room.
Say no more

And which of these comments did I make prior to member's getting aggressive? Not a one. I merely replied in kind.

And whether or not this is the back room is no concern of yours. If the moderator's have a problem with me, one of them can let me know. If you have a problem, you can stop reading my posts.

Nice try though.

[Titus Livius]

In conclusion: RTW is the whore to MTW's lady debonair.

We can shout opinions at each other all day. I don't pretend that mine is unassailable fact, and neither should you. I've heard yours and still disagree.

[Red Harvest]

With respect to amphibious assults, in MTW it was just "teleport" your army to the target region, and there was a battle.

In RTW, you can pick specific parts of the coast to land. Perhaps you send two armies, one to land at a point where it can quickly lay seige to the city, and the other to land at a point where it will ambush the enemy army outside the city.

Just the procedure of having to ferry troops (i.e., the travel time and the risk of the ships being attacked en route), forcing strategic choices of whether to attack by sea or through overland paths.

Moreover, in RTW you can move your army through neutral territory to attack another without automatically declaring war. In fact, armies in the same territory can avoid battles altogether through maneuvers. This was not possible in the "board game" environment of MTW.

Finally, the "flash" of better battle graphics of RTW doesn't mean that MTW battles were more challenging. Part of the entertainment of the game is to see the realism of battle. MTW can't compare in this aspect.

Those MTW amphibious assaults were not pure teleports...since you often (or was it always?) got a coastal map for your battle. MTW certainly lacked as much depth in choosing the battlefield, but the potential field choices were in fact determined by the strategic map. Each border had various options for the battle depending on features. You didn't always get the same one each time--not unrealistic in that in reality both forces would be moving about and would not necessarily make contact at a point of anyone's choosing. And often in history, the defender would choose when to make a stand, rather than the attacker.

As for the "realism of battle" with RTW...I don't see it. The weather effects were several times better in MTW. The feel of battle was better in MTW. Terrain was much more influential on the battle. Unit balance was better, speed was better, charges made more sense, archery felt more representative, fatigue was critical, LOS issues were more important, etc. I don't get an improved sense of realism in RTW at all. What RTW has is 3d graphics vs. sprites, so again visually it looks much better, but to use Yoda speak, "looks do not a battle create." I could point out a lot of issues with the basic combat graphic animations, but it isn't worth the effort.

[Red Harvest]

This is what I was talking about. Of course you can't say that every faction in MTW was EXACTLY the same. That's absurd. My point was that England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sicily, Aragon, etc...these all shared units like Urban Militia, Militia Sergeants, Feudal Men-At-Arms, Chivalric Men-At-Arms, and so on. That's a lot of basic units to be sharing. In RTW, you really don't get that beyond everyone having a basic Peasent and Levy unit. The units of Rome are very much different from that of Greece, whose units in turn are different from those of Macedon, and so on and so forth.

Have you actually looked that closely at the game you are playing? There is a tremendous amount of sharing of units in RTW. It gets really obvious if you spend much time with the units file... Most of the units you see during a normal RTW campaign are not unique to a faction. Some of that is to be expected, and is no more of a problem than in MTW. Those shared RTW base level units are the ones you see the most anyway and they are shared massively. And many later units that have different names have the same graphics and same stats in other factions... Another aspect where CA dropped the ball with the patch was in not fixing a lot of units to actually differ in appearance as their descriptions say they should.

[Colovion]

We can shout opinions at each other all day. I don't pretend that mine is unassailable fact, and neither should you. I've heard yours and still disagree.

are you waiting for me to write down that you disagree with me in a ledger? your affirmation of disagreeing with me makes no difference to my opinion. Plus, I wasn't directing those comments at you anyway.

[Shambles]

hes trenched him self in now,
and hes ready with his atillary,

You should probably just ignore what he says as he will just continue to attempt to antagonize any one who dissagrees with him.

I understand he thinks rome is great,
I dont know why He cant explain that,
But As i have explained why MTW is better And the fact that the poll shows the same

I really dont care what he says now,
His agressive stance and underhanded insults Could be deemed to be afray in the real world,
So i will stop Reading his posts,

I just wish there was an Ignore feature.

[Puzz3D]

There is a tremendous amount of sharing of units in RTW.
In both MTW and RTW there are more units than the combat system can differentiate. If you go back to STW with its 14 units, that is more like what the older combat system can support. RTW can support more, but not as many as are in the game. BI has 80 new units, but practially all of these are going to be new only in name and graphic.

[Titus Livius]

Have you actually looked that closely at the game you are playing? There is a tremendous amount of sharing of units in RTW.

I'm sure you have. How about some examples?

[Titus Livius]

your affirmation of disagreeing with me makes no difference to my opinion. .

I couldn't have summed up my own position better. Though it has been amusing to watch people try to "prove" which is the better game.

[Magraev]

I'm sure you have. How about some examples?

Is he dense or just rude?

A couple of examples:
Phalanx pikemen - Seleucids, Macedons, Thrace
Barbarian warband - Dacia, Britons, Gauls
Iberian Infantry - Carthage, Spain
Bireme - any non-barbarian civ

There are many others, if you'd care to look before you post.

[Titus Livius]

I understand he thinks rome is great,
I dont know why He cant explain that

See post #48 on this thread.


But As i have explained why MTW is better And the fact that the poll shows the same

I'm sure if you searched the net hard enough you could also find a poll clearly stating as ironclad fact that Death Rays from Mars killed JFK. Newsflash: Polls like this measure OPINION.

In this vein I hereby decree that Numidia is the best faction in RTW and the only one worth playing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deceitful and stupid.

If you read the above and thought it a foolish argument, you would be right.


I really dont care what he says now,
His agressive stance and underhanded insults Could be deemed to be afray in the real world,
So i will stop Reading his posts,

I just wish there was an Ignore feature.

Ah, but you've no problem at all with the aggressive stances of those who agree with you.

[Titus Livius]

Is he dense or just rude?

A couple of examples:
Phalanx pikemen - Seleucids, Macedons, Thrace
Barbarian warband - Dacia, Britons, Gauls
Iberian Infantry - Carthage, Spain
Bireme - any non-barbarian civ

There are many others, if you'd care to look before you post.

And how does that amount correspond to the amount of shared units in MTW?

P.S. Hopefully just rude, but I'm sure the jury is still out on that one.

[SpencerH]

What's interesting here is that the poll has remained fairly steady with ~60% prefering MTW. Given the obvious developments/improvements in RTW (graphics, strategic portion, diplomatic elements), it suggests pretty clearly that the tactical component of RTW falls well short of the mark left by MTW.

[Puzz3D]

What's interesting to me is that RTW has lost the poll in its own forum.

[Quietus]

What's more interesting is that more people actually play RTW than MTW. ~:)

[Aetius the Last Roman]

Quietus actually does have a really good point. (despite the fact that the increase is largely from more twitch-gamers). :)

However, I think MTW still had better gameplay (I would post an argument but I already have on post no.54 and everyone has said what needs to be said.

A little problem though,
What is wrong with Titus Livius?

Do you just have a problem replying in a polite manner?
Can you not debate with people in real life because you have no friends?
Do you just plan to be the world's greatest annoyance?

Stop being such a stubborn twit and play nice you child.

[Titus Livius]

Do you just have a problem replying in a polite manner?
Can you not debate with people in real life because you have no friends?
Do you just plan to be the world's greatest annoyance?

Stop being such a stubborn twit and play nice you child.

I was very polite right up until you regarded my opinion as "utter rubbish." You do remember that, don't you? As I've stated earlier, I merely replied in kind.

It's interesting that you ignore your own part in this debate and tell me to be polite while continuing with your insulting manner. (And all in the same post! Thanks for that convenience.) If you wish to act like that, you must in fairness give the rest of us the same leeway. I need no further proof of your hipocrisy.

Don't like it? I refer you to post #69. Thank you, drive through.

[Gregorius Vecchius]

I like Rome more, but maybe that's just me. I spent a lifetime playing Medieval, and was completely addicted, but I'm a sucker for graphics, and so got sucked into Rome from the very first campaign. Although I spent weeks playing without stopping, I suck really at games like this - which is great, because the AI keeps challenging me ~:) .
I guess the AI in Medieval is better than in Rome, but the campaign map in Rome is so much cooler!

[Soviet_AK-47]

Rome: Total War is the peak of the series. Sure, it may not have lovely features like civil war and the Crusades, but events like the Crusades didn't happen, and if we are extremely lucky, religion with importance, loyalty, and civil war will be incorporated into the expansion. Of course, the expansion is in a better time period for all of those mentioned above.

But I enjoy RTW even past the first few turns, and the Marius reforms do occur soon enough. Diplomacy is very fun. I don't know if bribing was in M:TW, as I haven't gone indepth with that game as I don't own it (my friend does, and that's where I have experienced it) but I use bribes often, usually with small armies the enemy sends that would be a nuisance. The only graphical thing that is flawed in R:TW is the way grass is placed in strips.

I know there where be anti-me and anti-R:TW messages for a while, but I stand by it.

[Ab Urbe Condita]

Are people seriously this offended by Titius' posts or are they just questioning his maturity as a debating tactic? You're making mountains out of molehills; nothing he's said has been shocking. Shut up about Titius already and get back to the matter at hand.

Speaking of which, in response to RedHarvest, here are all the units in RTW that are shared between factions:

-Peasants
-town militia
-Levy Pikemen
-Phalanx Pikemen
-militia hoplites
-Falxmen
-barbarian cavalry
-barbarian noble cavalry
-long shield cavalry
-round shield cavalry
-chosen archers
-chosen swordsmen
-warband
-companion cavalry
-greek cavalry
-iberian infantry
-War elehants
-elephants
-armored war elephants
-archers
-incendienary pigs
-war hounds
-slingers

...I think that's it, I probably missed one or two. Anyway, although that does seem lengthy obviously each faction only has a couple of those. I never played MTW so I don't know how that compares to it.

[Shambles]

Any one who has not played MTW,
You need to play it and the VI.

But i warn you.
You may just end up hating rome as much as i do,

and i really dont think that RTW only players should be allowed to vote That RTW is better than a game they have never played,
Obviously I Am not saying that you did,

But prehaps if you had,
You shouldnt have.

They never bothered finishing RTW.
Its full of bugs as have been mentioned time and time again,
Then theres the moronic AI,

And to add insult to injury,
They now say,
WE Will finish the game and fix the bugs BUT
You haft to virtualy pay for the game again by buying the xp,
When all othere manufacturers would have released a patch to fix it,

I have reported them to the trading standards and they are looking in to the matter so who knows,
With more complaints maby they will be forced to change there policy,

as for titus such quotes as i pointed out in post 65,
followed by more agressive and insulting posts
and the cobination of his inabilaty to reason, and the fact that Every 1 is wrong exept for him.
have lead me to stop reading his posts, ~:cheers:
becous im the type of person who would stoop to his level, :stwshame:
Which Really is not needed in this forum and is best suited in the back room.

ShambleS
:bow:

[a_ver_est]

And to add insult to injury,
They now say,
WE Will finish the game and fix the bugs BUT
You haft to virtualy pay for the game again by buying the xp,
When all othere manufacturers would have released a patch to fix it,



I full agree with you at this point.

And answering the topic question, I think both have pross and contras.

The tactical rules of MTW are better, your decisions like fight in a forest, high terrain, let enemy get tired, ... have bigger impact than in RTW. But the strategic side of RTW is far better ...

So I whish xp will make tactical combat rules similar than MTW but I don't think so.

[IceTorque]

a few brief reasons why i chose RTW over MTW.
and i have been a huge fan of the series since STW.

Without a doubt for me RTW is the best in the series.
the only problem is it needs to be modded to be appreciated.

eg. Remove all non elite units, then balance elite units to be equal.
and the result is a challenging battle A1.
But doing so does make for boring gameplay with so few units.

also the A1 will recognize the relative strengths of ranged units compared
to melee units and balance it's armies accordingly. (no all archer armies
as in MTW).
i.e. mod archers to be weaker and the A1 will have less archers per stack.

Also if we could mod the size of the battlefields perhaps the A1 would/could
use the terrain more effectively.

However being able to merge units together to form one uber unit,
is an absolute joke, and for me totolly destroys any chance
of being able to enjoy an online game.

now there are many more gameplay issues widely discussed throughout
the community.
But we must remember that RTW will not be complete untill BI.

Now we all agree the graphics are " cool ". but the gameplay, immersion and
atmosphere are somewhat lacking.
and in that department STW rules.

Lets hope that CA addresses this with the xpac.

[Puzz3D]

Remove all non elite units, then balance elite units to be equal.
and the result is a challenging battle A1. But doing so does make for boring gameplay with so few units.
STW had 14 unit types and every clan had the same units, but the gameplay was not boring in either SP or MP.



However being able to merge units together to form one uber unit,
is an absolute joke, and for me totally destroys any chance
of being able to enjoy an online game.
Don't expect this to be changed in the xpac. Mike DePlater already said that two men can't occupy the same space, and as far as he's concerned that's sufficient. Of course, that doesn't address the fact that in MTW units fought with 50% effectiveness if they overlapped another friendly unit because the men were "squeezed too tight". Also, units would not remain overlapped if stationary. They would automatically move to an open space.



now there are many more gameplay issues widely discussed throughout
the community. But we must remember that RTW will not be complete untill BI.
What CA considers to be "complete" is not what the players consider to be complete.

[Red Harvest]

What's more interesting is that more people actually play RTW than MTW. ~:)

What's more interesting to me is that you just made this up... It is a logical *guess*, but that is true of just about any ~9 month old game release versus a version that is several years old. From what I have been told more people actually own RTW than MTW. However, owning and playing are not the same thing are they? Given the same passage of time do you think as many people will still be playing RTW as are playing RTW? Doubtful. As one example MP has a big impact on the longterm playing community and RTW stumbled badly in this area.

[Red Harvest]

Speaking of which, in response to RedHarvest, here are all the units in RTW that are shared between factions:

-Peasants
-town militia
-Levy Pikemen
-Phalanx Pikemen
-militia hoplites
-Falxmen
-barbarian cavalry
-barbarian noble cavalry
-long shield cavalry
-round shield cavalry
-chosen archers
-chosen swordsmen
-warband
-companion cavalry
-greek cavalry
-iberian infantry
-War elehants
-elephants
-armored war elephants
-archers
-incendienary pigs
-war hounds
-slingers

...I think that's it, I probably missed one or two. Anyway, although that does seem lengthy obviously each faction only has a couple of those. I never played MTW so I don't know how that compares to it.


It was Titus that asked for the list, not me. There are more from what I recall. There are also quite a few units that share graphics, but not stats (especially mercs.)

I figured I would let Titus do his own homework, it would be good for him to be better informed before he posts. I no longer have the game installed, so I don't have the files easily at hand anymore (just my saved mod files.)

[Mongoose]

I have lost interest in RTW...for these reasons:


1: the AI is awful, i find games like Age of kings to be alot shallower but much harder

2:bugs

3:OMfGZ1!111 I PWNED1!1U!!11!!!111!!!ONE!!11!!11!!U R Z NoooBBBBB!11!!!11!!1 I rul RTW ONLNe U SUXXXXORZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!1!11!11!11! I M DA BEST AT TEH RTW ONLINE N I RUXXORZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


or....


U R TEH CHETR CUZ U BEET TEH ARME WIT 20 DESERT CAVS!11!!1!111omFgz1!!!!u SUKKKKS11111!!!111!!!!111!!!

4: AI diplomat = A
my diplomat =b

b: we want a cease fire
a: fine, but give us all of the settlements you took from us. plus 40,000 denarii
b:um, you only have one city left...we have 30...
a:THIS MEANS WAR!!!

You know the rest...

[Orda Khan]

You never saw comments like that in the MTW lobby?

The biggest problem in the RTW lobby is the lack of 'vets' who would at least play the game properly, thus helping to eradicate this behaviour....but I've said all this before

.......Orda

[Mongoose]

No, im sure stuff like that happens with MTW MP to. I didn't vote in this poll actually, as i have very little experience with MTW.

i think that RTW MP would much better if a larger number of people played with the mods like spqr.

back to the subject: why does MTW win at the .org polls and lose at the .com polls?

[Puzz3D]

The biggest problem in the RTW lobby is the lack of 'vets' who would at least play the game properly, thus helping to eradicate this behaviour.
The vets left because of the gameplay. Fixing things in the game engine that are not working properly is not, in general, a high priority for CA because, apparently, the majority of the people playing the game don't care if the game engine works correctly. I get this impression from the treatment that players who point out problems in the gameplay receive at the official site.

I'm surprised that you are not annoyed by the broken Parthian shot since I know you prefer eastern factions. As far as I can determine, CA has not confirmed that this or any other specific gameplay issue for that matter has been fixed in BI. There was a general statement from Jerome that many issues had already been addressed, but that's just the usual smoke and mirrors the community gets from CA. The community deserves to be told by CA exactly what's been fixed in BI before they buy it. It is after all the comunity who found most of the problems in the game for CA.

[The Wizard]

I based my choice on a simple fact, which, to me, represents the most important thing to a TW game: memorable battles.

In RTW, I have none.

In MTW, I have so many I end up going into a nostalgic state of mind where I sit about for about an hour or more thinking about this battle, that tactic and those great MP allies...

Enfin, it's quite clear to me. RTW is a game with a crapload of new features, but with the same AI as Medieval. While that AI performed fine in Medieval, in Rome it flounders and fails. I guess CA was too lazy to add in a new AI that could handle the new features...

Rome Total War: a public beta with a price tag.



~Wiz

[Hotspur]

MTW, I've played all the TW titles and expansions. Its still MTW + VI. An exceptional game with an epic quality that Rome has not recaptured.

Rome's OK but MTW was simply outstanding.

[Slyspy]

I quite agree with The Wizard. Neither game has a better AI because it is the same AI for both. The trouble is that the AI is incapable of handling the new features of RTW, hence the wasted potential. This may also be why RTW includes bugs which occured in the previous games but which were fixed in the patches for those editions. Also some incomprehensible decisions were made: why no fatigue, no terrain modifiersetc etc? The aging MTW may have its flaws, but RTW is a graphics engine looking for a game and, judging by what I have read, the expansion is unlikely to change that.

[jsteph]

Well I choose MTW as well. MTW was the first one I played, I need to find a cheap Shogun and try it.

Anyway, I played every faction in that game on the hardest settings, but I mostly let the battles sim out. It hurt me sometimes, but hey oh well. I really loved starting out with France and trying to finagle those provinces back from England without getting Excommunicated. Or takin on the Pope knowing that not even 20 years later they would be back full force. Or owning the Eastern European provinces and not realizing just how powerful those Huns were when they came in.

Owning the whole map and not having to worry about everyone province being yellow, gah I hate that. Ruling the known world as Denmark, little bitty Denmark. Those Long pole dudes from england owning calvary. Setting up huge trade fleets, only to have a Christian group start a war and send a ship to the Rock of Gibralter, there by cutting you trade in half. watching a treasury of several hundred thousand disappear to quickly when it happened. Knowing you could not take out all of the Christian ships in one turn or the fact they will not except peace and just build another. Knowing the Pope is watching.

Spreading Islam to all of Europe. Realizing just how close it could have been true if not for the bravery of some of the leaders of the era.

Having the Inquisitions come to a province. There were a lot of nice things about MTW. I like RTW. One of the reasons, fights are not 45 minutes long. Now when the wife calls, I can so no more than 10 minutes most of the time. I know the AI is not as good and that quick fights in a way sucks. But I like it.

[Jambo]

Let's face it the diplomacy in ROme is really not much different to that in MTW. It's pretty basic with the useful addition of being able to extort some token money out of the AI.

It, like so many other aspects of Rome, could have been so much more.

[Mount Suribachi]

I need to find a cheap Shogun and try it.



Shogun TW + Mongol Invasion XP is available for £5 in Britain (dunno where you live though).

And for all those saying "hopefully BI will fix the issues", I hope so too, but going by CAs track record I doubt it. When VI came out yeah, it added a few neat features. But it didn't do anything about the many problems that needed fixing improving, and even worse it actually added a couple of huge bugs (reinforcements and kings dying at 56). Bugs that they weren't going to patch until there was uproar in the community, and we even had an "I will not buy RTW unless VI is patched thread". Eventually we got our patch. But my faith in CA, and Activision especially is not great.

[Wishazu]

i love all the games equally and found the AI to be equally easy to defeat in all of them. I cant go back to playing shoggy because all the armies are the same, it was great and i miss the lil cutscenes for the ninjas and the throneroom etc. but the ai wasnt that great. Medieval was brilliant, my favourite part of this installment was the faction diversity and all those lovely different units. Rome is easily my favourite now, for both SP and MP i cant agree with people that say the online aspect of rome is poor cos of the idiots spamming you etc. this was just as prevalent on medieval and shogun. Diplomacy is improved, as is trade, obviously the graphics are awesome for an rts game. The strategy side is 100% better than previous installments, you can ambush enemy armies and also pick your battleground. look at the sieges much, much better than the pathetic attempts before. anyways, I like em all but i voted for rome as its the only one i play now.

[Spartacus]

This is tough as Medieval felt more of a finished game then Rome. RTW Felt rushed but the campaign has to make me vote for RTW but it's close. I've been playing MTW Lately and the thing which makes me like MTW is the amount of units it has and the GA mode. RTW is all Brawn but no Brain with added amazing 3d Graphics. Also finally MTW was 1 year per turn in campaign which really annoyed me.

[caravel]

I recieved RTW as a gift 1 week ago and have since played for about 2 hours in total. I despise it. :dizzy2:

The graphics are good within the battles, those in the campaign map are nothing special at all, and the campaign map system itself has been ruined with the removal of provinces and addition of clutter. I cannot bring myself to even run this game again. I simpy cannot see any point.

The battles, despite their looks are fast boring slaughter against pathetic AI. The AI doesn't seem to manouver or hold it's units in formation, and cavalry appear to wipe out everything to the extent that it is not worth waiting to bring your infantry up to the front.

Why do BCE Roman army troops have american accents?? (and I'm not saying they should have english ones either) This game lacks atmosphere and gameplay in favour of eye candy, sometimes cartoonlike graphics, (strategy map units) an overzealous help system, (if you bought the game then you'd have a game manual so why is this rubbish included?) and it seems to hold your hand throughout, not allowing you free reign to start any campaign you want initially. :book:

It seems CA concentrated on the graphics and ease of use, aiming this at the kids games market, and in doing so, forgot the rest. There are too many unrealistic flshing markers and feedback indicators, that give this game the feel of an old RTS number, like WC3 or C&C. Yuck.

Back to my HRE/Early/Expert campaign I think. :charge:

[Ldvs]

MTW. I don't deny all the improvements made in RTW, but as many pointed it out, it's not challenging: you may lose one or two battles in a whole campaign, that is, if you do it on purpose.

[abrarey]

RTW has better gameplay and more options. But I will like to see a new MTW with the same engine game (or better) of RTW, i think the medieval age is more exciting to play. In RTW, Rome has many advantages over the other factions, but in medieval age the factions don´t have a superadvantage over others factions.
That will be a good idea a new MTW.

[Blacknek]

Gameplay wise - this is quite a retoric question I guess

although I think ROME is easy digestible fun; let's see what the add-on brings to gameplay.

It's not over yet; if the Battle-AI gets decent, this one is a sleep-killer all the way

[Spino]

Medieval is better than Rome.

Rome wins by a landslide in terms of graphics, sound and 'ambience'. No matter how you slice it Rome simply looks and feels 'epic'. The campaign map looks great and plays well and the tactical battles are positively divine to behold. Rome also allows you to do more within any given game, it possesses enormous scope or breadth. However, while Rome makes an incredible first impression once I discovered that it was all breadth and precious little depth it failed to hold my interest. Once the luster of doing all that there is to do wears off one is confronted with the realization that there is tragically little meat on Rome's bones. The abysmal AI is the main culprit, no matter how little or much it has to do it always does a terrible job of it.

Medieval gets points where it really counts. First of all it possesses more 'depth' than Rome. Civil wars, faction revivals, three separate eras, the cuddly Mongols and especially the Glorious Achievement campaign are HUGE bonuses in my book. More importantly, Medieval is simply far more challenging than Rome. In Medieval I would sweat out the decision making process on the strategic map because I knew there were only so many sensible moves I could make and sometimes there was nothing I could do to prevent the AI from taking advantage of a weak position. Massive enemy stacks amassing a few provinces away or worse, on my borders, never failed to put me in a tizzy and get my blood flowing. In Rome I can pretty much play in a semi-comatosed state because you can count on the AI self destructing on both the strategic map and the tactical battles. Rome's shockingly inept tactical AI has provided me with more lopsided victories than I care to count. I honestly can't remember the last time I sweated out a massive battle in Rome the way I did in Medieval. Medieval's tactical AI consistently offered a greater challenge, most of it had to do with it's greater penchance for attempting a massive flanking maneuver, especially when in conjunction with cavalry. I don't recall a single battle in Rome where the AI marched and countermarched its entire army in order to gain an advantage on my flank.

Even in terms of modding Medieval's mods have a much greater impact on gameplay simply because they are more successful in affecting the AI thus making the game more challenging. The ability for modders to actually change the AI's build priorities in MTW had an enormous impact on the challenges presented to the player, especially in tactical battles. In contrast while Rome's mods are far more impressive to behold they do absolutely nothing to make the AI more effective. Even those mods that try to introduce new 'features' still cannot circumvent the fact that the AI will not be able to stop the player from walking all over it.

[Blodrast]

wow, so many things have been pointed out about the differences, that I don't think I can bring much of anything new...or even if I did, it would not make much of a difference anyway.
To make things clear, it's MTW for me as well, no contest there. As the poll actually shows...

edit: I have actually read all the posts from the beginning of this thread up to here, and I find it interesting that _many_ of the older members on this board (older as in having been here for a long time) have not posted at all...
Food for thought (not too much thought, though...). ~;)
(hint: could that be an indicator of how many of the people who have experienced STW and MTW come to the RTW forum often enough ? )

[professorspatula]

Medieval is better than Rome.

Rome's shockingly inept tactical AI has provided me with more lopsided victories than I care to count. I honestly can't remember the last time I sweated out a massive battle in Rome the way I did in Medieval. Medieval's tactical AI consistently offered a greater challenge, most of it had to do with it's greater penchance for attempting a massive flanking maneuver, especially when in conjunction with cavalry. I don't recall a single battle in Rome where the AI marched and countermarched its entire army in order to gain an advantage on my flank.

Amen to that.

Tactical manoeuvring was a big part of MTW, and you could spend the opening five minutes of the battle moving your army to the best defensive position, only for the AI to try and go around your position and gain the terrain advantage for themselves, all whilst their missile cavalry attempt to flank and cause you more problems. You feel like you're in a battle even before the first arrow has been fired and the first blood is shed. I remember being led around the Scottish Highlands by rebel Clansmen who wouldn't engage until my army was exhausted; and battles where I was desperately defending hilltops from numerous directions, all whilst the AI tried to draw my men away from the main defensive position. In RTW the enemy tends to just march or sprint directly towards your army, with a few very slow and far too obvious flanking manoeuvres where the flanking unit sometimes doesn't even bother to get involved until it is exhausted and the rest of the army has routed. Heroic victories are far too common and numerous to mention, even when you fight on flat landscapes and with an identical army to the AI.

If CA can manage to salvage the disasterous AI and make it better than MTW's (which really is what you'd expect it would be before RTW was released) then with the extra features of the expansion pack, maybe it'll be more difficult to compare which game is better. But vanilla RTW by itself is certainly an inferior game.

[Quietus]

What's more interesting is that more people actually play RTW than MTW. ~:)


What's more interesting to me is that you just made this up... It is a logical *guess*, but that is true of just about any ~9 month old game release versus a version that is several years old.LOL. Actions speak louder than words! ~:) See my quote above!


From what I have been told more people actually own RTW than MTW. However, owning and playing are not the same thing are they? You just assented it was a 'logical guess' ~;).


Given the same passage of time do you think as many people will still be playing RTW as are playing RTW? Doubtful. As one example MP has a big impact on the longterm playing community and RTW stumbled badly in this area.Time will tell. See, much of the mods haven't even been released yet. Much less the Barbarian Invasion expansion pack! ~:cool:

I'd like to hear the in-depth properties of MTW that is superior to RTW. Please make a list. ~:)

[Kull]

Spino captured my feelings perfectly. Maybe the difference between MTW and RTW fans comes down to what we each rank higher. For RTW, it's accuracy of the map and the settings and the gorgeous gameplay. For MTW, it's all about white-knuckles and uncertainty and the never-to-be-forgotten 3-4 hour battles that swayed back and forth between victory and disaster.

To each their own, but for me, MTW.

Note: Both games are affected by the "late-game-tedium" issue.

[Samurai Waki]

STW and MTW own RTW in terms of battle strategy... in terms of Campaign Modes, one thing that really bothers me in RTW is that agents are still represented as gamepieces, which doesn't really add up on a map obviously not set like a board game... RTWs diplomacy aspect would have been much better if you could send agents to different locations without actually moving gamepieces. The Computer would calculate the distance to go from one place to another in matter of turns. So you would give your diplomats missions, say to sue for peace... while at war with sed faction and when you're diplomat recieves the message to sue for peace, it still takes awhile to get your message back to you, so you and your enemy would still be fighting until you recieve a message from your diplomat saying that your factions are now at peace for the moment. Of course assassins and spies from other countries can try and steal or kill the rider relaying the message which would screw everything up and you'd have to start from page 1. Politics should take a deeper meaning, in this time, wars were fought through diplomacy before battle... so you couldn't surprise attack an enemy, unless of course you were a barbarian faction. You could set terms and agreements of the war, you're enemy would have to accept or give you their terms as well. Wars fought with surprise attacks and such would greatly affect the dissent in your population, or the population that you are trying to usurp. Of course some enemies will never agree to your terms or you to theirs, but if you persistantly harry your adversaries for war, and they continue to disagree, then their population will become restless... war in these times were fought with a different mind set then in modern times... honor your enemies. If you reach the objective of your war (which could be anything from usurping a territory you rightly believe is your's to all out total war) then the war would essentially be over. Major belligerent nations (such as Rome) would also have a lesser view in the eye's of the people they are conquering if they do not set terms of war.

[Zatoichi]

It's interesting to note that the BI expansion is bringing back quite a few of the core goodies from MTW - loyalty, civil war and religion to name but 3. Now, if they can improve the AI as well in line with what we've seen before in MTW, I think RTW will come out top over all. But what do I know?

[Daveybaby]

RTW campaign map is better by far (except for the bugs and AI stupidity).
MTW combat is better by far.

[sapi]

I come back to this thread, and i find it sad....MTW by 30 votes.

People, think of what a game rtw is, not of the bugs...you cannot deny that it was a step foward, albiet a bug-ridden one

[drone]

I come back to this thread, and i find it sad....MTW by 30 votes.

People, think of what a game rtw is, not of the bugs...you cannot deny that it was a step foward, albiet a bug-ridden oneIt is both a step forward, and a step back. What CA/Sega needs to do now is build on the Rome engine, and create the ubergame that Rome should have been. I think they just released RTW too soon, it needed at least another 6 months of work (and probably another 3 months in QA/public beta).

[Butcher]

Regarding memorable battles, here's the difference I see between the two games:

In MTW, a memorable battle I can think of was when i matched my upgraded, experienced late english army to (what i thought) a better position through wooded hilly terrain, only to be surprise charged in the flank by the entire spanish army. Cue 1/2 an hour of desperate fighting to try and salvage some parts of my army, only to have my King die as he led a desperate countercharge. Great stuff.
In RTW, a memorable battle I can think of was when my Scipii Army went through 3 twenty unit strong armies of the Senate and Brutii in about 15 minutes.

[Puzz3D]

I think they just released RTW too soon, it needed at least another 6 months of work (and probably another 3 months in QA/public beta).
Six months more work is what I estimated as well, but it's really hard to say. The game has become so complex that it can't be finished in the development time available. I saw Jerome's web site before he removed the pages which advertised his talent for fast track design of large programs. As an engineer, I know that quality in the final product suffers when you move to fast track design. RTW v1.0 had more problems compared to the initial release of STW or MTW. The original STW v1.0 was delayed more than a year before it was released.

[Voigtkampf]

I come back to this thread, and i find it sad....MTW by 30 votes.

People, think of what a game rtw is, not of the bugs...you cannot deny that it was a step foward, albiet a bug-ridden one

I agree. R:TW should have been better than M:TW. But it obviously isn’t.

Big step forward…straight off the edge of the cliff.