Looking for a game like RTW...

[Mongoose]

...But harder and with a less boring late game. any ideas?? EU2??? What would you recommend?

Thanks :bow: .

[Productivity]

Medieval: Total War

[Papewaio]

Shogun: Total War. :bow:

Any of the mods for the above.

[doc_bean]

Have you actually played a full IG campaign already ? I haven't even seen it in stores yet.

In response to the original question: if you like empire building and don't care as much about the battles : Civilization III.

[Mongoose]

I played the IG demo and the battles seemed tiny compared to RTW/MTW, are they bigger in the full game?

Thanks for all the replies

[Fragony]

Most will disagree, but STW and MTW are superior games compared to RTW. I would try those.

[Mongoose]

O.K, i have narrowed it done to:

MTW
CIV3
Knights of honor

IG sound good but im looking for something set from 1000 BC-1500 AD

[thepipe]

I had the same question as you and I tried IG. Don't get it I bought it on friday and I've already beat it on hard with prussia. Its way too easy and simplistic and the battles, althought they look awesoom, aren't fun there basicly mass chaos till one side is slatred. I heard so much about how indepth the management part of the game would be but it was BS.

[econ21]

O.K, i have narrowed it done to:

MTW
CIV3
Knights of honor


Never heard of Knights of Honor, but Civ3 and MTW are chalk and cheese.

Civ3 is a building game, strong on exploration, expansion, economics, research, diplomacy etc but not a historical wargame. Early warfare is about inching 30 or so crappy units one square at a time across a strategic map. It has no semblance to any war in history and no tactics. My impression is that it has a rather superior AI, but it never sucked me in. (Civ2 did, but even then, it was more like an addiction to "one more turn" than a very pleasurable experience.)

MTW is very like RTW. The strategic layer, building and diplomacy etc, are much less refined than Civ3. The campaign map is less fluid and less realistic than that in RTW - more Risk-like, if that means anything to you. Perhaps as a consequence, it manages to pose some interesting strategic dilemmas and challenges - more than in RTW. But where Total War shines is in the tactical battles. They are, in my opinion, an object of wonder not matched in any other historical wargame I have played. MTW battles are rather better than those in RTW - the pace is slower and I think the AI is better. But basically MTW is RTW in a later era with less chrome and more solid, challenging gameplay.

[Templar Knight]

www.knights-of-honor.net

nice game

[Mongoose]

Meh, battle mode only for MP is O.K for TW games but just dosen't work with games that are based around their campaign map, IMHO.

Thanks for the help, BTW :bow:

[Volstag]

Personally, I love Civ III. Trade, diplomacy, research, city building, exploration -- you name it. When it comes to tactical battles, however, Civ III can't touch the TW series. Warfare is abstracted to a huge degree.

The "Combat Mission" series is definitely worth looking at if you have any interest in WWII tactical battles. It's the definitive treatment on the subject, IMO.

[Mongoose]

Alright, i've narrowed the list down to civ3 or MTW, knights of honor seems to have even worse multiplayer then RTW :dizzy2:

[econ21]

Meh, battle mode only for MP is O.K for TW games but just dosen't work with games that are based around their campaign map, IMHO.

I have no idea what you are saying here. But anyway, as I said before, if you are choosing between Civ3 and MTW, it should be easy as they are utterly different. Do you want to spend your time fighting medieval battles or building up a civilisation from the stone age to the stars? They are both fine games, it all depends on your tilt.

[Mongoose]

Hmm, i think i will go with MTW ~:) combat is just way too simple in CIV.


Thanks for the help every one :medievalcheers:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

MTW VI is still the best game of its type on the face of the earth. RTW has a long way to go in this Knights opinion. VI mp cant be beat.

[Big_John]

get mtw:vi and toss a mod on top of it. i like medmod, but i hear the supermod and XL mod are great too.

edit: knights of honor is good too. the campaign is better than the TW games, imo. but the AI and battles are simply dreadful. i haven't tried any mods for it yet, though.

[dessa14]

yeah if you don't mind not having the battles, go for europa universalis two and if you like insane depth, go for vicky.
thanks,
dizzy

[CBR]

Or maybe try Crusader Kings. Not a detailed game like EU but it has very medieval feel. It has a good system with more or less independent vassals and a map filled with provinces. Same company that makes EU and Vicky.


CBR

[Mongoose]

I read a review about the econemy in Victoria being broken, is that true? ~:confused:

EDIT: i played the CIV demo and thought it was much better then the MTW demo, though that's might be becuase the CIV demo gives you the entire game for about an hour and a half

The demos for the TW games are very week......

[thepipe]

What is it with this smear campaign against IG? You don't even sound like you've played the game. I have trouble believing you've beaten it on hard with Prussia and found it "So easy" when most people are having difficulties playing the game on Easy.

I'll try to be brief b/c this probably isn't the place for this-

Its not a smear campaign, in fact I was upset about people dogging this game before it even came out; furthermore I didn't call every store in my city every day last week till I finally found a copy on Friday, then run out and buy it and played it all weekend just so I could come here and smear it. I don't have much of a life but I have a little more of one than this.

Yes I have the game and yes I've won it on hard with Prussia if you really want to get in to a pissing contest I'll gladly post some screen shots.

I don't know who you've talk to that’s having trouble on easy every form I've gone to for IG is full of post saying "I can recommend playing on easy its just too easy" or "I just finished a campaign on medium and I hope hard is more challenging." There maybe some people having trouble on easy but to say most people are having difficulties playing on easy it just flat untrue.

They tried to put in alot of features in but didn't develop any of them. There is no variable tax rate, no such things as differing traits or ability levels for your generals, no governors at all, the campaign map is like risk everyone in a province is considered to be at the same place. After the first few hectic years no one ever attacks you and its way to easy to get way to much money and you can by what ever you want for cheap prices, first and foremost territories. These two things, lack of pressure and over abundance of money, render any potential the management system had irrelevant as there is no need to be efficient or shrewd.

Don't even get me started battles. The map for each province is always the same except for weather, the attacking force always starts in the same place, the defending force always starts in the same place, the attacker always have the same objective, and defenders always have the same objective, you can’t pause and give orders basically turns the battles into autoresolve battles you get to watch.

for heavens shake theres not even a moral system. A unit of basic infantry (militia) can( and does) charge a cannon battery, get blasted the whole time and reach the battery with less than 10% their original strength and the still keep going and take out the battery with out routing. Moral and routing is a critical aspect of any war situation, particularly in this era. It’s laughable that they left this out.

The game is totally simple and boring and totally doesn't live up to the hype the developers created for it. It is obvious to me that they worked hard on some parts of the game (audio visual is outstanding, yes better than RTW) but then they just threw the rest together to meet a deadline. The game needs about another year of development. When developers do this I think it’s far from a smear, in fact quit fair and necessary to call them on it.

So much for being brief.

Finial word, all this is my opinion of the game some one asks for opinions and this is mine (although every thing I listed above is fact) take or leave it. After reading your post and others I've seen you write I have to kind of wonder do you work for or own stock in the company that made IG? If so tell them to put out a finished quality product not something that looks great and has a good concept but is totally underdeveloped.

[Mongoose]

I noticed that CIV 3 usually get's rated "easy" And MTW is "hard"

http://www.strategyinformer.com/reviews/civilizationiii.shtml

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/medievaltotalwar/

look at "game info"

Difficulty:
Hard
Learning Curve:
1 hour
Version:
Retail

And civ is rated "easy"

[tibilicus]

Try Civ 3 on diety mode. Now thats not easy. The A.I can get stuff x3 faster than you. I have allways found Civ 3 a lot more chlenging. I love both RTW and Civ 3. But Civ3 is cool in the way you get to build your own kingdon and expand beyond borders. Also in the play the world exspansion pack theres some good maps. My personel favourite test of time. Huge map start of in historical locations can play from 20 something empires and can choose to start with or without cities. Civ 3 also gets very interesting later on diplomacy wise with mutal protection pacts e.c.t

[econ21]

I noticed that CIV 3 usually get's rated "easy" And MTW is "hard"

I suspect that refers to the learning curve rather than the ferocity of the AI. So chess would be easy, in the sense that it's fairly easy to learn the rules, but of course very hard to win against a good player or even an AI. Civ is fairly accessible, IMO, but takes some time to master and has a fairly competitive AI. Total War has a steeper learning curve - perhaps just in terms of controlling the camera and keeping up with the potentially overwhelming real time battles - but the AI is not as competitive as in Civ.

I am pretty sure there is a trade off between complexity (or freedom) in games and the strength of the AI. Where there is limited freedom, as in Chess, it is easier to program a formiddable AI.

[Mongoose]

So, which would you consider harder over all?

Also, is it true that a pikeman can beat a tank?

Thank you :bow:

[dessa14]

mate yes, the economy was kinda broken until recently, if you patch up to 1.03c you won't have many problems, the games learning curve is insane though, it took me 5 hours to learn how to play at all, and a few weeks to learn how to play the game properly, like knowing how to do stuff to win.
to learn how to play vicky properly, you'll need to be willing to lose horribly a couple of times, like my first game as sweden, don't prod the bear.
all in all vicky is probably the most difficult of the paradox games, but as soon as you learn it properly, the ai has many faults which you can pick easily.
thanks,
dizzy

[doc_bean]

So, which would you consider harder over all?

Also, is it true that a pikeman can beat a tank?

Thank you :bow:

Considering a lot of people who have had civ3 for years still don't play on the hardest level, while a lot of mods exist to make MTW harder than it is, I'd say civ3. But then MTW does have the mods if you are looking for a challenge.

And yes pikemen can beat tanks, the combat system is hugely abstracted, basically, every fight consists of a number of 'rounds', where the victor is determined by random number generation (like in most board games, different units have different modifiers, I don't know the ins and outs of the system). I don't think that's too bad, it means that a huge technology lead doesn't necessarily mean you can steamroll your opponents.

But since you've played both demo's, like someone mentioned, just think about what you would rather do, RTW in medieval setting with a risk type strategy map (and arguably better gameplay), or empire building with hugely abstracted combat.

Both are great games with a lot of depth.

[Papewaio]

Considering a lot of people who have had civ3 for years still don't play on the hardest level, while a lot of mods exist to make MTW harder than it is, I'd say civ3.



It may be more of a reflection of the ability of the players of civ3 if they cannot play at the hardest level. On my third game I was playing it at the hardest level (mind you having played civ series including alpha I did have a bit of an advantage).

I do have to admit RTW is too easy.

[Mongoose]

doc_bean, have you tried the XL mod?

[doc_bean]

doc_bean, have you tried the XL mod?

No, I've only tried NTW and Fall of Rome so far (both great mods). I've heard some great things about XL and BKB's Supermod, but I'm afraid to try them because I don't have much time, and MTW games are pretty long (for me at least, definitely longer than Rome games) .

[doc_bean]

It may be more of a reflection of the ability of the players of civ3 if they cannot play at the hardest level. On my third game I was playing it at the hardest level (mind you having played civ series including alpha I did have a bit of an advantage).

I do have to admit RTW is too easy.

In my first few games I was still figuring out what was going on, I think the complexity of civ is hugely underestimated by a lot of people (and magazines) since they are familiar with the previous games.

In MTW you have a learning curve for both the battles and the strategic part, but neither is (imho) as complex as the strategic part of civ. Maybe I think this because I haven't played as much civ as MTW yet.

[Mongoose]

So, have you tried any mods for CIV or is it mostly hard coded?


Also, if MTW is anything like RTW the vanilla version is half the version that the mods are.

[doc_bean]

So, have you tried any mods for CIV or is it mostly hard coded?


Also, if MTW is anything like RTW the vanilla version is half the version that the mods are.

there are CIV mods but I haven't tried any.
And yes, the MTW mods are great ~:)

If you can't get enough of total war, get MTW:VI, it is still my favourite game.

[Mongoose]

So...which mod do you use?

I think i will just go wtth MTW, a pikemen beating a tank is just insane :dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

So...which mod do you use?

I think i will just go wtth MTW, a pikemen beating a tank is just insane :dizzy2:

I have a normal installation and a fall of rome isntallation, unfortunatly, i don't really have the time to play either.

[Mongoose]

okay then. One last question: is the difference between EU2 and HOI2 just the time period or are there differences in gameplay?

[SpencerH]

The final answer is to buy MTW-VI and civ3. You should be able to pick them up with all XP's for very little. A sci-fi alternative to civ (earth) is Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri (SMAC) and SMACX. IMO most of the older players (including myself) consider it to be a better game than civ3.

[Mongoose]

OK. so most people here think that a harder/deeper alternative to RTW is either:

alpha centauri
MTW
HOI2

What are your thoughts on EU2? I have not been able to find a demo for that game...

EDIT: i just got downloaded the AC demo and that game is addictive! ~:eek:

[Mongoose]

Or maybe try Crusader Kings. Not a detailed game like EU but it has very medieval feel. It has a good system with more or less independent vassals and a map filled with provinces. Same company that makes EU and Vicky.


CBR

Sorry to dig up an old post, but do you mean that they are the same game but with different time period or are there gameplay differences? ~:confused:

[CBR]

It is not as detailed as EU but I think its the same style of play (no turns, just continous) I have only tried EU very briefly so I cant really give precise details...but you cant produce units for example. They are part of each province and you can mobilise them when you need it it.

Here is a review of it: http://www.strategyinformer.com/reviews/crusaderkings.shtml


CBR

[Mongoose]

Thanks! :bow:

[ShadesWolf]

Vicky is well worth the Learning curve.

It has such an indepth feel and you can easily loose 4/5 hours playing it and you have only finished 2 years of game play.

you can follow so many differnt routes, even with the same country, such as Belgium for example. I have played this country loads of times, so times I go all out for war other times I develop teh economy and build factories and railways and put little effort into building up a large army.

well worth a look imho

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So, have you tried any mods for CIV or is it mostly hard coded?


Also, if MTW is anything like RTW the vanilla version is half the version that the mods are.

No

In MTW VI most people prefer the regular game. Very few play the mods. Im only speaking mp here. Again if your into the actual figting of battles VI mp is untoucable.


On this subject, is there a non-expansion version of NTW? I just have too many games on the plate to shell out the money for Viking Invasion any time soon, and am really intrigued by NTW.

You can get a combo pack of MTW and VI for around 20 dollars now. NTW and all the other mods are free downloads at the org and other places. Its the greatest deal in gaming.

[Rosacrux redux]

You seem pretty confused, aren't you? OK, here are my suggestions:

- Civ3. Great gameplay, abstract battles, loads of mods. If you get it, go for the full package (with Conquests Expansion) and visit some Civ3 site (like Apolyton or Civfanatics) to find a whole world of mods, units, scenarios etc. etc. Addictive. SP is the best experience of it, MP is not really that great. Alpha Centauri (Civ in space, sorts of) never did it for me. Many oldtimers prefer it over Civ3, but not me.

- MTW VI. Go get it, a great game. I consider RTW much, much better (in the strategical aspect, at least, in the tactical it has serious problems) but MTW VI is the absolute for MP. And if you want a really extraordinary SP experience, install MTW VI with Wes' Medmod, the greatest modification ever for a TW game.

- Anything by Paradox. If you want a solid SP experience and don't care much about battles, you can choose between three gems: EU2, Vicky and Crusader Kings. Have played all three of them (in the last 14 months I only played those three and RTW, and recently Mount&Blade) and they are incredible games. Vicky has the steepest learning courve of any game I've seen, you'll have to read some stuff about it before you start playing. EU2 is much easier and you can figure out how to play in an hour or two - for "how to play properly" it'll take you much, much longer though. CK is more simple than those two and is recommended only if you are into the Bene Geserit trip.

[Mongoose]

"You seem pretty confused, aren't you? OK, here are my suggestions:"

Yes, very confused :dizzy2: hehe

Thanks for the suggestions, BTW, are there alot of people still playing MTW online? Or have most stoped by now?

[L'Impresario]

Thanks for the suggestions, BTW, are there alot of people still playing MTW online? Or have most stoped by now?

Well, if you join us, we 'll be even more ~:doh: Tis' a fact though that the majority of VI players have left the building. Still, if you 're lucky you can find the lobby with around 80-90 people. Imo, the mp is/was so good that it is the only game I 've ever played on the net, and maybe that won't change, as new TW-style ones (RTW included) just don't appeal to me.

As for Paradox games, they are a must-have, but be prepared for quite a few CTDs...Also I don't agree with many of the bad things said about CK, but I won't go into an in-depth analysis, I'll just mention that it's necessary if you want to control a faction from 1066 till 1918 (iirc), that is using the feature that those 3 Paradox games have, the save transfer.

[Cheetah]

Alpha Centauri is not bad but if you really want some challange then try to grab Imperialism II. It is a 5 years old game, so the grapics might look a bit outdated at first but as a strategic SP game it beats any of TW series hands down.

[Cheetah]

Imperialism II homepage:

http://www.frogcity.com/imperialism2/index.html

not too much info but screenshots give you an idea about the game.