Do you think RTW's interface is better or do you think MTW's one is better.

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

First post in Main hall! I think RTW is better for it's interface. Especially the battle interface. Easier to use and at least you know which unit you're controlling!

[Marcellus]

To be perfectly honest, I didn't really notice a huge difference between the interfaces of the two games. I suppose RTW's interface was probably better, though.

[Oaty]

Not so much the interface but the funcionallity of it.

In MTW if I had 1 archer each in 3 differnt goups I could quickly select all units and turn skirmish on or off or fire at will without having to select troop types that have that abilty.

[Martok]

In general, Medieval has the better campaign map interface, and Rome has the better combat interface.

In Medieval, it's usually easier to find pertinent information about provinces, buildings, generals/governors, agents, the royal family, etc. On the other hand, in Rome I often felt like I had to dig through several different sheets before I finally found the information I was looking for.

When it comes to battles, though, it's far easier to control and manage army units in Rome than in Medieval. Not that I have a problem with Medieval's combat interface, as I've had over 2 1/2 years to get used to it (plus MTW's battle UI is almost identical to Shogun's, which I had been playing for 2 years before Medieval), but it is far more difficult to learn and master than Rome's.

I also like in Rome that Grouped units will automatically arrange themselves in logical formation without needing to be ordered by you--skirmishers stand in front, infantry/phalanxes place themselves in the center behind the skirmishers, archers stand behind them, cavalry sits on the flanks (or light infantry/skirmishers if you don't have any), and in the rear you'll have any long-range artillery you may have (along with your general/captain if he's part of the Group).