Is this the worst out of the Total War series? [Archive]

Noir

01-26-2007, 05:03

Very funny that someone would post this in the sword dojo that tends to be
a nice quiet place for dedicated fans to share thoughts-info-views-opinions and even feelings about their soft spot...

Just to answer the question although the OP is maybe :director: trolling, STW is the most clear expression of the TW concept and the most well executed one in terms of balance, detail, atmosphere and immersiveness. It also happens to be set in one of the most interesting periods in history that has the unique advantage to be out of the martetable range of knights - orcs - LORT - warcraft style in which CA came back running (in their preliminary interviews for MTW they sounded very... proud declaring "you can associate with the battlefield (in Europe) now...").

The tactical aspect and the gameplay in Shogun are absolutely stunning,
something that TW releases past RTW cannot exactly claim to have accomplished.

STW remains the best TW game for me; MTW wins on technical engine competence and features (that make it the default best engine for mods), however the balanced gameplay and incredible atmosphere of Shogun has yet to be repeated or even come close to as far as i am concerned.

RTW was simply awful. It was the mods that injected life in that game both in the battlefield and the campaign - but of course that was up to a point. No matter how much i've tried to get enjoyment out of it, it wouldn't just be possible on the battlefield as the engine is quite crippled comparing to the firtst one (the campaign can be changed to suit your taste more or less). M2 is a very similar case and it will probably end up the same way.

caravel

01-26-2007, 13:22

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series
Unmodded RTW is a load of rubbish to many players. To me it's decidedly average, had potential but is severely flawed in many areas. Even when modded it still lacks atmosphere and the campaign map game is still much the same tedious micromanaging kiddy game, which I can tolerate but don't enjoy. To some though, it is the best TW, and that is often down to it's visuals and campaign game. RTS players can better relate to the RTW campaign map than the STW/MTW one. The STW campaign compared to the MTW is very simplistic indeed. There are no generals' traits, no general's stats - only command. There are no ships, no trade, no real use of religion, no titles, no loyalty, no per province taxation, no marriages, no civil wars, etc etc etc. To the player that enjoys the campaign map game above the battles STW would be worse than MTW. Both MTW and STW compared to the newer generation of TW games are very simplistic. RTW's campaign map has become very RTS like. It has many features similar to a Civ game such as populations of settlements, squalor, food production from farmland that is not just a source of florins. STW/MTW did not deal with populations the population were a non entity. A province had a loyalty stat which represented how loyal the provine was to the faction, and that's it.

Redesigning the Total War campaign map in this way is not popular with all players. Some see it as "progress". I don't. A winning formula should stuck to. You don't have people redesigning chess or football. Why should TW be any different?

Noir

01-26-2007, 14:53

originally posted by Caravel
A winning formula should stuck to.

Its being stuck to Caravel, M2 is proof enough of that :laugh4:

(It just happens to be the RTS one)

caravel

01-26-2007, 17:51

Its being stuck to Caravel, M2 is proof enough of that :laugh4:

(It just happens to be the RTS one)
Well now that they've widended their consumerbase, they'll definitely stick with it (what some would call selling out to the RTS and Civ/AoE crowd). There's not alot you can do about it though, they'll never resurrect the risk map, as it's only a few loons like myself that still like it. We're not important because we're not buying anything new, out opinions don't count as we're the previous generation. :thumbsdown:

Veho Nex

01-26-2007, 18:38

I kind of like Risk map and the newer ones(dunno name) but i only like them cause were u fight depicts battle type and ambushes(still haven't been able to do one in rtw)(any hints message me) but i love the fog and the ambience in STW which makes it one of the better(my opinion) TW games because im not a big fan of Europe(unless your WW2) but what truly made STW was the ninja and genjai(err the elite soldier(thingy(type man) guy man)maybe ganjai). I also think they did firing wall(for muskets) extremely well * I remember one time my men were standing in perfect order as Takeda heavy cavalry charged down upon me. They got closer and closer and closer. Then the order came out "FIRE" a wall of musket shots came out causing mass casualties among the enemy ranks then you here "FIRE!" again and more of the enemy troops dropped to the ground. Then out of the hills charge my Yari and Naginata cavalry to pound into the diminished and ruined enemy ranks. I defeated the enemy losing only 115 men
(Few cavalry skipped through my ranks for a bit). It as if put in RTW would have been a legendary battle.* ahhhhh so much fun ok i need to play it right now!!! good bye!!!

Noir

01-26-2007, 18:41

Orignally posted by Caravel
Well now that they've widended their consumerbase, they'll definitely stick with it (what some would call selling out to the RTS and Civ/AoE crowd). There's not alot you can do about it though, they'll never resurrect the risk map, as it's only a few loons like myself that still like it. We're not important because we're not buying anything new, out opinions don't count as we're the previous generation.

Agreed with every word, but does it really matter when you fire the game up?

:thrasher:

I'll play the two older games till i get completely sick of them, which considering the mods available and that multiplayer exists (even in a coma state) will take a very very long time.

Let them have cake instead :tomato2:

@ Jkarinen : it was kensai (sword saint)

Edit = a few necessary Italics in

Veho Nex

01-27-2007, 01:47

ok thank you

@ Jkarinen : it was kensai (sword saint)

Quintus Of Pompeii

01-28-2007, 00:00

Okay, i seem to be getting the point.

I apologise for posting this thread, it was a very "N00bish" thing to do. If you are all very dedicated S:TW fans I deeply appologise. If we was in the era of the samurai and in the middle of japan i would take my own life for my shame. I have lost my honour. Sorry Again

Quintus

Noir

01-28-2007, 01:37

No problem Quintus. ~:wave:

I am well aware that we all sound a bit like...:viking: bad mothers in law, but
there are reasons for that as there are reasons why it is believed that STW is actually in many senses superior to the the newer releases.

As we've all been vague and theoretical about it well, i am happy to discuss it more in detail if you.. survive your intended harakiri.

I've been called nostalgic, wearing rose tinted glasses etc etc for liking STW and MTW more than the newer games and for saying that the newer games are inferior. But i don't do it because i am a "hardcore" - its just because i get enjoyment out of them, while its not the case with the newer ones.

Always at your service :bow:

Puzz3D

01-28-2007, 03:33

The battles were very good in original STW both in SP and MP. The battles were what STW was all about, and the AI was quite good in deciding how large an army to bring when attacking which really helped make the SP battles challenging. The MP battles were very interesting and very well balanced, and the MP game attracted many high quality players. I think the battles are less good in STW/MI because the guns were not adequately tested for the v1.02 patch, so they were not weakened enough to get back to original STW gameplay. The effectiveness of guns was tripled in STW/MI for no good reason because guns alone would never have been able to stop a cav charge the way they can in STW/MI, and I know for a fact that it was not intended for them to be able to do so by those who balanced the v1.02 patch. Weapon and armor upgrades were introduced, but there was a huge error in the calculation of the cost of those upgrades which meant the weakest unit in the game became the most powerful unit via those upgrades. Multiplayer participation dropped like a lead balloon from over 100 players online on weekends to less than 40. This wasn't people drifting away because they were tiring of the game. It was a precipitous and sudden drop. There were also ominous signs for the future with the introduction of gimmicky units such as the battlefield ninja and kensai. If you study the combat and morale system of STW, you'll see that it isn't suited for handling small units especially one man units, and having a unit like the ninja be invisible when there is no cover and carry 100 ammo is extreme fantasy.

With MTW, it became apparent that tactical battles were diminishing in quality in Total War, although the strategic campaign was improving. The emphasis on the battlefield changed from winning by superior strategy and tactics to winning by bringing the better units. Having a large number of unbalanced unit types had become more important than having a small number of well balanced units. MP participation gradually rose to substantially above what it had been in original STW at it's peak. At that point, it was clear that the game would never return to having a few well balanced units, and it was clear that CA was not going to be able to balanced the large number of units they were now putting into the game. In SP, the tactically important seasons were discarded, and this also adversely impacted the ecomomic strategy of having income only once every 4 turns. Artillery was introduced, but the AI wasn't improved enough to handle it well. This foreshadowed a trend of introducing features without creating and adequate AI to handle those features which was to have disastrous effect in the next Total War game.

RTW was the nadir for tactical battles in Total War. The 3D men were introduced without an adequate combat model for them. The AI used simplified tactics, no longer knew how to coordinate two armies and ran its men around until they were exhausted. On top of that, there were outlandish fantasy units in the game, and outrageous "effects" like incinerating men, exploding rocks, horses jumping high into units, elephants throwing men 100 feet or more through the air, chariots that moved faster than horses and movement speeds that were unrealistic and made it impossible to control all 20 units individually during the height of a battle. The battle engine was simplified so it lost some important features for simulating combat. The strategic AI doesn't know how to handle army movement on the new style map. There were 10x more bugs in RTW v1.0 than in any other Total War game (over 100 bugs were fixed in the RTW v1.2 patch and that didn't get all of them), and the game was finally left with a serious civil war bug that will ruin a campaign for you if you don't know about it.

M2TW, is improved over RTW, but right now it doesn't look good for the tactical gameplay. The engine is still missing important features that were in the original game, and now you have the silly game mechanic where men wait their turn to fight an opponent. CA still hasn't demonstrated that they can balance the plethora of units they are putting in the game. MP popularity is higher than ever before, but only one player in my clan is willing to purchase the game, and this is a clan that was formed in Dec 2000, played Total War MP continuously for 5 years and which has had members on many CA beta teams over the years. SP campaign has become a game of massive micromanagement, but relatively little challenge except to do all that micromanaging.

I think the customer base has been expanded by making the newer versions of Total War appeal to younger players. That means simplifying the gameplay. I don't mean in terms of the number of commands you have to issue either on the strategic map or on the tactical battlefield. I mean in terms of how many parameters you have to coordinate. In original STW, you had to coordinate 16 units to a high degree within a more complex battle system. I played enough original STW MP to see that it was the players who coordinated their units the best who won. It wasn't the players who issued commands the fastest, although speed was important as long as you also had the ability to manage all 16 units. A 12 year old is not adept at multitasking. That ability isn't well developed in a person until much later. I knew one 14 year old who was very good at original STW, but he was an exception because most players of his age would not be equal to an older STW player of average ability. Likewise on the strategic map, having lots of things to do is just "make work" if making right decisions is too easy because the gameplay doesn't require you to coordinate the relationships of multiple parameters and project that assessment accurately far into the future.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

01-28-2007, 08:57

Well said Puzz3D!

Noir

01-28-2007, 14:49

Another great post by Puzz3D

I agree with the younger costumers comment although i think that Caravel has also a fair point regarding people that are fond of the traditional RTS format and gameplay being attracted to TW everince Rome. It just feels that they've excluded all the reasons somebody would have not to buy the game that is the steep learning curve for battles, the simple graphics, the relatively slow and action-less battle gameplay (that in the eyes of a newcomer it feels like "where's the excitement" i guess), the 2D risk map system and adding endless little jiggles of all sorts in the campaign.

Relative to the old graphics, perhaps they are perfect for a true tactical wargame as are the older controls and camera views.

It seems that most people that play the new games, play zoomed in 50% of the time - if not more - which in tactical terms is suicide. But they make up for it with "pausing" repeatedly apparetly or even stay pasued, which is simply ridiculus if one thinks that this was seldom necessary in the older engine.

Puzz3D

01-28-2007, 18:43

I agree with the younger costumers comment although i think that Caravel has also a fair point regarding people that are fond of the traditional RTS format and gameplay being attracted to TW ever since Rome.
I wouldn't have a problem with that if CA had been up front about the change of direction. I called it a "new vision" back in Sept 2005, and MikeB was quick to jump on that and deny it. CA apparently wanted the Total War veterans to purchase the game, and that's why the shift to RTS style gameplay was downplayed. Now they are still pushing that same line about making M2TW appeal to veterans, and yet the gameplay is still RTS. Most of the Total War veterans I know don't want RTS gameplay.

Martok

01-28-2007, 19:33

I wouldn't have a problem with that if CA had been up front about the change of direction. I called it a "new vision" back in Sept 2005, and MikeB was quick to jump on that and deny it. CA apparently wanted the Total War veterans to purchase the game, and that's why the shift to RTS style gameplay was downplayed. Now they are still pushing that same line about making M2TW appeal to veterans, and yet the gameplay is still RTS. Most of the Total War veterans I know don't want RTS gameplay.
Well said as always, Puzz. :bow:

Unfortunately, my then-roommate and I were two of those veterans suckered into purchasing Rome, not realizing just how fundamentally the gameplay had changed from Shogun and Medieval. While my friend and I take full responsibility for our own foolishness -- it's not like we couldn't have seen the new direction the TW series was taking had we not deluded ourselves -- I agree it would have been awfully nice if CA had simply told us what they were actually intending. Yes, we might have felt abandoned, but better that than both abandoned *and* betrayed/lied to. I realize I'm probably being a little melodramatic in saying that, yet I do feel it accurately reflects the feelings many of us had when Rome was released. We were hoodwinked, and bitterness over it still lingers, even two years later.

For as much as Medieval is my favorite of the TW games (I confess I'm a sucker for the time period), I can't deny the truth about it being inferior to Shogun in a number of ways. Whether you're referring to the AI, unit balance, atmosphere, etc., STW will probably forever remain the overall best out of the series.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

01-28-2007, 21:52

I suppose now CA has gone to the RTS format, which although I like, I came to the TW seiries from RTS, nothing will cause them to return to the classic style.

I agree with you Martok, although I have not played S:TW, that M:TW style system were much better than the new R:TW one. I cannot speak from the side of veterans, I have only being playing the TW series for a year now, yet I agree with most of what you guys have said - the TW seiries did go for flashy graphics over gameplay, yet that appeals to the younger audience and drastically increased the popularity of the seiries henceforth getting more cash and revenue from the game - I can understand their resoning for doing that, most prefer action over tactics - some, such as I, don't - in my opinion, although nice graphics are good, they never can possibly make a game what it is. What would be nice to see would be a sort of M2:TW/M:TW hybrid with the wonderful battle system of M:TW fused together with the graphics of M2:TW. That dream of mine, however, will probably never become a reality.

caravel

01-29-2007, 01:40

Puzz3D has said it all. :bow:

RTW as a game failed the TW veterans in three main areas IMHO.

Firstly, and some might say most importantly, it failed those that were anticipating cutting edge AI improvements both on the campaign map and in the battles themselves.

The second failue was the campaign map design, vaunted by many as a significant improvement. It's only an improvement if you like those kind of games. The people that love it are also playing Civ4 or something similar, this is why. Personally I deset RTS basebuilding and Civ type games. For me such a game is nothing short of a nightmare. I even prefer role playing games such as Baldurs Gate or FPS games to those. Players like myself whom had grown very accustomed to the risk map felt let down by the new RTW map that all the appearances of a sell out to the RTS consumerbase. Instead of defining it's own genre it appeared as though RTW was trying to be TW, Civ, AoE and others all at once, but failing to be any of them. The decisiveness of the risk map was it's greatest merit. You would drop your stack into a province, end the turn and fight the battle, or not fight it. No messing about, no micromanagement. That was how it worked. There was no sneaking about, crossing borders, bumping into rebels, no fog of war no fancy animations and it worked perfectly. The risk map simply needed more refinement. More importantly it was a model that Programmed Opponent can work with, the RTW simply is not. When the typical RTW players are asked about how the map could be improved they often cite "real time" as their most preferred improvement. This says it all. RTW captured a different market and brought in alot of RTS players. Their wants will now dominate what CA produces in the future. Because these type of players know nothing of strategy and only want to point and cli-cli-cli-click, AI will never improve because there's no need to improve it.

The third failure, which I don't need to go into any detail about, is the battles. This is partly AI also, though also a balancing and general design problem. So obsessed with getting 3D men onto the field, so intent on the player being able to zoom in and look at these 3D men, and so focused on the visuals... what happened to the battles? Well alot of people think they're great. I suppose some people just like to ram some poor generic looking sods with their cavalry and see them shoot in all directions. Maybe it's not challenge they seek, but effect? So long as it looks good it must be ok? Motorcycle Cavalry that move like a flock of swans... Gah...

This, and the fact that my graphics card belongs in a museum, is mainly why I don't bother with RTW. Even modded it still annoys me.

Ok Martok, walking sticks at the ready, form a phalanx...

Martok

01-29-2007, 08:34

Ok Martok, walking sticks at the ready, form a phalanx...
Sure thing! Just give me a moment while I switch over to full-on grumping old man mode.... ~D

Tony Furze

01-29-2007, 13:02

Having managed to get RTW to work decently enough to play it long enough to say something: I just dont go back to it. I dont feel like playing it.

MTW is my favourite because the mix is right-just right.

The only and only reason I dont go to Shogun more often is-wait for it - (you ll love this , Martok and Caravel ) the little guys are too, too, too small and my aging eyesight is too weak!!!! So basically its my problem.

If Shogun could be released exactly as it is but with an MTW camera and unit figure size, I d be at it day and night.

caravel

01-29-2007, 13:11

This (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=105) looks to be a great mod that I haven't played as yet. Take a look.

Tony Furze

01-31-2007, 02:18

-OO- Thanks

Puzz3D

01-31-2007, 07:07

If Shogun could be released exactly as it is but with an MTW camera and unit figure size, I d be at it day and night.
Samurai Wars: MTW camera, MTW unit size, MTW diplomacy and strategy enhancements, Shogun units, Shogun strategy map, Shogun battle maps, more clans, no four seasons, no Shogun weather effects.

econ21

01-31-2007, 10:27

Just to inject a contrary note: I think STW was the worst in the series; certainly it is the TW game I've had the longest but spent the least time playing. I take the points about the MP battles, but I've never played one so that's not a factor for me.

For a SP campaign, STW had the best atmosphere - both on the campaign map and on some of the glorious battle maps (Shinano! the weather, the fog, the music, the ambushes etc). It also had the most challenging competition from the AI. It's rather hard to lose a later TW game; rather easy for me to lose STW (the Hojo horde will often stomp me at the end).

But as a sandbox, STW was the least interesting to play in. The unit variety, the faction variety, the strategic possibilities were all greatly reduced compared to MTW. All TW games suffer, IMO, from being a little too focused on repetitive battles (yes, I know it says "Total War" on the tin, so I can't complain but it does get exhausting). I can replay the STW campaign about half a dozen times, but once I'd run through the factions, there was less to keep my attention.

MTW greatly improved the SP campaign - you were not compelled to salami slice up Japan, but could zap around a full map of Europe, crusading, facing down Mongols etc. There was at least more pretence of diplomacy and something other than total conquest with the glorious achievements. These aspects meant that MTW spurred the creation of fascinating "succession" PBM games in the Throne Room. STW has not spawned one - the SP game just does not lend itself to role-playing, story-telling or cooperative play.

RTW maybe the worst out of the box for some of the reasons given by other posters, but has been completely redeemed by the mods. Variants like RTR and EB make it a better historical strategy game than MTW. The innovation of the campaign map is crucial here - tastes vary, but for me, an abstract "Risk-style" map does not provide the immersion and feel of military campaigning. The detail of the unit graphics is another factor. It's surely no coincidence than RTW has attracted vastly more modders input than earlier engines. I don't think it's that the game is in more need of total conversion mods (although that is true) - it's that it is a better platform for them. The battle AI even in the mods, is still less challenging than in earlier games, it is true. But this is offset by the gloriously rendered detail and battle experiences that very closely resemble those of MTW. If you stranded me on a desert island, I'd rather have EB or RTR than MTW or STW.

M2TW is like the implications of the French revolution - too early to tell. The AI seems to have regained some of its MTW bite, in both the battles and the campaign. The game seems as rich, if not richer, in features than MTW (the faction rosters are more unique). The battles are better paced than RTW, although balancing awaits the next patch. I suspect it may be the best game of the series, at least if CA gives modders the tools to do a full conversion (AFAIK, they still can't edit the unit graphics).

caravel

01-31-2007, 13:21

Just to inject a contrary note: I think STW was the worst in the series; certainly it is the TW game I've had the longest but spent the least time playing. I take the points about the MP battles, but I've never played one so that's not a factor for me.
Worst in the series compared with the others, valid as a direct comparison of course and based on your criteria, but as an original concept I would say not. I don't think there is any real "worst in the series", it's all a matter of opinion. Personally I think vanilla RTW was the worst in the series, again opinion.

For a SP campaign, STW had the best atmosphere - both on the campaign map and on some of the glorious battle maps (Shinano! the weather, the fog, the music, the ambushes etc). It also had the most challenging competition from the AI. It's rather hard to lose a later TW game; rather easy for me to lose STW (the Hojo horde will often stomp me at the end).
I agree with you there.

But as a sandbox, STW was the least interesting to play in. The unit variety, the faction variety, the strategic possibilities were all greatly reduced compared to MTW. All TW games suffer, IMO, from being a little too focused on repetitive battles (yes, I know it says "Total War" on the tin, so I can't complain but it does get exhausting). I can replay the STW campaign about half a dozen times, but once I'd run through the factions, there was less to keep my attention.
The battles are the reason why so many of us gravitated to STW in the first place. The campaign map game is indeed much more simplistic than MTW, but one would expect that being the older game, and originator of the series. I think that the STW campaign map was a means to an end. A way of linking all of the battles together and providing the player with an objective, and it worked well, and was the basis of all later TW games. If it had been purely the battles, maybe with the historical campaigns also, and focused on MP, then it would have been very dull for 90% of the players. If only based on the campaign map, where all battles were autocalced, it would have been worse still... but then again so would MTW or any TW for that matter. I am player that likes to fight every battle where possible. The campaign game alone does nothing for me. It is the combination of the two that is the winning formula. Unique unit rosters are a good thing, but too much variety can lead to an imbalanced game. Shogun had one plus point in that respect. It's limited unit roster ensured greater balance. The MTW and later unit stats have not been as balanced as the STW ones.

MTW greatly improved the SP campaign - you were not compelled to salami slice up Japan, but could zap around a full map of Europe, crusading, facing down Mongols etc. There was at least more pretence of diplomacy and something other than total conquest with the glorious achievements. These aspects meant that MTW spurred the creation of fascinating "succession" PBM games in the Throne Room. STW has not spawned one - the SP game just does not lend itself to role-playing, story-telling or cooperative play.
MTW's main strength, over STW, is it's campaign game. As you have quite rightly said, it has a better map, better diplomacy and greater flexibility for the player. STW was very linear, and flawed in many respects. MTW introduced many features that have expanded the campaign game into almost a game in it's own right. The key thing to remember though is that the campaign map is still a management interface for your armies and empire and not a "game" in the true sense.

RTW maybe the worst out of the box for some of the reasons given by other posters, but has been completely redeemed by the mods. Variants like RTR and EB make it a better historical strategy game than MTW. The innovation of the campaign map is crucial here - tastes vary, but for me, an abstract "Risk-style" map does not provide the immersion and feel of military campaigning. The detail of the unit graphics is another factor. It's surely no coincidence than RTW has attracted vastly more modders input than earlier engines. I don't think it's that the game is in more need of total conversion mods (although that is true) - it's that it is a better platform for them. The battle AI even in the mods, is still less challenging than in earlier games, it is true. But this is offset by the gloriously rendered detail and battle experiences that very closely resemble those of MTW. If you stranded me on a desert island, I'd rather have EB or RTR than MTW or STW.
Mods have done a lot for RTW, and I think that's mainly because a lot needed doing in the first place and because it was much more flexible for modders to work with. MTW was not so fundamentally flawed on it's release (yes it was bugged but not to the extent of RTW). When there are less flaws to iron out, there will be less initial interest in modding, which drives the later and more ambitious mods, and where there are less possibilities for modders, total conversions won't be as popular.

For many of us the abstract Risk style map and more abstraction and less micromanagement in general is in fact more immersive than the RTS style map of RTW and later. The RTW map has evolved to become a game in it's own right, no longer the management interface it was in previous titles, this somehow detracts from the battles which, in the vanilla game, are not that good either (for reasons stated billions of times ad nauseum).

I hope to get into some of the mods though once my new graphics card arrives. :2thumbsup:

M2TW is like the implications of the French revolution - too early to tell. The AI seems to have regained some of its MTW bite, in both the battles and the campaign. The game seems as rich, if not richer, in features than MTW (the faction rosters are more unique). The battles are better paced than RTW, although balancing awaits the next patch. I suspect it may be the best game of the series, at least if CA gives modders the tools to do a full conversion (AFAIK, they still can't edit the unit graphics).
I wonder how many patches will be released before I bother with it? I'll probably need to build a new PC first though anyway.

:bow:

Noir

01-31-2007, 14:44

econ21's view of STW is one that:

-shows that he enjoys the campaign portion more than the battle portion - then it's difficult to have STW high in your preferences. This happens to many others, like for example Olmsted over at the .com. He doesn't get why i'm always complaining for the newer engine because he plays for the campaign mostly.

-Shows no attachement to that place and period. Entirely understandable - i don't expect everyone to be a japan freek like myself.

-Shows some unfairness as STW is not moddable and i am sure that if it was we would have seen great mods spring up like we have seen for MTW. In that respect it is entirely unfair to compare it to RTR and EB which have been invested with hour upon hour of development, tweaking, adjusting and playtesting. Despite that and although i liked both i still prefer Shogun as i without tactical battles for me its not a TW game (use of TW as a brand).

-Shows a bit more unfairness as STW was the first game in the series and as such is bound to be the "worst" in the way you put it ie feature and technology wise (made with less budget, man resources etc). However the very strong and original concept that appeared first time in a raw form there has barely changed over the years, despite all the traits, family trees, merchants, 3D campaign map, princesses etc etc In fact STW was probably supposed to have most of the MTW features if you look at the files you'll find the "hime" born announcement (princess) that is unused.

-Shows appreciation for good (i dont claim necesarily the best although it is for me) game atmosphere without linking it with the means produced (how many times i heard "the graphics suck", "i can't stand it" etc which has nothing to do with atmosphere).

As for the campaign map, its a matter of opinion, but in the 3D map ambushing is a joke, maneuvering is a joke, application of campaign skirmishing tactics is a joke. In addition the animated giants are awful (for me), and the fact that 1 city = 1 region takes it back to the principle of the older engine wiith more sieges and AoE feel.

I don't have a problem with the few unit types at all; i would be happy to spice up the SP game with 10 more (normal size) well balanced unit types but that would be enough for me. I don't mind playing with the 100+ units in MTW, but there are many that are overpowered and many more that are redundant. In addition as Puzz3D said, you win by bringing the best units in the battlefield and not necessarily by how you use them. It's possibly the same as your comment about being difficult to lose in the new games. Certain mods did excellent work on MTW SP from this aspect.

That's just my opinion though.:bow:

econ21

01-31-2007, 15:34

econ21's view of STW is one that:

-shows that he enjoys the campaign portion more than the battle portion - then it's difficult to have STW high in your preferences. This happens to many others, like for example Olmsted over at the .com. He doesn't get why i'm always complaining for the newer engine because he plays for the campaign mostly.

No, I like the battles best of course: they were amazing for their time with STW and still don't have much of a rival (I recently tried Mark of Chaos and found the battles underwhelming). It's just I'm not very interested in standalone battles - MP or historical. The campaign provides the hook to keep you fighting the battles.

Shows some unfairness as STW is not moddable.

I'm not convinced that it is "unfair" to criticise a game for being unmoddable. RTW has received an awful amount of stick from STW/MTW vets over the last few years, but my impression is that the modding scene has increased the fanbase of the series dramatically. And I'm not talking about "kids" and RTS fans here. I'm talking about hardcore historical war grognards, some of who even go so far as to want their Parthian units names to be in Pahlavian or what dead language was spoken at the time. The most reflective modders do readily acknowledge their debt to RTW, without which they could have produced nothing. Moddability is a definite plus of the game. I confess I would not get much use of my RTW CD without the mods - thanks to them, it is my most used game CD of the last 3 years.

In that respect it is entirely unfair to compare it to RTR and EB which have been invested with hour upon hour of development, tweaking, adjusting and playtesting. Despite that and although i liked both i still prefer Shogun as i without tactical battles for me its not a TW game

Not sure what you mean by "without tactical battles". The main attraction of RTR and EB to me is that they make the RTW battles very reminiscent of those I enjoyed so much in MTW. Modding the campaign aspects - even the gorgeous unit skins - is secondary (although EB is doing some fun things with traits).

Noir

01-31-2007, 18:07

Posted by econ21

I'm not convinced that it is "unfair" to criticise a game for being unmoddable.

Well it can't be the game's fault, can it?

Posted by econ21

RTW has received an awful amount of stick from STW/MTW vets over the last few years, but my impression is that the modding scene has increased the fanbase of the series dramatically. And I'm not talking about "kids" and RTS fans here. I'm talking about hardcore historical war grognards, some of who even go so far as to want their Parthian units names to be in Pahlavian or what dead language was spoken at the time. The most reflective modders do readily acknowledge their debt to RTW, without which they could have produced nothing. Moddability is a definite plus of the game. I confess I would not get much use of my RTW CD without the mods - thanks to them, it is my most used game CD of the last 3 years.

I agree with your points - however that has nothing to do with my opinion or enjoyment relative to the game. i enjoy the modding scene and the EB forums here are one of my favorite reads. The fact that this scene exists is good but irrelevant to how much i enjoy the older games over RTW modded or not. I certainly ain't gonna like RTW more because it expanded the fanbase with historical wargamers that prefer their Parthian units' names in Pahlavan.

Posted by econ21

Not sure what you mean by "without tactical battles". The main attraction of RTR and EB to me is that they make the RTW battles very reminiscent of those I enjoyed so much in MTW. Modding the campaign aspects - even the gorgeous unit skins - is secondary (although EB is doing some fun things with traits).

I played RTR v6 PE, with the Metropolis and Naval mod quite a lot as well as EB .74 and also tried the .8 for a bit. EB has done great things with the traits including the character basis for developing them or the "well supplied" traits etc I enjoyed the campaign immensely in both of them.

The battles in both mods are also enhanced over the vanilla version but i'm afraid nowhere near as tactical as they were in the previous engine in my experience. I believe that this has nothing to do with the high quality work of modders which i acknowledge as excellent, but with the game battle engine (that lacks several realism settings the previous had); this made me get rid of my RTW copies once and for all as i realise that i get 10x more enjoyment from MTW and STW battles - all the more if armies, and units stats provide for diverse and challenging gameplay (no peasants - no ubers - combined arms approach) - something done in several excellent mods for MTW.

One of my favorite posters, Pritzl (another EB addict that actually contributed in .8 as i found out in the credits) is hands down RTW modded too and we argued once at a thread again and again over how satisfactory are the battles in RTW vs STW/MTW among other things. He, much like you is convinced that "we can't go back" and that "the battles are tactical in mods of the magnitude of RTR and Eb". I am convinced that the new engine is simply awful at simulating combat and lacks many settings and moral penalties that before were the order of the day and if coming releases stay like this i'm not touching them much like M2 which i've tried and i deemed unsatisfactory for my taste (including the modding potential).

However i repeat that all this is only my opinion and it has nothing to do with making a case for smacking down RTW or making impressions etc - i just don't care enough about it to approach it that way.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-31-2007, 18:17

Noir

01-31-2007, 18:29

Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What I didn't like about MTW was that the campaign had more depth to it, which meant the AI was at more of a disadvantage. The campaigns I played were all won on the campaign map, I never had any battles that would have been more than minorly inconvenient to lose. In shogun the campaign was won through fighting, I actually cared about my generals and the make ups of their armies and what season it was.

I agree, but i guess as for many things an advantage is at the same time a weakness. I've heard more than one person disliking STW for the same reason.

The loyalty feature could add for some interesting turns in Shogun where carefully made plans for domination are blown up... Akechi? Who is Akechi? :stupido2:

Puzz3D

01-31-2007, 21:03

What I didn't like about MTW was that the campaign had more depth to it, which meant the AI was at more of a disadvantage. The campaigns I played were all won on the campaign map, I never had any battles that would have been more than minorly inconvenient to lose. In shogun the campaign was won through fighting, I actually cared about my generals and the make ups of their armies and what season it was.
That's exactly right. STW was about the battles, and the campaign simply provided a way for losses from previous battles to carry over into the next battle. I'm glad there isn't much to do on the strategy map, so I can get on to fighting next battle. The battle AI was not easy to beat because it made excellent unit matchups which is important with RPS gameplay, and STW had the strongest RPS of any Total War game. The battle AI did not use ranged units very well because it moved them around too much, but at least it didn't stand there and get shot to pieces. If you shoot at an AI unit in original STW, it will move that unit away and into trees if possible unless it decides to attack. That AI is also great at setting up ambushes.

The battles take a definite downturn once the armies become larger than 16 units. It's not too bad when there are only a few reinforcements, but it's rather bad in the sense of being tedious when the reinforcements are larger than the armies that initially take the field. I only play a campaign up to the point where the battles become tedious, although I did persevere and finish one STW campaign and one MTW campaign. I've never had a problem with the limited factions in the STW campaign. As a matter of fact, I've always played the Takeda campaign, and have never even tried the other clans. MTW battles also became even more tedious because the maps were larger and it took so long for reinforcements to traverse the map. I had several MTW campaign battles that took 3 hours each to finish. A 1.5 hour battle was very common while that was the longest I ever saw in an STW campaign.

The features lost in the new battle engine compared to the old battle engine are like night and day to me. I'm bemused by players who don't even notice the difference. I wonder at what "level" they are playing the battles that the diffences seem insignificant to them. Also, mods can't fix some of stuff that isn't working or isn't working well in the RTW battle engine. For instance, mods can't fix the phalanx butt spike problem which has been a significant problem in the RTW campaign battles I've fought using the XGM mod (which improves the battles as much as is possible given the engine and battle AI). That problem causes me to sustain higher cavalry casualties than I should sustain, and is especially irritating when I've done the work to outmaneuver the AI to the extent that I can make a rear charge. This is the kind of proplem that makes me stop playing a game and wish I never bought it.

No, I like the battles best of course: they were amazing for their time with STW and still don't have much of a rival (I recently tried Mark of Chaos and found the battles underwhelming). It's just I'm not very interested in standalone battles - MP or historical. The campaign provides the hook to keep you fighting the battles.
STW has a campaign, so the battles aren't standalone. I find the STW campaign adequate to provide a framework for the battles. If I do poorly in a battle, I'm going to have to do well in subsequent battles to make up for it. A more complex campaign is unnecessary and may not even be desireable if it becomes tedious. It certainly isn't desireable to a player who puts battles first if it results in degraded battlefield gameplay.

econ21

01-31-2007, 21:35

I find the STW campaign adequate ...

That's where we agree - it is just adequate.

...A more complex campaign is unnecessary ...

and that's where we disagree. I prefer the complexity and bells of whistles of the later TW campaigns. I find them much more than adequate.

It's just a matter of taste. I think I understand your point of view much better, Puzz3D, when you said you used to be a keen chess player. Chess is an example of a rather simple game that really allows very complex and challenging tactics. It reminds me of the virtues you praise in STW. It's just for me, Chess has always been a great turn-off - I prefer something more representational and more complex. I find the battles of the later TW series more interesting as representations of historical battles and I enjoy the greater complexities of their campaigns. Different strokes for different folks.

Noir

01-31-2007, 22:42

With all due respect,

just allow me to comment that complexity comes in various shapes and sizes, much like everything else. Chess has tremendous depth and complexity that happens to be simply different than that in the more representational something (in absence of other term) you prefer.

However not all people are ready (understandably) to appreciate. The mere amount of possibilities, statistically speaking, towards the middle game is intimidating. Games tend to be like non-linear effects that govern the weather and other highly non-linear feedback systemes: one small side step from the opening pattern opens up a whole new universe.

Much like STW battles its a really ruthless game and it is exhausting mentally and psycologically - there are no lies and second chances there, neither playing out your dreams while awake.

caravel

02-01-2007, 10:52

This is all very Star Wars vs Star Trek. At the end of the day it's all a matter of opinion. STW and even MTW are very chess like in the functionality of the campaign map. RTW is more like a conventional turn based game.

Let's take Civ2 as an example (I want to use a basic example that I can relate to, and that most people have played at some point or other).

With Civ2 you have a settlement, production, population, population happiness,:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :no: :no: food production, and other such statistics.
There are armies that can be trained. There are also roads that speed up the movement of these armies, and later railways. Also there are no provinces as such. Instead of a province there are settlements, which you found and name. These settlements grow if there is enough food, and don't if there isn't. Surrounding these settlements are tiles, the map is entirely made up of tiles in fact, units move from tile to tile using movement points. Cavalry units usually have more movement points and thus can travel further in one turn, than an infantry unit can. Enemy units can enter the catchment area of a settlement and in doing so render that tile non productive. When they enter the settlement's catchment area it is not an automatic declaration of war either, there is no battle, no siege etc. This only occurs if the settlement or an army in the field is attacked directly. Otherwise neutral, allied and enemy units can walk about all over the settlement's land unchallenged, the latter requiring you to attack and remove them. Each of the map tiles has a terrain type. This terrain also effects movement. A unit travelling through a mountain tile for example can expect to use up all of it's movement points in one go, whereas if it was moving through grassland it may have moved about three tiles before running out of points.

This is hardly chess like, and it is certainly not Risk like in any way. But it bears striking similarities in it's function and principle to the RTW and M2TW campaign map model in many ways.

IMHO because of this, the idea that the RTW campaign map is something new innovative and original is a flawed one. It is basically an attempt to move with the competition, giving players of the turn based and real time strategy genre something for them.

Ok I'll try and employ some Game Developer logic: For players that are used to the type of map employed in popular turned based strategy games and now RTW and M2TW, a risk style map would be a big turn off. This type of player needs visual representation in any game. If they can't see things happening visually they will exit and play something else. Any level of abstraction is not a good thing. Their thinking is that a unit on a map should look like a man, and move around, it shouldn't look like a chess piece, and be static. The player should be able to click the little men and then click on the map to where they want them to go, it shouldn't be a case of picking up and dropping from one "square" to another - again too much like chess or a board game. The map should not look at all like a "map". It should appear like one is looking down from space on the actual world itself as if one were a "god". The terrain on this map should be 3D, not 2D like a map. There should be nothing like a tabletop - in fact the player will be totally removed from the idea that he/she is looking at a "map" at all. This is the world not a "map" of it. There should be trees, mountains and other features, and that terrain should have a purpose, not simply be the cosmetics of a paper map. Armyies should interact visually. One unit army attacking the other should visibly attack it - animated. An army needs to actually walk into a ship and travel on it, not travel on an abstracted fleet, directly from one location to the next. Agents should walk to where they're going on the map, not "beam up" from one port to the next, or be dropped chesslike from a "square" to an adjacent "square".

Eye candy plays a big part in any game these days. Try being a games developer and releasing a game with substandard graphics, and it will be murdered by reviewers both online and on paper. It doesn't matter if it's got the best AI ever, it simply won't sell well based on the poor graphics alone. TW games changed drastically to fit the majority consumer base of the teenage and younger player, whom of which have a tendency to be more interested in image quality. It also evolved to compete with other turn based strategy games, most notably the Civ and AoE series. Sadly for many of the veteran players that put CA where it is today, by going out and buying, "the worst out of the Total War series?", Shogun Total War, this new direction is often not to their tastes. I didn't buy into to Total War to play a tile based Civ game again. For me STW and MTW were something totally different to those, now those differences have become less defined.

Training units that are fit for battle is my primary interest in a TW game, and utilising those units in a formation of combined arms, using a particular strategy and set of tactics to win the battle, often against the odds, or lose it respectably. I like that fact that weather, morale, fatigue, height, climate, flanking and the individual attributes of the units and their general all play a part in this. The campaign map is simply a way for me to manage these battles, and it is this management - not micromanagement - that I enjoy also. As the effective faction leader, I don't worry about the population as such nor the people. Governors do that for me, and as such it is abstracted fully. The military and the construction of civil and military buildings are my only concern. Farmland improvements are not food for the peasants, they are more taxation for me. The increase in food represent more peasants being born and thus paying more taxes, and more food goods being sold in markets, bringing in more taxes still. I don't need to worry if they've got enough food to eat or not, as that's not my job. Also I expect my emissaries to leave, and return with preferably good news. I don't want to know about every stage of their journey. I am the foul horseshoe sucking, gluttonous, chinless fiend. What do I care? My minions and servants are there for that (once they've washed off the blue paint). :beam:

:bow:

Ignoramus

02-01-2007, 11:44

I may not be the best person to comment on this, as I don't have Shogun, but I will compare Medieval with Rome and Medieval 2.

In my opinion, Medieval is more immersive than the two sequels. I can hardly remember a time playing Medieval when I quit the game because I became bored. The battles were immersive, and I never got bored of fighting battle after battle. In fact, I would still be playing Medieval now, if I hadn''t lost my CD. I know that Medieval and Shogun are different, but they are quite similar to each other, unlike Rome and recently Medieval 2.

Rome was exciting at first, but then the visual candy wore off. The AI was apalling; I never had much difficulty defeating larger, better equiped enemies. Cavalry was ridiculously overpowered; the only point in having infantry was for storming walls. The faction balance was terrible as well. The Romans blew everyone out of the water with ahistorical advantages. Having the best cavalry in the game, really good archers, war dogs, and "flamming pigs", they crushed eveyone in their path. Also, the Ptolemies were shockingly portrayed as Ancient Egyptians, who were also ridiculously overpowered. Other factions, on the other hand, were suprisingly underpowered. Carthage, for example, constantly got crushed by the Romans and Numidians, and never was the threat to Rome that it should have been.

My initial responses to the new Medieval 2 have been mixed. I appreciate that the AI has been improved from Rome, but it is still child's play compared to Medieval. Also, I dislike the "blitzkrieg" aspect of the game; it doesn't lend itself to realistic gameplay.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

econ21

02-01-2007, 12:16

Good post, Caravel. :bow:

No prizes for guessing that I like the idea of a Civ game with TW battles. On the building side, I like the guns or butter choices; and I also like the up-teching of units, although I can see that this may cause balance issues. STW had both aspects, of course. Just the later games added some more variety and importance to them.

Having just come out of a period of re-immersion in Civ4, I do think TW could still learn two things from that series:

First, the diplomacy - the AI personalities and diplomatic aspects of Civ4 are still far richer than those in TW. M2TW is improving the series here, as people learn more about what affects relations and reputations. But the AI still could have more "personality" - apparently AI factions do have various predispositions in terms of relations and play style in the code, but they are not communicated or represented well in game to the player.

Second, the strategic AI challenge. STW provided the most challenging campaign. But Civ shows that it is possible to have a challenging campaign with lots of complexity. Granted, it's done in large part by giving the AI bonuses, but that's what the hard difficulty option is there for.

BTW, it's interesting watching the opening videos for Civ4 and Warlords. They so resemble Total War battles. After loading them up, I'm often tempted to exit and start a TW game. Over time, I think we'll probably see more Civ/TW hybrids, and indeed probably more RPG/TW hybrids. I'm all for it.

caravel

02-01-2007, 14:27

No prizes for guessing that I like the idea of a Civ game with TW battles. On the building side, I like the guns or butter choices; and I also like the up-teching of units, although I can see that this may cause balance issues. STW had both aspects, of course. Just the later games added some more variety and importance to them.
You're not alone in that. There was a thread some time ago about an online Civ4 and TW game. It sounded rather unworkable to me at the time, but that isn't the point. It does show that there are people out there thinking along the same lines. TW attracts different kinds of players, attracted to different aspects of the gameplay. There are a lot of TW players that never play the campaign at all, and I mean never. The MP community is a good example of this of course. As I've said before I could live with the micromanagement aspects of the RTW/M2TW campaign map, the main problem I have is how armies and agents interact with it, in particular movement rates, and the high number of sieges.

Having just come out of a period of re-immersion in Civ4, I do think TW could still learn two things from that series:

First, the diplomacy - the AI personalities and diplomatic aspects of Civ4 are still far richer than those in TW. M2TW is improving the series here, as people learn more about what affects relations and reputations. But the AI still could have more "personality" - apparently AI factions do have various predispositions in terms of relations and play style in the code, but they are not communicated or represented well in game to the player.
Diplomacy has never been that great across the board, as far as TW games are concerned, though in STW you would see scenarios where you had attacked another clan and taken several of their provinces, doing them some serious damage. The following year, almost without fail, an emissary would request and audience, and a ceasfire! Brilliant. It almost made you think the AI was really thinking. This totally stopped occuring in MTW. In that game, factions are very sucidal. It is as if one bit of AI that was introduced had overridden another. With RTW the diplomacy is there, but sadly doesn't work. For example, if you are the Brutii and the Gauls offer you trade rights, you could then make a counter offer, of trade rights and offer them some cash and sharing of map info. I have seen them turn this down on many occasions. Also if they're getting absolutely trounced, they nearly always won't accept any offers you make. It seems like the "Helloooo??!! we're going to get wiped out!!" bit of AI is overuled by the "these are our enemies AI". I had always hoped the diplomacy would have improved vastly. Factors such as reputation and the AI learning from past experiences. For example if they were attacked from a certain province by a certain faction. They should remember that and better defend the border next time. A faction should have reputation factors that the AI can refer to. If you keep backstabbing your allies it should be almost impossible to get alliances. Weaker factions should seek the protection of a stronger one, if they are weakened. The diplomacy could also depend on a particular faction leaders traits. A coward would be more likely to be an appeaser, whereas a faction leader with e.g. pride and loyalty would rather see his faction die out than seek the protection of another. Greedy faction leaders would check their treasury more often when thinking about receiving payments etc. The possibilities are endless unfortunately not a lot of this has been done, and that which has is usually poorly implimented.

Second, the strategic AI challenge. STW provided the most challenging campaign. But Civ shows that it is possible to have a challenging campaign with lots of complexity. Granted, it's done in large part by giving the AI bonuses, but that's what the hard difficulty option is there for.
I really dislike the AI getting bonuses to give a more difficult game. This where the TW difficulty levels are not so good. I'd prefer if the harder difficulty simply meant that the AI would use more efftive formations, tactics and ambushes etc.

Noir

02-01-2007, 14:57

Many mods be it for MTW or RTW, give shining examples as to how the AI strategic performance can be improved.

In EB, diplomacy works more as one would hope.

In XL, the AI factions perform better overall (even the HRE survives longer) due to increasing the farming and decreasing the trade outputs.

Homelands/AOR also make for more realistic campaign development potentials as the size of an ethnicity/culture is introduced in the game (Vs Armenians or the Irish forming easily world empires which is something i dislike to see in my campaigns). In general i am in favor of keeping the game at a mid game stage to the end - even if artificial means are introduced for this. Becoming the size of two "nations" usually means the game is over in TW games other than STW. Playing the Casse in EB is great - your ambitions are to be a local power to be acknowledged by superpowers and not a superpower youreself.

There are workarounds that the developers simply dont have time or cannot afford from a marketability point of view to include. That's were the mods really come in.

M2 has a lot of potential for modding and assuming that people get the tools they need to change the game, i'm sure some very interesting mods will spring out.

If the battle engine settings return to the high standard they had in the previous incarnation, then we are looking towards an all around strong game.

Everytime i was going to battle in Eb, there were a million reasons that were turning it to a very emotionally charged event. However thebattle itself never managed not to make e feel "cheated" - was it this relatively quick rout all i was getting so worked up for? In MTW not only i've never felt let down, but in certain cases even "routine" engagements were proved interesting.

I have a feeling that the STW/MTW battles were too complex, difficult and unrewarding for beginners and players habituated to a more traditional RTS style and also they were lacking spectacle and motivation. Now they tend to be the opposite ie you can just click a few times, zoom in and watch. This is why i am satisfied with the older graphics: things are represented well to a degree necessary to play a tactical war game, not a FPS.

Puzz3D

02-01-2007, 16:20

If the battle engine settings return to the high standard they had in the previous incarnation, then we are looking towards an all around strong game.
Forget about it. It isn't going to happen. The trend of TW games is clear now. You're going to get more complex campaigns which are beyond CA's capacity to make work properly, and tactically simplified battles with so many unit types that they can't balance it.

I have a feeling that the STW/MTW battles were too complex, difficult and unrewarding for beginners and players habituated to a more traditional RTS style and also they were lacking spectacle and motivation. Now they tend to be the opposite ie you can just click a few times, zoom in and watch. This is why i am satisfied with the older graphics: things are represented well to a degree necessary to play a tactical war game, not a FPS.
CA has stated that the battles were simplified for the benfit of the new players. They then claim that the battles are being made to appeal to veteran players which is contradictory if they are referring to STW veterans. That's part of the smoke and mirrors marketing that they engage in because they never say which veterans. It's the reason I mistakenly purchased RTW, but I found out early in the RTW v1.2 beta what was really going on and that's what prompted me to start working on Samurai Wars only a few weeks into the RTW v1.2 beta teasting.

EightDeer

02-01-2007, 17:00

Since we're all giving opinions, here's mine:

STW: I never really got into this one. After doing a steam-roller act over 2/3rds of Japan with the Hojo, I tried the historical victors; the Oda. Same thing again.
Since I started with MTW, I was somewhat disappointed with the complete lack of personality of the commanders and other notables. Another factor against it was my lack of interest in the setting. The Heian period of Japan was far more interesting.

MTW: My personal favourite. The governors had personality(All hail Lord Drunken Madman, Margrave of Tuscany), and I really loved the battles.
I still remember a 12,000 man French army attacking my 2000 man garrison in Burgundy - and losing. Byzantine Cavalry just rocked so hard. And don't forget a battle in the Lithuanian forests; where the elite boyars of the Rus charged out of the trees - only to find themselves staring straight down the barrels of four V7 Culverins:skull: :skull: :skull: . And a desert battle in which the poor bloody Kataphraktoi had to face Spanish Jinetes while totally exhausted... okay I'll stop there. But I could go on all day!

RTW: When I first got it, I was completely turned off by the ahistoric division of the Roman Republic. I forgot about it for six months, until I heard about RTR. Now it's actually worth playing, even if I never quite figured out the correct use of Velites.
I actually prefer the campaign map of RTW; tell me to GB2/Civ if you wish, but I like the fact that you actually have to spare a thought for the populace of your empire.
Something else that RTW had that the previous two didn't: Diplomacy. I really did like the extra diplomatic options in RTW.

M2TW: Haven't played more than a few turns. This is because I happen to be a complete Byzantophile, and the news that the Byz don't get gunpowder weapons of any kind did NOT go down well. I'm going to wait for M2TR.

Noir

02-01-2007, 18:03

Originally posted by Eightdeer

The Heian period of Japan was far more interesting.

It's a very interesting period, i agree, but i wouldn't call it far more interesting than Sengoku.

For a military setting, sengoku is the epitomy as it includes "modern" warfare tactics based on guns as well as more traditional approaches as skirmishing tactics, brute melee force tactics, cavalry encirlement/flanking etc etc

Also characters in STW had personalities, not expressed through traits but through the daimiyo personality strategic preferences and their initial command stars (check, Nobunaga, Shingen, Kenshin, Ieyasu etc).

Originally posted by Puzz3D

Forget about it. It isn't going to happen.

I don't expect it at all. I know that the current level of battles is satisfying for the majority of players and so for the developers. I think that hybrids on the line econ21 decribes are the future. TW couldn't make it commercially without putting water in its wine and the other historical RTS's now look goofy - not-so-exciting without "proper" 3D batles. Their combination is inevitable and it will dominate the market for the years to come.

My future is centred around MTW mods and STW.

*Edit* Oops, wrong button!

Puzz3D

02-01-2007, 18:59

I don't expect it at all.
You can write off purchasing any future Total War product right now.

caravel

02-04-2007, 22:24

Forget about it. It isn't going to happen. The trend of TW games is clear now. You're going to get more complex campaigns which are beyond the CA's capacity to make work properly, and tactically simplified battles with so many unit types that they can't balance it.
You're right in a way, but never say never. Unfortunately games tend to be like any other medium, whether audio or visual. E.g. someone may prefer older music to newer music, as the newer stuff may be dumbed down or repetitive, that is primarily commercial. Another individual may prefer old movies, because back in those days, movies had a plot and didn't have to rely on special effects to sell. The same goes with games. Games are becoming totally visually oriented. Yes graphic were always a big deal, but nowadays graphics are what makes or breaks a game, the rest is just "extras". For the AI the usual "click-as-fast-you-can" model will do.

CA has stated that the battles were simplified for the benfit of the new players. They then claim that the battles are being made to appeal to veteran players which is contradictory if they are referring to STW veterans. That's part of the smoke and mirrors marketing that they engage in because they never say which veterans. It's the reason I mistakenly purchased RTW, but I found out early in the RTW v1.2 beta what was really going on and that's what prompted me to start working on Samurai Wars only a few weeks into the RTW v1.2 beta teasting.
Marketing hype, and best ignored. I never pay much attention what is said about a game before it's release. In the case of M2TW, a lot was said over at the .com forums, regarding the 225 turns issue, and a lot of criticism levelled at the unit previews. People were jumping on the CA's every word when they should have been taking no notice, and waiting for the real thing. There was nothing anyone could have said or done at that stage that would have influenced the game in a significant way, and that's the key point here. This is a product that is sold to a consumer base for profit. RTW was a move towards expanding the old consumer base away from the die hard veterans, and on to a whole new market. A lot of the old vets are annoyed because they felt somehow cheated by the CA, which is ludicrous as they're hardly beholden. CA will naturally look at what the old vets want and will obviously think: "well that's how not to do it", as a game that is designed around the vets needs is often repellent to the new player, especially the CA's new younger target consumer. I think that if I come to such a stage that Total War games are not my thing any more, I will either:

1) Not buy any more Total War games and give up playing. I will move onto another pursuit.

2) Not buy any more Total War games and continue playing those that I have and enjoy playing.

I most certainly won't waste my time here whinging on and on and on about it as some have done at the .com, and how even I have done in the past. What you have done, Puzz3D, is become part of a brilliant project to effectively get STW running on the MTW version of the engine with what looks like superb results, ensuring that all of us grumbling and stick shaking vets will always have something to play around with in a few years time when everyone else is playing Pixies and Goblins II - Total War, and I take my hat off to you and the others for that.

:bow:

Noir

02-04-2007, 23:16

Originally posted by Caravel

...in a few years time when everyone else is playing Pixies and Goblins II - Total War...

:laugh4:

caravel

02-05-2007, 00:08

Yes indeed, when the next generation of players are throwing their Ready Break up the walls in disgust, as one of their elite valour 6 Pixie Heavy Infantry units get's charged down by Some valour 1 Mounted Goblin Archers, we will still be here grumbling on about fantasy units, though perhaps with good reason, while the new generation of fans will be making 20 page threads about whether Elvish Warriors held their spear in the left hand or the right...

And then of course comes the inevitable thread in the new TW game forum for the next great game:

THE TROLLSESSSS MUST BE IN THIS GAME!!!!1!!1111
the trols wer very impotent in histry...they had big ackses ummm......PUT THE TROLS IN TEH GAME YOU &*%&%@%$!!1!!!!11

Disclaimer: The above post is not in any way serious.

Gregoshi

02-05-2007, 05:01

Very interesting discussion and analysis in this thread.

One thing to hold out hope for: eventually graphics will get as real as possible and the eye candy attraction will lose its glitter - the "Been-There-Done-That" syndrome. At that point, game developers will be forced to make the games in which the game play has to stand on its own. Game play will be the hook of a "good" game again.

Regarding the RTW/M2TW map vs the Risk style STW/MTW campaign map: I thought the new "go anywhere" map of RTW was great when I first heard about it. Now, based solely on the one RTW campaign I've played, I found the new campaign map is very deceptive in its function. Sure, you can go anywhere on the map, BUT how often does it pay to leave the roads? Where are the roads? Typically through the easiest terrain possible. I think back on the campaign I played and it struck me how boring the battlefields were. Generally they were flat with maybe a slight grade somewhere. A few had trees, but most were Totomi type (flat & featureless with a minor elevation). With the Risk style map, you were at least forced to fight on some battlefields with wildly varying terrain: Yamato (hills/forests), Shinano (big hills), Mushashi (2 bridges), Bungo (hills/valley/trees), Awa (bridge/cliff), etc. I really missed that in RTW. To be fair, in RTW I didn't do any fighting in the Balkans, Middle East or Africa, so maybe things are different there. However, in my limited game play, the roads railroaded you into very featureless battlefields which, after many battles, led to a very unsatisfying battle experience.

About the STW campaign, it had some very nice features (throne room, seasons,etc), but was far too simple and had some problems as well. Suicide daimyos led to too many early exits for most of the factions leaving you to conquer Japan filled only with rebels. This was boring because clans built up but rebels just existed. Diplomacy was basically fight/don't fight. Many of the campaign features added to MTW and later RTW were things we players were clamouring for after playing the simplistic STW campaign. Of course, with STW in particular, the tactical battles were the main event and the campaign was a sideshow. I remember the Org forums back in the STW days. About 2 months after STW came out, discussions about the SP campaign were pretty much dead as there was nothing new to discover with the simple campaign. All active discussion (and there was a LOT) was about the battles. With MTW and its enhanced campaign, that all changed. Thanks the far greater depth of the strategic campaign, discussions about MTW strategies were quite lively right up to RTW's release. In fact, I can recall some major economic discoveries about the MTW SP campaign almost 2 years after the game came out. That says a lot about how deep the campaign was.

Well, that's my 2 koku contribution to this thread.

Hmmm, all this reflection peaks my interest in the Samurai Wars mod...

TosaInu

02-05-2007, 14:22

Interesting discussion, should read it all again.

I can't say much about M2TW, because I don't have it. I do know though, what I really do not like about the campaign and that's the vanilla 1 turn per 2 years. I already 'moaned' about only 4 turns in STW (the people who were here during Winter 2000, will recall that). I want months, maybe even weeks (depends on the strat map).

The nice thing is that you can change that in M2TW (not sure how well, for it's more than just extra turns per year I seek), Myrddraal made a nice tool for that in RTW. In MTW you got stuck with 1tpy and there's nothing you can do about it. I didn't like it before release (it's a fundamental I don't like), tried a few campaigns (mostly because I had to test a mod for someone), but never got past 30%. I hate it.

The best tactic battles, both SP and MP, were STW ones for me. Not perfect though. Some cons in STW battles: Benny Hill code (units artificially rout when you did more than a few manoeuvres), the gamey every men routs to the exit in your corner and gets slaughtered by one crippled horse there, the simplistic ballistic model (still present in other titles afaik), routing men outrunning tired horses, firecracker guns (even at point blank), ' TW RPS' swamping upgrade system.

MTW VI offers the most extensive unitstats. Units rout more naturally (up to the level where your head starts to spin). But vanilla MP battles are not it. And again the personal party spoilers are hardcoded such as the 4 unit tax or can only be bypassed by cunning mods.

Each title also has pros for me: M2TW has the graphical difference for each unit, it doesn't have to be the yawdropping graphical effect for me in those games, but I like the reduction in clonewarriors. RTW offers the unitspecific upgrades, and the 3D campaignmap acts as nice 3rd layer between the strategy and the tactic battles. You are no longer forced to that nasty bridge battle, you can sandwich the enemy and move to higher ground first. The AI should make better use of it though. MTW VI had the best unitstats (the parameter files, not the values) and a fair battleengine, the platform to make MP battle mods. I can't say much positive about the campaign, the 1 tpy limitation ruins it all for me.
STW WE allows to mod unitstats and the campaign (something STW did not or hardly permit). Had meaningful four turns per year, weather effects, story, tension, music.
STW offered the better vanilla MP battles for me.

I'ld choose a modded MTW VI for the MP battles, such as the Community mod, DUX or SamWars. And STW WE for the campaign (probably using a tweaked unitstat).

Maybe S3TW will bring all good parts together, either directly or by a nifty switch and slider system so each individual can tune the game to his/her taste.

Puzz3D

02-05-2007, 20:00

I'd choose a modded MTW VI for the MP battles, such as the Community mod, DUX or SamWars. And STW WE for the campaign (probably using a tweaked unitstat).
I did post modified stat files for STW/MI (marketed as the Warlords Edition in the USA) which returns the stats to the settings they had in original STW, and the STW/MI v1.0 settings for the new units. I made some notes on how to adjust the naginata cav, battlefield ninja and kensai so that they fit in with the original STW units a little better. Those stats are posted in this thread: old unit stats (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=77560). STW/MI has the drill dojo for retraining units, and the AI clans cannot spend money they don't have which I think are the two main advantages in addition to being able to start a campaign at three different times. Reinforcements also come onto the map at different places along the map edge rather than always the same spot as they did in STW.

Hmmm, all this reflection peaks my interest in the Samurai Wars mod...
You could try Samurai Wars beta7, but the impassable terrain appears in the wrong places on the maps. This is already fixed in beta8, but that hasn't been released yet. I could make the fix available with instructions on how to incorporate it into the beta7. It would be a fairly large download. Another issue with the beta7 is that the castles are too weak. I'm working on that now to get them made stronger for the beta8.

Samurai Wars doesn't have some of the features of STW. There are no seasons, religion, throne room, videos or traders arriving with guns. The campaign starts about 50 years earlier than in STW, and you can build guns once you get the required buildings. The battlefield weather effects are not as good as in STW, but on the plus side you don't have suicide daimyos and cavalry tries to flank. Another interesting thing about the battles is that the map is rotated depending upon from which direction the attacking army comes on the strategic map. All the battle maps are the original maps using the original ground textures with new Japanese models placed on them. There are several maps associated with each province, so you don't always get the same map in a battle in a particular province. You have navies and many other features of the MTW/VI campaign, and there are a lot more clans in the game. All the battle maps are the original maps using the original ground textures and new Japanese models placed on them.

Noir

02-05-2007, 21:30

*edited out and posted in the SWs forum*

Veho Nex

02-05-2007, 22:36

I feel happy that i was first to catch this error and start this huge debate. i just finished reading this twice to see how i can fix this with a mod(RTW) it would be my first but i am pretty good at modding files(non game related one) and adding codes to them that will make ai slightly harder but also(havnt seen this yet) im seperating rome territories and making a "Risk" style map for it but will take a while to do since its project semester so alot of big stuff got to do lemme know if u can help

Puzz3D

02-06-2007, 00:36

I feel happy that i was first to catch this error and start this huge debate. i just finished reading this twice to see how i can fix this with a mod (RTW).
I don't know what error you mean, but in any case, it's best to discuss modding in the appropriate modding forum. Personally, I have no interest in modding RTW because the battle engine is so inferior to the one used in STW/MTW that it isn't worth trying to improve it. The only improvements I see in the new engine are that cavalry can shoot on the move and the new stamina parameter which increases fatigue recovery, but these aren't enough to offset the numerous simplifications. The XGM mod for RTW does as well as anybody is ever going to do for improving the battles in RTW.

Gregoshi

02-06-2007, 01:29

The XGM mod for RTW does as well as anybody is ever going to do for improving the battles in RTW.

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

:laugh4: Just givin' you a hard time Puzz3D.

caravel

02-06-2007, 12:00

Regarding the RTW/M2TW map vs the Risk style STW/MTW campaign map: I thought the new "go anywhere" map of RTW was great when I first heard about it. Now, based solely on the one RTW campaign I've played, I found the new campaign map is very deceptive in its function. Sure, you can go anywhere on the map, BUT how often does it pay to leave the roads? Where are the roads? Typically through the easiest terrain possible. I think back on the campaign I played and it struck me how boring the battlefields were. Generally they were flat with maybe a slight grade somewhere. A few had trees, but most were Totomi type (flat & featureless with a minor elevation). With the Risk style map, you were at least forced to fight on some battlefields with wildly varying terrain: Yamato (hills/forests), Shinano (big hills), Mushashi (2 bridges), Bungo (hills/valley/trees), Awa (bridge/cliff), etc. I really missed that in RTW. To be fair, in RTW I didn't do any fighting in the Balkans, Middle East or Africa, so maybe things are different there. However, in my limited game play, the roads railroaded you into very featureless battlefields which, after many battles, led to a very unsatisfying battle experience.
I have been playing a vanilla RTW campaign as the Greek Cities, in an attempt to see the games plus points (I can count the RTW campaigns I've played on one hand). One of the first annoyances that struck me was how units and ships retreat, exhausting all of their movement points when defeated. In an example of this, after a battle a beaten Macedonian stack retreated southwards, into my lands and made it's way eastwards, southwards and westwards again into the southern Peloponnese, running well inside the enagement area of one of my other stacks, that then engaged it and destroyed it entirely. The following year another small Macedonian stack did the same thing, "rebounding" in the same way, running into my other stack again and being defeated again. Another large Macedonian stack further to the north, sits there doing absolutely nothing useful. Surely the the AI should have retreated that unit into the mountains, northwards anyway, into their own lands. Surely an army would almost always retreat across it's own border, back into it's own province? With all of the movements points it took to head into my land on that suicide mission it could have gone north back to the nearest Macedonian settlement. :inquisitive:

The battles have been a breeze so far. There was one particular battle where I had deployed about 500 men vs the enemy's 1000 (the Macedonians, so the unit rosters are pretty equal). The enemy had the terrain advantage despite me being able to deploy my forces within the box. I was unable to secure higher ground than the enemy. To cut a long story short. The outcome was that I had killed 90% of them and lost.... 17 of my own men... My units were mostly Hoplites, Militia Hoplites, one unit of archers and the general's unit. By engaging them in a frontal assault with most of the Hoplites in Phalanx formation and bringing two spare units in as wingers I was able to hit their flanks hard which caused massive casualties resulting in a morale disintegration. My general's units I used only for hunting down the routers. The enemy eventually threw his own general onto to the pikes.

Their biggest failure though, was their inability to coordinate their forces correctly. There are no attempted flank attacks, no maneouvering, just the usual bumrush, unit by unit. Instead of bringing the his full army to bear, the AI has them hanging back, advancing and retreating, or hurling themselves piecemeal at my lines.

The AI will often send in one or two of the same kind of unit in a full frontal assault no matter what mix of units it has. If, as with myself, the player had deployed a solid wall of hoplites, the enemy will break upon it. In the case of MTW their flanks would then have been threatened. A sneaky cavalry unit would be making his way around to the rear. Not so in this case. The enemy fell for it all hook line and sinker.

Noir

02-06-2007, 13:15

I applaud your... courage for playing vanilla.

There are certain battle oriented mods that fix the skins and the AI formations to good effect whithin the limitations of the engine.

One thing i was always doing is to bring down the movement speed by 30% to 40% for all terrains (unit movement modifiers file). By testing it i realise that it affects fatigue ie the units do evenually get tired whithin the battle time limit and also you can control more the maneuvering phase (not the melee though as other means are needed to prolong this - increase the defence stats and the base moral of units).

By fixing these two there is actually time for repeated flanking (that seldom is available in vanilla - battles always are the bum rush you describe with a flank attack at best) and so it becomes more important as a tactic.

Missiles are horribly simplified (all ranks are firing - no penalties for sight obstruction); mods like RTR make a good job in increasing greatly the number of javelin units (almost all barbarian infantry being heavy or light can hurl javelins very far) and reduce the effectiveness of archers and slingers (that are only there to provide depression in moral and not be killers like in vanilla).

The worst is heavy cavalry that can charge even with a... 5 meter space and being very far appart from each other - people fly in the air still. the turning radiuses and speeds also border on the ridiculous. They can take on anyone except phalanxes in melee.

Again several mods do a good job in taking out melee power and adding to the charge and to supporting abilities like skirmishing with javelins bringing out the true strength of cavalry ie mobility (not brute force).

Puzz3D

02-06-2007, 16:50

Just givin' you a hard time Puzz3D.
I think LongJohn made the STW battle engine better than Mike Simpson ever dreamed it would be, and he improved it further in MTW. The guy was awesome, but he doesn't seem to be around anymore. He got rid of the suicide generals in MTW/VI, and if you play the Samurai Wars campaign, you'll see that it's very hard to the kill enemy generals because they are much more cautious and because cavalry can disengage in MTW/VI. I played an STW/MI Takeda campaign last night using my original STW stats. The campaign starts in 1530, and by 1538 I've killed both the Imagawa and Hojo daimyos eliminating both clans. The Imagawa daimyo died in my first battle with them, and the Hojo daimyo in my second battle with them.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
We're not dealing with the physics of the universe, and it doesn't take a scientist to understand how the Total War battle engines work. Creative Assembly has kept the new battle engine shrouded in mystery, but over a dozen deficiencies are descernable and I'm not going to go into them again because I've already done that more than once. DimeBagHo made the best choices in his XGM mod for RTW for improving the battlefield gameplay. Neither the Chivalry, SPQR, RTR or EB mods have done as well, and Creative Assembly is certainly never going to patch RTW again.

econ21

02-06-2007, 17:36

DimeBagHo made the best choices in his XGM mod for RTW for improving the battlefield gameplay. Neither the Chivalry, SPQR, RTR or EB mods have done as well, and Creative Assembly is certainly never going to patch RTW again.

(I am going way off topic here, but I hope this can be indulged, as getting better battles is arguably the most important issue with TW....)

What do you identify as the "best choices" XGM made for modding RTW? (Particularly those that are better than rival mods)?

I'm curious because I have not played XGM but other mods are still to some extent works in progress and might be improved by learning from it.

Noir

02-06-2007, 18:09

Originally posted by Puzz3D

The campaign starts in 1530, and by 1538 I've killed both the Imagawa and Hojo daimyos eliminating both clans. The Imagawa daimyo died in my first battle with them, and the Hojo daimyo in my second battle with them.

I protect enemy daimiyos with my life in STW battles because the game becomes very easy once they die and they die like flies in battle.

It's funny to be more anxius to tell the gunners to stop firing because the enemy Daimiyo is insisting again to lead the charge, than to win the battle. Sometimes they die with the last volley that comes off by the teppos' seconds before i tell them to halt. :wall:

In MTW its indeed great and in SWs its even better - the general is behaving like an SI (superior intelligence) by staying close to the fight, but not close enough to be risky and deploying his hatamoto at the right time in the right place.

They are also hard to catch or kill even if you isolate them.

It was very frustrating that in RTW, the clock was reset and suddenly all those problems came out anew.

Puzz3D

02-07-2007, 02:06

(I am going way off topic here, but I hope this can be indulged, as getting better battles is arguably the most important issue with TW....)

What do you identify as the "best choices" XGM made for modding RTW? (Particularly those that are better than rival mods)?

I'm curious because I have not played XGM but other mods are still to some extent works in progress and might be improved by learning from it.

A lot of it is tweaking, but the global changes are: turn off fatigue, movement speed reduction (all mods do that), modest lethality reduction and modest morale increase. I've edited the revision history to show only changes that would affect the battlefield gameplay. DimeBagHo has made many changes to the campaign game which are documented in the full revision history (http://www.wmwiki.com/hosted/xgm/xgmreadme.html). The latest version of this mod, XGM version 4.1.24, was just released on Jan 30, 2007. I believe the first version was available in April 2005. The thread at the org dealing with this mod is here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46285). This mod does require the player to fight a lot of battles in the campaign game. Certain factions are extremely challenging to play in the campaign.

Abridged XGM revision history:

XGM Version 4.1.17

-Greek formation changes
-Phalangite formation and stat changes
-Phalangites now use longer pikes

XGM Version 4.1.14

-Some unit stat tweaks

XGM Version 4.1.13

-Removed Naked Fanatics from Iberians and Germans
-Round Shield Cavalry converted to light lancers

XGM Version 4.1.12

-Added Noble Cavalry to Iberia
-Added Scythian Cataphracts to Scythia
-Scythian Early Generals now use Scythian Lancers
-Scythian Late Generals now use Scythian Cataphracts
-Added Militia Cavalry to Thrace
-Removed Light Cavalry from Thrace
-Added Heavy Cavalry to Thrace
-Added Noble Cavalry to Thrace
-Added Megas Hippodromos to Thrace

XGM Version 4.1.11

-Converted Noble Cavalry to Heavy Cavalry
-Converted Gothic Cavalry to Noble Cavalry
-Added Noble Cavalry to Gauls
-Added Royal Stables to Gauls

XGM Version 4.1.10

-Added Agema Hypaspists to Macedon
-Updated Darth Formations

XGM Version 4.1.9

-Added Archers to Iberia

XGM Version 4.1.8

-Added throwing axes to German Nightraiders
-Added Darth Vader's charge distance and attack delay settings

XGM Version 4.1.3

-Tweaked Persian Cavalry stats

XGM Version 4.1.2

-Added Cataphract Camels to Seleucids and Seleucid Rebels
-Added Cataphract Archers to Parthia
-Added Cataphract Camel Archers to Parthia

XGM Version 4.1.0

-Added Javelin Chariots to Gauls

XGM Version 4.0.11

-Added Peltasts to Parthia

XGM Version 4.0.10

-Added Hepteres and Deceres to Ptolemies

XGM Version 3.6.10

-Added Barbarian Cavalry to Britons
-Added Archer Warband to Britons
-Added Archer Warband to Gauls
-Added Archer Warband to Germans
-Removed British Light Chariots
-Armed British Heavy Chariot crew with javelins

XGM Version 3.6.8

-Added swiming ability to several light cavalry units
-Added power charge to all spear armed cataphract and armoured horse units

XGM Version 3.6.7

-Added Late Poeni Infantry
-Added Late Scutarii
-Increased unit size of Desert Infantry, decreased morale
-Decreased morale of many AOR/mercenary units by 2
-Reduced recruiting costs of many Barbarian units
-Increased defense of all units by 2
-Increased defense of spear units by additional 2
-Decreased lethality of spear units from 0.74 to 0.64
-Decreased lethality of phalanx units from 0.9 to 0.64
-Increased attack of phalangite and elite phalangite units by 2
-Phalanx units now suffer high penalties in scrub and forest
-General units now only 1 hitpoint, but defense and armour increased by 2
-Decreased range of elite archer units to 150, Gastraphetes to 170
-Decreased range of elite slinger units to 100
-Javelin and Pilae speeds reduced
-Movement rates reduced from 80% to 70% of vanilla

XGM Version 3.6.6

-Added Thracian Thorakitai
-Added Thracian Peltasts
-Added Thracian Cavalry
-Converted Thracian Late Bodyguard to Scythian Lancers
-Removed Bastarne from Thrace
-Removed Greek Peltasts from Thrace
-Removed Militia Cavalry from Thrace
-Replaced Thracian Mercenaries with Thracian Peltasts

XGM Version 3.6.4

-Fatigue is switched off by default
-Added Ptolemaic Hetairoi/Companions

XGM Version 3.6.3

-Screeching Women removed
-AP attribute added to all axe units

XGM Version 3.6.0

-Ethiopian Axemen added to Ptolemies
-Agema Axemen added to Ptolemies
-Basilikon Guard added to Ptolemies
-Desert Axemen removed
-Iberian Spearmen added
-Macedonian and Thracian Illyrians removed

XGM Version 3.5.3

-Morale for elephant units increased slightly

XGM Version 3.5.2

-Shield wall removed from Thureophoroi, added to Thorakitai
-Slings can not be upgraded
-Archer units attack slightly reduced
-Cavalry unit size reduced

XGM Version 3.5

-Added SignifierOne's animation pack
-Regular Hypaspists reverted to javelin/sword
-Corinthian Hypaspists replaced with Sacred Band
-Sacred Band Units are now, over-hand, spear only, "hoplites"
-Companions/Immortals added to Parthia
-Spartan Royal Guard added
-Early legionaries removed

XGM Version 3.4.1

-Updated to work with 1.5/1.6 patches
-Removed Thessalian Cavalry
-Added Greek Armoured Cavalry
-Added Levy Phalangites to Egypt
-Added Militia Phalangites to GCS
-Increased size of GCS phalanx units
-Tweaked various unit costs and stats

XGM Version 3.4

-All pike formations now use the same pike length
-Added Levy Pikemen to Thrace
-Hypaspists and Sacred Band now use spears/swords
-Added Forest and War Elephants to Numidia
-Removed Militia Hoplites

XGM Version 3.3.3

-Greek Peltasts and some similar units now use javelin for melee as well as throwing
-Militia Cavalry and some similar units now use javelin for melee as well as throwing
-Cavalry units re-balanced, most are now a little weaker

XGM Version 3.3.2

-Egyptian units brought into line with other successor states
-Changed some unit masses

XGM Version 3.3.1

-Recruiting and cost changes for balance

XGM Version 3.3

-Reduced size and increased cost of new heavy infantry units

XGM Version 3.2.2

-Added War Elephants to Armenia and Egypt
-Added Early Legionaries to Seleucids
-Some changes to unit stats

XGM Version 3.2.1

-XGM bug fix for Rhodian Slingers

XGM Version 3.2
-Added movement(-20%)/morale(+2)/killrate(-10%) mod
-Added weather mod (minor)
-Added night battles
-Added slingers to Roman, Greek and Eastern factions
-Added archers to Carthage
-Added Eastern Heavy Infantry to Pontus and Parthia
-Changed Eastern Heavy Infantry to non-phlanax spear
-Changed all non-phalanx spear units to size 60 (except Triarri)
-Added Thureophoroi to GCS, Macedon, and Seleucids
-Added Thorakitai to GCS, Macedon, and Seleucids
-Added Spear Warband to Thrace
-All Hypaspists are now sword/javelin
-Corinthians reduced to 1 hp, cost also reduced
-Other minor unit tweaks

XGM Version 3.1

-War Elephants for Pontus added
-Cretan Archers for Seleucids added

XGM Version 2.2

-Added AnastasioTheGreat's Spartans
-Added Athenian Marine Archers.
-Hypaspists are now more heavily armoured.
-Sarmatian Mercenaries get heavier armour.
-Removed pigs and dogs.

XGM Version 2.1

-Added Thracian Noble Cavalry.
-Added Scorpions for the Greek Cities.
-Included all community bug fixes.

XGM Version 2.0

-Increased javelin range, and added armour piercing attribute.
-Small moral increase for all units.
-Small movement decrease for all units.
-Small lethality decrease for all units.

Puzz3D

02-07-2007, 02:22

They are also hard to catch or kill even if you isolate them.
That's because not only is the hatamoto cav stronger in melee (4/6 att/def) than even heavy cav (3/5 att/def) but cav can also disengage in MTW/VI, and the hatamoto have fast horses (run speed = 22) which can only be caught by yari cav (run speed = 24). In addition, the general's 6 hit points helps him get away as well.

You don't have to play so as to spare the enemy general in Samurai Wars, but going after the general may not be the best strategy in battles where there is lots to do because he is so hard to capture.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

02-07-2007, 03:34

I used to stare at the fricking STW CD Case when I was 8 years old back in 2000 with the

"Seek worthy Oppopnts online"

tag line thinking

"mabye I should!"

but never did. Now I certainly regret coming in 04 instead of 00 :shame:

I just think

STW was and is the most stragetic game in the Total War Series. you still had bugs, but it had more stragetic games then RTW or MTW2 or Heck, Even MTW had (to a point).. I think CA/EA (at that time), was obliolusy just testing with the TW Series offline, and same for MP.

When MTW came along, obliolusy you could see CA buliing up on the "3d Units,thousands of soliders" on one map Prograndea, and of course, no vet who started on STW, or even on MTW for that matter, would buy into that.

RTW mainly had to many Bugs.Cav, Inf, etc... I played RTW and VI every day

VI Every single day, 1-6 hours a day for 6-8 months in 2004 (and other times in 05 and 06 and 07), and RTW around 2 hours a day, December 04 till Octorber 2006 to MTW2

and I realize in each game I played, it went from Very Good, to Horrible, to Borderline Fair again.

In VI I aboustley sucked,but just played for fun, like we all Do. RTW was a more easier Engin to hop onto because of all the bugs.Not Much Taticlly thinking, but easy games to win. I won more games on MTW2 and RTW because of easiler games, but they won't that taticfull. I'm not saying all the games were bad, I had very Excellent 1v1 and team games on RTW and MTW2,

I'm just stating the Fact of, I have better 3v3's on SamiWars on VI or 2v2's on MTW or 1v1 Castles on VI then I do on RTW or MTW2..

econ21

02-07-2007, 23:53

A lot of it is tweaking, but the global changes are: turn off fatigue, movement speed reduction (all mods do that), modest lethality reduction and modest morale increase.

Thanks for the info. Those global changes sound sensible. I applied something like them to the Alexander expansion and they vastly improve the battles.

Certain factions are extremely challenging to play in the campaign.

Before I leave this thread to get back on topic, I have to ask: which factions are extremely challenging? Challenge is a scarce commodity in RTW, even the mods.

Puzz3D

02-08-2007, 02:03

Before I leave this thread to get back on topic, I have to ask: which factions are extremely challenging? Challenge is a scarce commodity in RTW, even the mods.
Well, I've played Carthage with the XGM mod on normal difficulty fighting all the battles myself. I rather quickly got into strategically lost games in the first 7 campaigns. Finally, in the 8th campaign I realized that I had to pay more attention to defeating the Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt). A problem with RTW is that Egypt makes persistent attacks across the North African desert which is not historical. Some mods use an invisble wall to stop that, but XGM doesn't. I'm doing ok in this 8th Carthage campaign by not doing anything on the Iberian Pennisula or in Sicily, eliminating Numidia and then concentrating on defeating Egypt. However, I've set this campaign aside for about 6 months now and haven't gotten back into it. CBR tried this mod as Macedonia, and was doing well but gave up after innumerable battles vs Seleucid Empire became more like work than fun.

Even with XGM there are certain things the battlefield AI does that cannot be corrected which tends to limit the tactics required to beat it. The main challenge in XGM is that you have to climb the tech tree to be competitive in army strength as the game progresses, and at least with Carthage, the economy is not that strong so you can't buy a lot of advanced units or support lots of big armies.

Ninjak

02-09-2007, 13:14

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

post what u think

This game is what started it all. It boosted Creative Assembly, a small company that was mostly developing rugby computer games for EA. I first played this game since 2002 when GTA3 first came to the PC (I bought both games that day). I myself am not a tabletop grognard, I was a flight simmer that was playing Combat Flight Simulator 2 Pacific Theater when I first got this game. I was interested in Japanese military history and military aviation. Playing the demo is what got me hooked into Shogun Total War in the first place along with some other strategy games.~:cool: The worst game in the series has got to be Rome Total War where foot infantry runs as fast as cavalry, where there is no real penalty or bonuses for attacking downhill and uphill in steep terrain or firing volleys of arrows and artillery in the middle of a rain or sandstorm, and where a player can easily beat an A.I. enemy army. Only “fan-bois” that like pretty graphics think RTW is the best because it’s 3D. In MTW, when you occupied the Caucuses and Asia Minor or in STW in southern Satsuma Provinces as the Hojo Clan, your troops would be pissing and crapping in their pants when they saw the sight of the massive “Hordes” invade. It took hours to defeat them in M1TW.

Quintus Of Pompeii

02-09-2007, 23:31

I Disagree completely with RTW being the worst. I have wrote back that I have appologised to all those whom i have offened. IMO RTW is the best (aprt from M:2TW which i have not yet played) because, the campaign is simply astonoshing, the way you can employ assasins to go and kill your enemies faction leader, and general. Also the way, they can sabotage main buildings like Govonors palace. Spys are great for going to see what a neighboroing city that might invade has forces and buildings wise, and if it is worth invading to spendalot of money to keep the town up to date with the other cities and towns. So i disagree with you there my dear friend ~:thumb:

Quintus

Gregoshi

02-09-2007, 23:58

Quintus Of Pompeii

02-10-2007, 20:38

It seems that we are looking at it differently. Quintus is looking at the campaign level while many of the STW fans look at things more from the battle level. The STW campaign cannot campare to RTW from the standpoint of variety. I still think STW's campaign had little touches that are lacking in RTW (throne room and video spring to mind) but it is still a very simple campaign. Some prefer that simplicity, but many of us asked for more and CA has done well with the campaign in that regard by significantly beefing up the strategic aspects of the campaign.

However, many of us old guard were drawn to the game because of the battles in STW. It was like playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own. The campaign was a means to deliver the battles and give them significance. I think most of us wanted a better campaign game than STW delivered but the game still boils down to the awesome battles as the main event. This is where the discontent of RTW comes from for many of us who have been around since STW. The battles, while looking great, are just lacking in too many ways. And because of this, even the greatest campaign map in the world will not overcome the deficiencies of the battlefield.

Thanks for explaining yourself better Quintus. A couple of questions for you if you don't mind. What other TW games have you played? Do you like the RTW battles and for what reasons? Your reply above only talks about the campaign level of the game. :bow:

I have played STW and MTW. I do enjoy the RTW battles for many reasons. For a person who is quite rubbish at stratedgy and just goes all in with simple Peasants, there is the arcade mode, which enables (simple and dumb people like me) to rely on the fact there is no stratedgy. But, i have long since used the arcade and i am now learning to fight using my brain (it hurts quite a bit), and i am settling with this for now.

Oh, if there is any RTW people who are like awesomely good, please help me ~:) but it dont matter if you dont it was just a general plea.

Yeah, back to the fighting ways. The lay out is good. Also the detail the men have is great, and the way i can zoom in and check on my skirmishers (i tend to use samnites). So yeah, i do like the fighting and battles.

Quintus

caravel

02-12-2007, 10:45

I've been continuing my Greek Cities campaign for the last few days, to the detriment of the mod I'm working on in fact. I've managed to get into the campaign game some more, but I'm not seeing the advantages. Firstly, progress is slow and unrewarding, naval combat is tedious with a captial T. I'm presently playing Bireme Pinball. This involves bouncing the enemy fleet around the mediterreanean until it sinks without a trace. I've also played this bouncing game with enemy armies as I've said in the previous post. The only good thing about this campaign map, is some of the traits, retinues and family tree system. I'm not sure as to the point of naval fleets. In MTW they protected your coasts, now they don't. An enemy can still land and disembark on your lands and walk into your province bold as brass. This, for me has taken away any semblance of naval strategy. I'm finding that I'm leaving my fleets in small groups of about four ships, then when attacking I'm bringing one fleet up close to the enemy fleet, then attacking with the second. This is how I'm doing it every time, because numbers seem to be much more important than quality most of the time. (I'm winning 99% of naval engagments like this). Also as these ships have no more impact on trade apart from when they're used to blockade ports, they have been reduced to becoming ocean going predators and transports. With blockading, I had found that when blockading a Scipii port in southern Italy, the AI would send one ship every year just short of the location of the blockade. I would then sink this ship every time it arrived. The AI made no other attempt than that to break the blockade. Similarly the Brutii are building a ship in Sardinia every year and sending it in my direction, at three fleets I have positioned in waiting for it. In the Boshporous Pontu are behaving similarly sending a fleet against my fleet there, every few years without fail... predictable. Also Pontus are desperate to get to my city in Phrygia (I can't remember it's name). I have a single army of 1000 men defending the bridge there that has so far massacred 1000's sent by Pontus. They had taken the city sought of this, near the Mausoleum, but had lost it due to their concentration on taking the northern city. They now look set to lose alot more, of their gains from the Seleucids.

In terms of battles, my men are valouring up rapidly. I still have the same Spartan Hoplite unit I started with. My faction has been the most advanced faction for years now and the Egyptians are always the strongest, mine being the second strongest. The Phalanx units are the most overpowered killing machines on the battlefield... or are they? In one particular assault against Pontic Sardis (I think), my forces rammed the main door, then shot the enemy to pieces up the main street (my two units of peltasts and one unit of archers) After this I advanced the Hoplites (two units of militia, one unit of regular and another of armoured) up the main street and the other street to the left. The enemy, mostly cavalry types, and some eastern infantry, outnumbered my forces about two to one. I expected to have to surround them and wear them down with missile fire prior to engaging them. The reality was, that the enemy commited mass suicide on the phalanx formations dying at a frightening rate, and handing me yet another easy victory. This happens in nearly every battle. The enemy are so easily outmaneouvered and so often miss flanking opportunities. I can surround them with ease, draw them out and pull the out of formation. If they do deploy their own phalanx capable units they waste them. In another battle against the macedonians their Hoplites were thrown away when they attempted to rush my Archers. Bringing my own hoplites up quickly stopped them in their tracks. They were disorganised, out of formation, and my general's bodyguard finished them off charging their rear.

Zanderpants

02-15-2007, 10:13

I remember hearing about STW in Gamepro way back in like 1998. It was the first preview, just a few crappy shots of some no-dachi samurai running around in front of a castle, but I loved (still do), the time period, and at the time, there was no game that, as Gregoshi put so well, was like ".... playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own". I counted down the days until STW came out, and I remember exactly what I was doing and where I was when it arrived via UPS. I even got a new computer so that I could run the damn game. Call that sad or familiar to your own experience, but it was that kind of emotion that has made STW my favorite Total War game. It's true, the game was much, much simpler than recent TW games (Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you), but at the time, it was AMAZING. Since then, I've bought all of the TW games, and I'll continue to until the series ends. Medieval was a big step in the right direction, and Rome was a big step in a different direction, while M2TW was a big step in the right direction started with Rome, but I have enjoyed them all despite their differences. The TW series has comprised the most innovative games in the strategy genre, and although it's different today than in 2000, CA continues to breathe new life in a pretty overdone genre.
Shogun, in terms of complexity and visuals, can't compete with M2TW, but Risk can't compete with Shogun, yet we all still love that old board game. They're very different games, that can't really be compared, akin to apples and oranges.
I truly love Shogun because of the emotions it recalls, not because it's the most impressive game out there (Though I think the gameplay can still give any new strategy game a run for it's money). It is also because it brought me into the Total War genre, which has led to many hours of fun and many fine memories (and around $350 lost to CA ~:rolleyes: ).
Though if I had to choose my favorite TW game/mod, it would be the samurai warlords mod for M:TW,VI. It took the improvements from M:TW and returned the setting from Shogun.
There ya go, I'm back to my rocker and oxygen tank now.
:medievalcheers:

Abokasee

02-18-2007, 19:06

Personnaly, I reckon the first game, any game company makes, is almost never the worst (unless its the only one) in which case STW is not the worst, but the most limeted, look at RTW it had loads of bugs, even with pacthes and updates members had too do most of it them selves, infact most of the mods have less bugs than the realease version.

Togakure

02-21-2007, 03:48

I think it's important to consider the context of a game in its time when making comparisons like these.

At the time of its release, there was nothing like Shogun: Total War. It's graphics were great for its time. I remember being completely blown away by my first real-time battles. That STW can't stand up to the graphic quality of the more modern TW games ... well, I should hope this to be the case!

I find the relative "simplicity" of Shogun: Total War very appealing when I compare it to the other TW titles. It brought a new meaning to the term "Shibumi," which I'd learned about in Trevanian's book of the same name. It has just enough to be interesting; not so much as to become tedious. Strategy map contemplations; tactical challenges complete with terrain and seasonal considerations; entertaining diversions in the form of quality video clips; the Throne Room; the excellent soundtrack--it all fit together in a way that harmonized, making for a very well-crafted work of software art. I love my STW, and always will.

Wasp

02-24-2007, 15:01

Since I don't care much about graphics (I still fire up Monkey Island 1 and 2 once in a while), and I truly value a good AI, I'd go with Shogun and Medieval (1) as the best games in the series. Now I'll have to be honest that I haven't played Rome, and only a small bit of Medieval 2, but from what I've heard and the reviews that I've read, it appeared that those were more focussed on graphics (and the campaign map instead of the battlefield).

Shogun gets a place in my heart for being the first, and having the best atmosphere, and Medieval is the worthy succesor, with many more features.

caravel

02-26-2007, 12:32

Now I'll have to be honest that I haven't played Rome, and only a small bit of Medieval 2, but from what I've heard and the reviews that I've read, it appeared that those were more focussed on graphics (and the campaign map instead of the battlefield).
RTW was very much all about the new 3D unit graphics for the battle map and the new type of campaign map. It's weakness is in it's AI and gameplay balance. It's main strengths are in it's modding potential and the great mods that are available for it. IMHO it appeals to the strategy gamer, though somewhat less so to the veteran TW gamer. The issue for those that have been playing since STW is the length of time they will continue to play STW/MTW. I have pretty much played both games to death, so eventually I will probably have to move on to RTW or M2TW. I am playing some vanilla RTW at the moment, in the form of an ongoing campaign as the Greek Cities. I've seen a lot of the games bugs and flaws so far, though it's stability is good. As ever AI is the main problem, both in the battles and the campaign game. The new style of strategy map has yet to win me over, and I'm finding the battles very easy. Another example of the "use of terrain", "open borders" and movement points system being far from perfect is the way armies retreat. In a recent engagement on the campaign map I was able to force two Pontic armies to separate and retreat to the east and west, then attack the weaker one and destroy it before engaging the other. If it had stood it's ground and fought it would have had a better chance, with the assistance of the other army. Just one example.

Since I don't care much about graphics (I still fire up Monkey Island 1 and 2 once in a while), and I truly value a good AI, I'd go with Shogun and Medieval (1) as the best games in the series.
Monkey1&2 are classic games, the sequels I've never played, though I have heard they weren't as good as the originals. I had Monkey1 on 5 1/4" floppies. I did eventually get a CDROM with both games on it. That eventually ended up in a charity shop, and I've never been able to find it anywhere since.

Wasp

02-27-2007, 19:29

Ah, thanks for the review, Cambyses!

I'll probably pick up Rome if I see it somewhere cheap, 'cause I'm sure my laptop can handle that one. Not sure about Medieval 2 though, and that one is too expensive for me anyway, at the moment.

I'm just a tad worried about the AI.. but I guess I'll have to see it for myself. The Rome time period sounds like a new age to battle in.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

02-28-2007, 11:00

...the campaign is simply astonoshing, the way you can employ assasins to go and kill your enemies faction leader, and general....
Sorry, but I disagree. The M:TW campaign was much better. You could kill your own generals when they went a bit mad, started becoming drunken loonies or (worst of all) lost all their loyalty. Also it was really convenient that killing an enemy man actually did something for you rather than simply killing him off - the army he was commanding lost valour and his provinces became filled with dissent. This enable you to cause a revolt or created yourself a terrified army to fight the next turn! Even better your men could revolt and turn "rebel", I'm yet to see that yet, I just kill my men the second I get that warning about them. Also taking the faction leader out for a trip far away caused unrest which was much more realistic than having your leader in the middle of Asia Minor as Gaul and not having the provinces at home thinking about taking adavantage. Really it was the most fun and realistic out of the TW seiries and I just love it and always will!

caravel

02-28-2007, 11:23

Sorry, but I disagree. The M:TW campaign was much better. You could kill your own generals when they went a bit mad, started becoming drunken loonies or (worst of all) lost all their loyalty.
The loss of the ability to kill your own generals and agents is a very big loss in my opinion. I've no idea why CA removed this. It should have instead been expanded upon. In MTW you could do it as often as you liked with few ill effects. With RTW they could have taken it a step further. Killing your own men should have been a risky affair with the chance of being found out, causing vices, scandals, revolts, civil wars etc.

Also it was really convenient that killing an enemy man actually did something for you rather than simply killing him off - the army he was commanding lost valour and his provinces became filled with dissent. This enable you to cause a revolt or created yourself a terrified army to fight the next turn! Even better your men could revolt and turn "rebel", I'm yet to see that yet, I just kill my men the second I get that warning about them.
I still habitually do this before attacking, knowing that it makes no difference unless it's a family member. Assassinating would have no effect on a province, though removing a high dread governor would have had some effect on the province he was governing. You mention civil wars, another feature that I miss. Surely even more relevant in the RTW time frame, than in the medieval one?

Also taking the faction leader out for a trip far away caused unrest which was much more realistic than having your leader in the middle of Asia Minor as Gaul and not having the provinces at home thinking about taking adavantage. Really it was the most fun and realistic out of the TW seiries and I just love it and always will!
Agreed also. This has been replaced by the "distance from capital" which is a factor but should not have replaced the "distance from faction leader" which is also important, if not more important. I'm sure that the governor/people in a remote Roman settlement would be more interested in knowing that the faction leader is actually down the road with a huge army, rather than how far away the capital is?

Omanes Alexandrapolites

02-28-2007, 13:36

:bow:

I think you can kill your own spies with assassins through an exploit in the R:TW game engine - if a spy is in a town and you send in an assassin then he appears on the hit list, yet killing spies isn't really going to help you very much in controling family problems. That is where one way boat-trips come in handy, but would a general with any sense get on a fleet to go to his death?

Puzz3D

02-28-2007, 18:50

That is where one way boat-trips come in handy,
Ingenious!

Omanes Alexandrapolites

02-28-2007, 22:04

Ingenious!Erm, not really, I stole the idea off the .com's tactics page :embarassed:

César Victor

03-01-2007, 14:02

I think I may re-install this game. I had good times on the campaign mode but never really finished one properly. I played as the green faction- I forget the name- and did it about half way before the Geisha started peeving me off.

EDIT: It was Shimazu who I played as :D

caravel

03-01-2007, 16:29

I played as the <Shimazu> and did it about half way before the Geisha started peeving me off.
The Geishas are just ridiculous, the trick is to have your own stock of Geishas and use them only against the other faction's Geishas to neutralise the problem. I'm not sure if they can be modded out, if they can then I would do it (along with the Kensai and, Battlefield Ninja).

The Foolish Horseman

03-02-2007, 18:59

I bought this game with total war eras and pleyed recently, and i was amazed by how good this game actually was

tha AI in this game is so much more advanced than in RTW and MTW2 and the game is so much more entertaining.

If CA could implement the AI from this and MTW/VI and the graphics from MTW2 and RTW, then it would be the best game in the series

Trajanus

03-04-2007, 06:22

After reading all of the above it seems to me that CA have been too hasty in their new games.

Everytime a new game comes out and players look around the files they find things such as "Multiplayer Campaign" etc. just sitting around but not doing anything. Whats more the initial 2 TW games (STW, MTW) had (as mentioned above) actions in the game that have been removed in the latter 2 games.

The example of princesses and killing your own generals etc. for MTW, and the balancing of AI and units, and the throne room and videos in STW. (From what I read it appears CA put the videos back into M2TW, so at least they are beginning to understand)

I guess we have to take into account, that they need to mould the game around the era they are basing it on, which may be a reason why somethings such as princesses in RTW are missing, although I'm sure they could have been factored in somehow.

However it seems to me that CA have a problem with great ideas but perhaps not enough thought for them. For example: Lets make the units completely 3D, and give players the option of hunderds of units then they wont get bored! However to not balance the units properly makes it pointless as Yuuki has mentioned in detail. (for multiplay)

On the other side for singleplayer should they be balanced? I don't remember reading about wars in history not happening because one faction's army was bigger than the other, in fact in single-player thats the idea! So I guess it shows that CA are still not too bothered about multiplayers, although by the small number of files about multiplayer campaigns in the RTW (or M2TW game, I dont have either) game folders, shows that they were at least thinking about it.

As to the best or worst TW game... I played STW from around late 2000, and loved it. But then at that time there was no MTW, RTW, M2TW, so no comparison. But it seems to me CA are trying to add far too much into each game, and not expanding the previous games actions more. Why would I want amazing graphics that my computer can't handle, when instead I could have a more in-depth game with politics, diplomacy and strategy that it could handle?

So in short...no TW game is the worst. Each has its added bonuses that the others do not...all I want to see is for CA to roll all these added bonuses in each game into 1 game and work on them to make them more diverse. A game engine isn't just about graphics ~:)

Roller

02-16-2008, 15:08

Interesting thread. Anyways im going to purchase the TW:Eras package and find out, as i have not played any of these games up to 1 week ago. I guess i missed some fun heh.

So far im playing the original STW 1.12 campaign and very enjoying it.

What is the difference between MTW and STW? What would you suggest to begin first with from the above compilation. Graphix i dont care for, gameplay, AI and tactics i do. Shogan: TW looks pretty good for me actually. Good map overview.

Wasp

02-16-2008, 15:57

Well, Shogun has less factions and units than Medieval, but better balance. Also, it seems to pull you into the timeline (Sengoku period) better with nice artwork, video's, etc. Medieval, on the other hand, has more options on the strategic map (princesses, generals with virtues and vices).

I'm sure someone else can do this a lot better than me, but it's something at least ~:)

Martok

02-16-2008, 21:05

Glad you're enjoying Shogun, Roller! It's always a treat to see someone discovering the joy of this game for the first time. :2thumbsup:

What is the difference between MTW and STW? What would you suggest to begin first with from the above compilation. Graphix i dont care for, gameplay, AI and tactics i do. Shogan: TW looks pretty good for me actually. Good map overview.
Well although I believe the engine was tweaked so that MTW looks a little bit better, both games are still essentially the same from a visual/graphics standpoint. The main difference between the two is that MTW features more options (especially on the campaign map) and greater complexity at the cost of less-than-optimized balance and AI. I would also say Medieval's atmosphere isn't quite as superb as Shogun's (although it's still very good IMO).

MTW has more playable factions, more political/diplomatic intrigue (trying generals for treason, dynastic marriages/alliances, civil wars, etc.), and a more sophisticated & involved religious model/system (Crusade, Jihads, Inquisitions, ex-communications, etc.). Your dramatis personae -- kings, princes, generals/governors, etc. -- are more personalized now, as they have ratings for their Influence/Loyalty, Dread, Piety, Command, & Acumen, as well as possessing various Vices & Virtues which affect their abilities on & off the battlefield. Finally, Medieval includes a Glorious Achievements mode as an alternative to playing your standard Domination/conquest game, which -- while not perfect -- offers the player an alternative way to beat the game without having to conquer the whole bloody map. ~;)

All that said, there are a number of things in which MTW is noticably inferior to its predecessor. The AI (on both the campaign and battle level) isn't quite as good as in STW, probably due to the game's increased complexity. There are fewer "chokepoints" on Medieval's map -- which makes it harder for the AI to cope with the larger strategic situation -- plus the game has a lot more "hybrid" units (troops that are proficient in both ranged & melee combat), which the AI doesn't really know how to handle. In addition, Medieval's AI seems less able in its ability to decide when to go to war with other factions and/or backstab its allies; many of us MTW players talk about how our 20-province superpower was attacked by a 2-province kingdom. ~:rolleyes:

Also, as Wasp already pointed out, Shogun is much better balanced that Medieval. There's no "uber" unit in STW -- everything troop type can be countered by another -- nor is any clan unwinnable (although the Hojo & Uesugi nearly always do well, of course). MTW has quite a few units which are either over- or under-powered, and the same can be said of some of the game's factions -- the French & Egyptians nearly always become superpowers, for example, while the Turks & Aragonese are often eliminated inside of the game's first 50 turns.

Finally, while Medieval has a great atsmosphere, Shogun's is still unquestionably superior. The artwork, the sounds, the voicework, and the music/soundtrack all combine together to really draw the player into feudal Japan and the world of the Samurai. When I play STW, I really *feel* like I'm there leading my clan to greatness (or ignominy, if things aren't going so well :laugh4: ). MTW does a pretty good job of sucking me in as well, but to a lesser extent.

So to sum up: Medieval has deeper, richer, more complex, and more dynamic gameplay than Shogun does. It also has greater replayability, since it has "more" of everything: units, factions, etc. In conrast, Shogun is a relatively simple game, but its elegant simplicity is part of its charm & appeal: It has fewer factions & units, and so is much better balanced. In addition, the game's AI and overall atmosphere remain unrivaled by any of the other Total War titles, MTW included.

In the end, you can't really go wrong either way. Both are excellent games in their own right, and both have their strong points & weaknesses. :yes:

Between the two, my personal favorite is Medieval (mostly because I really like that era in history). That said, Shogun is still the better game overall IMHO, and I still play it -- it'll always have a spot on my hard drive. ~:)

Tony Furze

02-17-2008, 06:35

MTW I can quite happily play for fun-I dont mind how many times I have to restart, and the choice of units...well, your spoilt for choice,and with any mod its even bigger.

(Is there a mod that reduces the number of units?)

However,Shogun is quite serious fun. I get quite irate and emotional and every man counts. You really feel bad about losing soldiers,so you try to preserve units. There s no real such thing as a "junk unit".

Mouzafphaerre

02-17-2008, 09:09

.

Is this the worst out of the Total War series?
Somebody's trying to get himself lynched. :yes:
.

Tony Furze

02-17-2008, 09:17

What would happen if you asked that same question on all the other forums-for RTW, M2TW, for instance? Given the small number of clientele who visit this one...

Maybe I ll don a Caravellian/Henry V cloaking disguise and try it out...

Mouzafphaerre

02-17-2008, 10:53

.
Well, my MiNO sucks thread received about 70% approval at the Citadel. :laugh4: But that's maybe 'coz they were afraid of me. :skull:
.

LittleGrizzly

02-17-2008, 14:57

This game (STW/MI) swallowed more hours of my life than any other game has ever managed thats why it is the Best in the total war series

Spongie

02-17-2008, 15:50

Playing my first MTW campaign after hammering through STW over a dozen times, and I have to say that the strategic map on MTW is a bit of a slog. Having to micromanage each province means I'm spending an age on each turn (don't want to automanage them, that's not the point of the game) and there's always that temptation to hold off initiating a battle because you hope to get better units with which to outclass your neighbours enemies.

STW's risk-style campaign map is certainly relatively limited, but the battles seem more accessible and, because of the shorter timespan, there's less of an arms race. To put it another way, yari and archer samurai are still central to my battleplans even at the endgame in STW; I don't find myself using basic spearmen, basic archers and urban militia in High period MTW when I can churn out billmen, Swiss halberdiers and longbowmen.

Also, nothing beats charging an all-cavalry army at an all-archer-samurai army, as seems to reside in Bizen a lot when the AI owns the place :charge:

Wasp

02-17-2008, 17:45

However,Shogun is quite serious fun. I get quite irate and emotional and every man counts. You really feel bad about losing soldiers,so you try to preserve units. There s no real such thing as a "junk unit".

Except for those bloody peasants ~;)

Martok

02-17-2008, 18:50

Except for those bloody peasants ~;)
Actually, I find that even Yari Ashigaru can be very useful in the right circumstances. Aside from the time-honored tactic of using them to soak up arrow/ballistics damage, they're also suprisingly good in a number of defensive situations -- you just need to position & utilize them correctly.

As one example, I've honoured up many YA as the Hojo, just by having them defend against Clan Takeda's repeated invasions of Musashi. They've often handled the bridge defense by themselves, not even needing the aid my Yari Samurai (who always stand ready to back them up). :thumbsup:

Roller

02-18-2008, 09:32

Thanks. I will try everything! :D With Rome at last.. tried the demo, they run like they are on steroids..

Togakure

02-19-2008, 01:03

See if you can dig up some of the replays Sasaki Kojiro posted some time ago that illustrated how Yari Ashigaru can be used with devastating effect--even against the monks of Ise and Yamashiro in the early game of an Oda campaign.

TosaInu

02-19-2008, 13:08

(Is there a mod that reduces the number of units?)

Hello Tony Furze,

I don't recall it was released, as it was easy to make. Since it is easy I can throw something up pretty quick.

I used a customised stat that lowered the number of all samurai units and increased the number of ashigaru (except guns). The YA were made weaker per man to compensate, as a unit they were tougher, morale permitting.

That's the size of units, if you mean reduce the amount of units, no you can't do that with STW. You can't add or remove units, the only thing you can do is make a unit worthless, tweak the purchase files and hope you won't see too much of it.

Yari ashigaru can be quite useful (in MP they were a big pain). They have drawbacks, but larger benefits.

Pro:
-Cheap to produce, Oda even has a discount iirc.
-They tech up in the same way like the tough units like warrior monks, for free, 'free' or cheaper. The YA is the unit that benefits most from upgrading. A province in Shikoku trains H1 from the start iirc.
-Have a combat modifier (total 8 pts.) vs cavalry and can void frontal charges (good vs both cavalry and no- dachi).

Cons:
-Low morale, but that improves when they level up.
-They are ashigaru and thus very sensitive to see routing friends (it sometimes even looks like routing enemies are too much for them). When one runs, there's a fair chance that everything runs.

It's very important to have some good samurai around to avoid a mass rout and you'll probably have to regroup a few times. Just selecting all units and charge usually fails (you need superashis, H7+ & upgrades, for that).

I usually start building YA, more YA and some archers. Add a couple yari samurai to avoid a mass rout. Being on track of upgrading the YA, buy some naginata infantry for even more staying power.

Add yari cavalry (also uses same yari dojo and a new cavalry dojo) to kill enemy routers, attack enemy projectile units and to hammer the back when the spear/naginata anvil holds the front.

Already having both the archery- and cavalry dojo, buy some horse archers (nice unit).

It's ok to build a no-dachi or monk when you've captured enemy infrastructure, but I usually don't invest too much on these expensive targets.
By now there should be a good income though, by being conservative on military hardware, ports, mines and farmupgrades can be purchased.

Go Dutch and buy muskets.

Train shinobis to keep your province happy and ninjas to protect your daimyo/heir.

Conquer the rest of Japan.

Drisos

02-20-2008, 15:57

With Rome at last.. tried the demo, they run like they are on steroids..

Ah yes, it's crappy. The actual fighting takes only a few seconds in Rome... In Shogun the battles are far longer, far more intresting, far more balanced. In battles, Shogun is MUCH better then Rome, IMHO.

I do enjoy the new aspect of the campaign in Rome though, and the better graphics... but, the atmosphere in rome is nothing compared to shogun, at least for me. Playing a Shogun campaign get me to imagine begin really a part of it... Rome is just a video game for me. It has some nice new stuff in the campaign.. that's all improvement there is, for me.

In addition to Tosa's post: Oda train Ashigaru for 75 koku. they get the 25% discount on the upkeep as well. The region in Shikoku to train honour+1 ashi's was Tosa, iirc. hehe, same name :P And I do recall a second region exisiting somewhere where ashi's had honour+1, but I can't recall which.

:bow:

Wasp

02-20-2008, 17:14

Owari has the Ashigaru bonus (Oda starting province) and the most south of the provinces on the small ronin island get the bonus as well.

Martok

02-20-2008, 18:44

Yep, Owari and Tosa on Shikoku Island are the 2 provinces that give a +1 bonus to YA trained there (although I always forget about Tosa).

The region in Shikoku to train honour+1 ashi's was Tosa, iirc. hehe, same name :P.

:bow:
You know what's sad? I'd honestly never made that connection until now -- I always thought he'd taken his name from one of Korusawa's films. :laugh4:

Drisos

02-20-2008, 19:41

Hehehe, I stumbled on another possible explanation of the name. You'll never guess where. In a book on dogs.:dizzy2:

Look for 'Tosa Inu' in google pictures. ~;)

TosaInu

02-20-2008, 20:14

I registered at WestWood to play Red Alert online late '90's. Many nicks were taken, that's an understatement, and I didn't want a random string. Then I took TosaInu. Yes, it's because of the dog.

LittleGrizzly

02-21-2008, 00:27

I had always assumed it was the japanese province and Inu was japanese as well.... intresting to now

TosaInu

02-21-2008, 01:38

It is Japanese LittleGrizzly: inu is Japanese for dog, tosainu is dog from the tosa province.

ReluctantSamurai

03-04-2008, 02:01

Not having MTW or any of its variants, I can only compare STW to RTW.

The initial attraction to RTW was quite good, for me. I liked the complexity, loved watching my elephants or cataphracts send warriors flying, or watching as my onagers and archers burned a village to the ground, but............

.....after the newness wore off, I began to grow increasingly irritated with the tediousness of managing cities (yes, I know there's automanage, but I rarely agree with "what's-her-name's" recommended builds as far as timing is concerned)....the absolute stupidity of the naval battles (you have to surround an opposing fleet on ALL eight sides to sink it outright even if you have an overwhelming power/number superiority)......the very predictable tactical maps (either you have a height advantage or you don't and on most maps there's no way to out-maneuvre the position)......the absurd degree to which traits are carried (very nice idea.....but waaaaay overdone!)........and I'm only getting started:dizzy2:

When I started noticing things like archers firing for THREE MORE ROUNDS after being ordered to cease-fire (one actually has to move them after giving that order to get them to stop right away).....or some of the totally absurd units like Naked Fanatics, Fire Pigs, Screeching Women, etc...........or the fact that the British Chariot Archer (basically a donkey cart with wheels) could out-run my barbarian light cavalry in a heavy snowstorm......

.......and a whole multitude of very irritating "stuff", I figured it was time to play something else. When the whole strategic aspect became tedious and boring, that left very little else besides the close-ups to keep me playing because the tactical aspect was terrible.......in STW it gave me great pleasure to set up an ambush with inferior forces and pull off a victory......in RTW I got to do.........................................well that never happened in several dozen campaigns:inquisitive: ......in STW with some hard work, a little planning, and risky deployment, there's almost always a way to outmaneuvre an opponent........in RTW, either you have positional advantage or you don't and there's little to no room for maneuvre (especially in the desert).

To make a loooooooong story short, while STW may be simple in terms of the strategical map, it is far more satisfying to out-think a much better AI than RTW's, and win it on the battlefield (which is why I never used geisha).

As the song goes: "The thrill is gone........................................."

Martok

03-04-2008, 03:19

Well said, ReluctantSamurai. :bow:

Wasp

03-04-2008, 08:48

Glad you saw the light, ReluctantSamurai ~;)

caravel

03-04-2008, 10:10

The "absolute stupidity of the naval battles" has always been my biggest gripe with RTW. Instead of navies controlling areas of sea as they do in MTW, they are effectively transports that can blockade and attack the enemy transports but nothing else. Due to this and their limited range, they confer no strategic advantage as they do in MTW. The MTW system was far from perfect but with improvement it could have been a good system. Implimenting some pathetic RTS thing was not the answer.

R'as al Ghul

03-04-2008, 11:35

Here's an image of TosaInu in full armour on the Samurai Warlords battlefield:

https://img126.imageshack.us/img126/8093/sono05030558image0020ga7.gif

:clown:

Puzz3D

03-04-2008, 11:44

Here's an image of TosaInu in full armour on the Samurai Warlords battlefield:
Well the dog had his day on Sunday when he pulled of a victory against 3 remaining opponents who all had cavalry and couldn't finish him off.

R'as al Ghul

03-04-2008, 12:24

Well the dog had his day on Sunday when he pulled of a victory against 3 remaining opponents who all had cavalry and couldn't finish him off.

Indeed!
Must've been the new nickname. :laugh4:

ReluctantSamurai

03-05-2008, 04:07

"The "absolute stupidity of the naval battles" has always been my biggest gripe with RTW. Instead of navies controlling areas of sea as they do in MTW, they are effectively transports that can blockade and attack the enemy transports but nothing else. Due to this and their limited range, they confer no strategic advantage......"

___________________________________________________________________

I most wholeheartedly agree. That is THE single most annoying feature in the game, for me (although the overuse/abuse of family traits is a close second) Also, when you blockade a port, and your enemy builds a ship within the confines of your blockade, that fleet should be destroyed if it cannot break your blockade (either alone or with outside help). After all, isn't that what a blockade does? Nothing in....nothing out:idea2:

That and the fact that a fleeing enemy fleet can totally ignore your zones of control (often fleeing right past several fleets) and end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially when carrying invasion troops):stupido3:

caravel

03-06-2008, 17:38

I most wholeheartedly agree. That is THE single most annoying feature in the game, for me (although the overuse/abuse of family traits is a close second) Also, when you blockade a port, and your enemy builds a ship within the confines of your blockade, that fleet should be destroyed if it cannot break your blockade (either alone or with outside help). After all, isn't that what a blockade does? Nothing in....nothing out:idea2:
The flaw there is having the port tile that is inside a walled dock. Ships should simply issue straight out on to the open sea as they did in MTW, the reason they don't is to allow them to form into groups, as the AI is poor at doing this (both on land at at sea in fact). I find that my multiple ship fleets are usually taking on enemy single ship ones. The majority of multi ship AI controlled fleets are rebel pirate fleets and these are spawned as is.

That and the fact that a fleeing enemy fleet can totally ignore your zones of control (often fleeing right past several fleets) and end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially when carrying invasion troops):stupido3:
I dislike the "naval pinball" game that ensues every turn. A lone enemy ship "bounces" off about three or four of my fleets until it is sunk or somehow manages to survive.

The gross error is that shipping lacks zones of control. In trying to appeal to the RTS market anything risk-like was done away with to the detriment of the game itself. The ships demind me of Warcraft II, I keep expecting them to grind onto the beach and a band of orcs to jump out. This kind of micromanagement is not needed in a TW game.

It would be far more effective if your shipping took control of a region according to defined sea zones and were then classed as controlling it. This is better than having one big sea area. Controlling certain seas could then give powers over the merchant shipping passing through (whether by taxing, allowing safe passage, sinking or by piracy as desired). Armies should be able to board a friendly fleet for transportation if they are in an adjoining coastal province to the sea zone where the ships are located, there should no need to actually micromanage the ship ashore to do this.

Agents should not have to use the navy at all but should move by the merchant shipping. That is to say that right clicking an agent to an overseas destination should cause him to first walk to the nearest port. If the port is friendly, allied or neutral he will board a ship (basically by entering the port the agent becomes a small ship), if it is an enemy port he will board but you will be warned of the risk involved (this will depend on the agent type, spies and assassins (stow-aways/enlisting as crew etc) most at risk, diplomats at risk from mysteriously falling over board). Once the agent becomes a ship he heads for his destination and cannot become an agent again until he gets there, how long this takes depends on the distance. Most journeys should only take about 2 turns. Once he arrives at his destination port the agent alights (ceases to be a ship and becomes an agent again) and then continues with remaining movement points to advance towards his destination on foot. Clear as mud?

:bow:

Wasp

03-07-2008, 12:10

Sounds like a much better way of doing it, caraval.

Shieldmaiden

03-07-2008, 19:01

I just noticed this thread...

Shogun was my very first TW. For me, its the purest - the essence of TW. I can't describe why. It had it.

Later TW's are more complex - but to get down to the core of TW and why it is TW, play Shogun.

Togakure

03-07-2008, 22:43

ReluctantSamurai

03-08-2008, 23:40

"Ships should simply issue straight out on to the open sea as they did in MTW, the reason they don't is to allow them to form into groups, as the AI is poor at doing this"
____________________________________________________________________

My gameplay experience was a bit different than that.....fleets tended to be quite large after about 250BC, especially the Roman ones. My counter was to have large fleets as well, which I would break into smaller ones as time went on.
____________________________________________________________________

"I find that my multiple ship fleets are usually taking on enemy single ship ones."
____________________________________________________________________

This would become the case for me much later in a campaign, although if playing a non-Roman faction, and you let their fleets go unharrassed, you will still be looking at large-scale battles even as late as 200-175 BC.

____________________________________________________________________
"The ships demind me of Warcraft II, I keep expecting them to grind onto the beach and a band of orcs to jump out. This kind of micromanagement is not needed in a TW game."
_____________________________________________________________________

:pirate2: ~D :laugh4:

__________________________________________________________________

"It would be far more effective if your shipping took control of a region according to defined sea zones and were then classed as controlling it. This is better than having one big sea area. Controlling certain seas could then give powers over the merchant shipping passing through (whether by taxing, allowing safe passage, sinking or by piracy as desired). Armies should be able to board a friendly fleet for transportation if they are in an adjoining coastal province to the sea zone where the ships are located, there should no need to actually micromanage the ship ashore to do this."
___________________________________________________________________

Wholeheartedly agree:2thumbsup:

carbz

03-10-2008, 15:44

Im going to have a go at buying STW after this. I came to RTW after playing an awful lot of rise of nations, i love RTS and micro management, but dislike turn based games like CIV that have no RTS element. Indeed RTW is turn based to an RTS gameplayer like me.

Overall I think RTW fails in its attempt to incorporate RTS elements to it, but i do like its complexity and the myriad elements, its just a shame they dont friigin function properly and have limited strategic scope! However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations. We will see though.

i do agree though, RTW tried to be all things to all people and managed to dissappoint seemingly everyone!

certainly I wouldnt be shelling out big cash on buying any new TW game, but im going to dig out an old copy of stw because of teh well written and well argued comments in this thread.

kudos to all.

Wasp

03-10-2008, 16:59

Enjoy the game then, carbz! You'll find the battles a lot more balanced and exciting than in Rome. The strategic map doesn't have all the options that Rome has, but I don't find it boring or anything.

Gregoshi

03-10-2008, 22:30

...RTW fails...but i do like its complexity and the myriad elements... However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations.
carbz, I'm not sure by your comments that you will enjoy STW. In comparison to MTW and RTW, the STW campaign is rather shallow. Many of the campaign features in the later TW games came out of suggestions made by STW players because of things lacking in the Shogun campaign. The main focus of STW was the battles and the campaign map gave meaning to those battles. I remember the Org when STW came out. Nearly all discussion of the SP campaign died out after a month or two simply because there wasn't too much depth to the campaign, whereas, SP campaign discussions of MTW were quite lively at least up through the release of RTW.

That said, the other features of STW more than made up for the lack of depth in the campaign game. The throne room, the movies, the music, the variable harvest, the four seasons, and even the cool Risk-style campaign map add an immersion faction that is powerful - as many posts in this forum can attest to. Throw in the battle features and you have one amazing game.

If you go into STW with realistic expectations, maybe you will find it enjoyable, but your comment about liking RTW's "complexity" made me wonder if you might be going into STW with a expectations the game won't be able to meet.

BTW, STW is my favourite TW game despite its shortcomings. :2thumbsup:

vcklfjw64

03-16-2008, 01:40

MTW was not so fundamentally flawed on it's release (yes it was bugged but not to the extent of RTW).

Uh, you mean aside from the fact that it CTDs about every 10 minutes, due to CA's programmers' epic failing of nVidia compatibility class? A problem which has never been fixed to this day, 3 years later? I've never heard of RTW crashing like that, not even straight out of the box. The fact that it has more patches than MTW doesn't mean it NEEDED more patches. It means it GOT more patches. What NEEDS more patches is MTW. But from the perspective of tech support, MTW is now abandonware, and has been for years.

For many of us the abstract Risk style map and more abstraction and less micromanagement in general is in fact more immersive than the RTS style map of RTW and later.

LESS options equals MORE immersive? I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level. Ridiculous artificial unit balancing, like you'd find in Starcraft . given that you're talking about a turn-based game of grand strategy, which is in fact not 100% combat-oriented, but rather includes espionage, assassination, politics, economics, rebellions, naval warfare. Pretty much unlike an RTS in every conceivable way, except that there is strategy on the table. You could have compared it to Civilization Note that Civ isn't an RTS franchise, because it conspicuously lacks the RT, being TB instead.

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level? If I want to play Risk, I'll go play Risk. RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before, and it was done brilliantly. I don't know if you notice, but the entire map, EVERY traversable cell on the campaign map, has a unique battlefield, and they actually connect together. That is, the entire game world is rendered in the battle map. And changes in the campaign map are reflected in the battle maps. If you fight at the tiptoe of Italy, you can look west during the battle and actually see the Strait of Messina, and Sicily on the other side of it. If you had ships in the strait when the battle started, they will BE there when you look. That's what the word "immersive" actually means. . I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

Gregoshi

03-16-2008, 04:53

LESS options equals MORE immersive? Yeah, pass that crack pipe, man...

Have you ever played an RTS? Do you actually know what the letters in "RTS" stand for?

Might want to look that up, since apparently it's complicated to figure out.

That's what the word "immersive" actually means. You're apparently confused about that, and think it means something totally unlike, and possibly the opposite of, immersive. I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

There is no need to be rude and condesending vcklfjw64.

I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level. Ridiculous artificial unit balancing, like you'd find in Starcraft (which is an RTS, in case you didn't know). If you think STW is a credible war game, you've never played a credible war game.
Again, no need to be insulting. However, are you maintaining that unbalanced units = a good game? What good are 100 different units if only 10-20 of them "useful" in combat and are the only ones ever built? All good games have some form of balancing, else there is no challenge for one side or the other.

That probably has something to do with the fact that you think RTW's campaign map is "RTS style", which couldn't be further from reality.
I believe it was CA that was throwing around the RTS label. Most STW/MTW fans only complained that CA was "catering to the RTS crowd" with some of the features and user interface changes. There is no argument in my mind that all the TW games are turnbased.

Why are you kids...
This 48 year old kid wants to know what you have against kids? ~D

RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before, and it was done brilliantly. I don't know if you paid attention...
Sure, the marriage of the RTW campaign map to the battle maps is a first and is brilliantly executed. Too bad the battles don't live up the visuals. It seems that the most positive comments RTW fans can make about their game have to do with the stunning visuals. Excuse me while I inject a bit of humour here: RTW is the "dumb blond" of the TW series (my apologies to the blonds out there) - she sure is hot to look at, but don't try to hold a conversation with her. I certainly don't find RTW battles to be immersive when I'm pulling my hair out because my cavalry can't catch up with the fleeing infantry. Of course, maybe if I was looking at those boats out in the water, I'd be more calm about those slingers who should be running in the Kentucky Derby. Maneuver is essentially pointless in RTW once contact is made as the battles are over (for better or worse) before I can complete that brilliant flanking move I'd ordered. And I've said this in another thread, but I find 90% of the RTW battle maps boringly similar - relatively flat with little or no terrain to speak of. No hills, maybe a bit of trees if I'm lucky. At least that is my experience with RTW.

I really wanted to like RTW - Legions, greats visuals, lots of "improvement" on the strategy map. But I eventually reached a point where I realized the strategy part of the game wasn't as good as I thought it would be and the battles were completely unsatisfying to play. So I just stopped playing the game.

Tony Furze

03-16-2008, 07:14

Where s that lynching rope, Mouzafphaerre?

Seriously, I m not a fan of Risk at all, in fact I used to find most games too difficult and hard to put my attention to for any length of time. I ve actually devolved to STW from , first , MTW to MTW/VI then to RTW then back to MTW now to Shogun Total War.

I m seriously considering STW to be the best.

The RISK map is, as I ve mentioned before, decisive. Your decisions are crucial to your progress and build up. It s more of a chess-like feeling. So the RISK comparison may be deceptive.

As to what is immersive, that s a more complex issue. Its a lot to do with projection of imagination and being faced with (once again) decisions that count. On any level. I ve not worked it out yet,and I may never do so, but there is something quite involving about the choices you make in STW with "additional"
factors that really get to you.

I ve been thinking of beginning a thread sort of along these lines but have nt thought it out fully yet-after all I don t want to spoil the fun of the game by over analyzing it.

To cut it short: theres something very gutsy about Shogun Total War.

Drisos

03-16-2008, 22:15

LESS options equals MORE immersive? I bet you think a nice game of Rock Paper Scissors is even more immersive still, as that's basically what STW is at the tactical level.

Speaking of 'LESS options'... as I said here before, in RTW:BI a 20-Cav army beats any other army to the last man within seconds. Even with a tribe with weak cavalry. (saxons) and even against spear units. and even on expert level. I must say, this 'more options' in rtw is realy giving me exciting and intresting battles... (not)

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level? If I want to play Risk, I'll go play Risk.

this comparison is ridiculous. STW and risk have 1 thing in common and you say you'll play Risk as if it's almost the same?

RTW's campaign interface was something that had never been done before,

Does that matter? It didn't add much.

has a unique battlefield, and they actually connect together.

ah indeed.. yet the forests are incredibly ugly (not to mention, the entire battle map?), and the great height-advantage thing in STW was totally lost with the release of RTW. how brilliant is that? :sweatdrop:

Wasp

03-17-2008, 00:02

I agree with those defending Shogun; it seems like vcklfjw64 (seems like a troll to me, good to see he's gone) has never played the game and only wanted to cause some ruckus. I'm glad to see the Sword Dojo react so well to it, though!

Not much more to add to the other guys, only that the terrain in Shogun seems to be the best one in the series to me.

ReluctantSamurai

03-17-2008, 00:54

you're talking about a turn-based game of grand strategy, which is in fact not 100% combat-oriented, but rather includes espionage, assassination, politics, economics, rebellions, naval warfare.

ASSASSINS

Let's see........in STW you can get assassins quite early (one only needs a ninja house to train them) and as you upgrade the dojo you get better & better assassins until (if one so chooses....I don't) you can produce the ultimate STW assassin-the Legendary Geisha. In RTW, you have to wait until a settlement's size is big enough to build/upgrade the appropriate building (usually many years into the campaign) and you are NOT guaranteed to get a higher level assassin, but often you only get one with ......."talent."

Sorry, but for all the money spent, and I'm STILL subjected to a "roll-of-the-dice" to get a trained assassin??? I prefer the STW method.

ESPIONAGE

Let's see.....in STW I can train many, many shinobi and send them out to create unrest in enemy lands even to the point of rebellion. It is, in fact, one of my favorite phases of the game......keeping an opposing Daimyo hustling around trying to calm rebellions and away from my REAL objective, which is usually far away. In RTW, I can train spies which have to infiltrate a city to lower its loyalty to the point of rebellion. All well and good. I can get tossed out of one of my own cities at around the 40-50% loyalty level. I've repeatedly seen the AI let an opponent keep its city at 25% loyalty or less......no matter how many spies I piled into a particular city. Frustrating to the extreme. I have, on a few occasions, managed to get a city to rebel, but with the absolutely a$$inine method RTW uses to conduct city sieges (often a handful of units conducting a siege on an army much larger than itself) the city will be back in their hands in short order. For the money and effort spent to such short-term ends, I finally gave up.

POLITICS

If you mean sending out swarms of diplomats to bribe enemy armies, sell map rights, etc., I don't see that as politics. If you play a Roman faction, family members can be elected to Senate posts, which nets you Command, Management, or Prestige points. Big deal:dizzy2: If you mean negotiating alliances.......well not much has changed since STW. Your ally will more than likely turn on you in the not-so-distant future. In the several dozen RTW campaigns I played, only once did an ally keep the alliance until the end.

ECONOMICS

The single most tedious aspect to RTW, bar none. Having to micromanage dozens of cities just gets to be boring after awhile. Using the Automanage feature doesn't always get you what you want, when you need it. By the middle of the game, when some cities start approaching the 30,000 mark, the only way to keep the squalor under control is to move the entire garrison out of the city, and massacre the populace when you regain control. Nice feature!..........NOT.

NAVAL WARFARE

I saved the biggest snafu for last. In addition to the overuse/abuse of family traits, the stupid method chosen to represent naval warfare is the other reason RTW will remain on my bookshelf collecting dust for quite awhile. If I wanted to play pinball, I'd go to the nearest mini-mall and head for the arcade room. That fleets have to be surrounded at all point of the compass to be sunk is ludicrous, at best. That an enemy fleet can totally ignore ZOC when fleeing is even worse......that it can do so repeatedly and often times end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially true when troops are embarked) is the ultimate screw-up. And would someone please explain how you can cram all those troops on a single bireme??? (I've seen an entire 20-unit army on one of these:inquisitive: ) I'd rather have the naval aspect built-in as in STW (simple as it is), than be subjected to playing naval pinball.....:no:

Why are you all so hung up on previous Total War games playing like Risk at the campaign level?

The FEELING, my friend, the feeling. My very first battle in STW was the "historical" recreation of Oda Nobunaga's battle at Okehazama. Ok, so the Battlefield Ninja probably aren't all that historic, but the feeling of fighting in a crashing thunderstorm (which are a joke in RTW).........of having to hold the flanking attack until the right moment (visions of Mel Gibson in BraveHeart as the English heavy cavalry approach....."Hold.............Hold............Hold...................NOOOWWW!) and the whole atmosphere of the era reflected by the Throne Room decor, etc. I played that battle over again several times just for the thrill of it......

And fighting in near blinding fog....my favorite! I absolutely love fighting in heavy fog....oh the traps one can set.............

Only once in RTW, in several dozen campaigns, did I ever get emotionally involved...............once.

That's what the word "immersive" actually means. . I believe that would be crap, which is what STW is.

To each their own, my friend.........I can easily get "immersive" for a STW campaign, not so for RTW. Too bad so much time and energy, not to say all the money, to create a game that is average.......................................at best.

carbz

03-17-2008, 14:00

carbz, I'm not sure by your comments that you will enjoy STW. In comparison to MTW and RTW, the STW campaign is rather shallow. Many of the campaign features in the later TW games came out of suggestions made by STW players because of things lacking in the Shogun campaign. The main focus of STW was the battles and the campaign map gave meaning to those battles. I remember the Org when STW came out. Nearly all discussion of the SP campaign died out after a month or two simply because there wasn't too much depth to the campaign, whereas, SP campaign discussions of MTW were quite lively at least up through the release of RTW.

That said, the other features of STW more than made up for the lack of depth in the campaign game. The throne room, the movies, the music, the variable harvest, the four seasons, and even the cool Risk-style campaign map add an immersion faction that is powerful - as many posts in this forum can attest to. Throw in the battle features and you have one amazing game.

If you go into STW with realistic expectations, maybe you will find it enjoyable, but your comment about liking RTW's "complexity" made me wonder if you might be going into STW with a expectations the game won't be able to meet.

BTW, STW is my favourite TW game despite its shortcomings. :2thumbsup:

mmm well the post directly above mine has only augmented my feelings that stw will be fun. I agree entirely that whilst rtw tries to be clever and immersive with regards to the economy and alternatives to fighting, it actually fails miserably.

Gregoshi

03-17-2008, 16:13

Well, then go for it carbz! I was just concerned with some of you comments that you might be going into STW with false expectation regarding aspects of the TW game you said you liked. I hope you find it as enjoyable as the rest do here. :yes:

Puzz3D

03-17-2008, 16:17

However I think I will get bored with STW if its just fight fight fight with no or limited economic considerations. We will see though.
That's exactly what STW is mostly fighting battles with little economic management. I would suggest you get Medieval/Viking Invasion because it has more management aspects than Shogun, and unlike RTW the management stuff works properly. Also, the battle mechanics are improved over Shogun, and the AI is just as good except that it doesn't handle artillery very well. You can always add the Samurai Warlords mod to turn MTW/VI into Shogun (there is no artillery in Shogun), and there are other excellent mods available for MTW/VI.

Spongie

03-18-2008, 05:46

Uh, you mean aside from the fact that it CTDs about every 10 minutes, due to CA's programmers' epic failing of nVidia compatibility class? A problem which has never been fixed to this day, 3 years later? I've never heard of RTW crashing like that, not even straight out of the box. a quick bit of googling (which, incidentally, is how I found this site) and the graphics setting problem was quickly fixed.

Also, a newer game being more compatible with newer hardware? Who'da thunked it? :dizzy2:

Krasturak

03-19-2008, 21:48

Motorcycle Cavalry that move like a flock of swans... Gah...

*opens coffin*

*creeps out of coffin*

Gah! Krast agrees! Gah!

... but then again, Krast *mostly* does agree.

Except when he's hungry.

/OOC

So, having tried the STW, STW/MI, MTW, MTW/VI and RTW, it is clear to this game player that the original STW was the best game experience.

Not the best visuals. Not the best sieges. Not the best flying motorcycles.

But certainly the most interesting and exciting puzzle, to figure out how to command the 16-unit army (play chess, anyone?), to set up flexible armies, to get online and face off against other players ....

It's maybe hard to nail it down, but the original STW brought out more of the personality of the players in the way they fought their armies. Something instinctive was possible, even not knowing any of the numbers behind the game mechanics. The companies of soldiers were worth something and moved with graceful purpose.

MTW was too technical for this to happen. You could win by knowing which of the 100 units to select from its overbalanced attributes. You could win with the same army over and again, regardless of terrain. Even the most glorious cavalry charge was missing grace. It was a technical maneuver, the timing didn't seem to matter, the outcome was decided when you made the unit purchase before starting the battle.

I wanted MTW to be good, to be better than STW. And in some small ways it was, but overall it fell short. I tried to make this work for myself, but it didn't last. The game couldn't support my needs.

Before I bought STW, I saw an add for it. I thought it was one of the RTS-style games, and didn't expect to try it. RTS was never my bag. When I discovered the idea of STW, I got excited and the rest was history. In RTW I discovered everything I feared about the Totalwar series. In exchange for the 3d models, I got nothing I wanted. Gameplay wasn't just ho-hum, but actually horrid. The strategy game side obviously learned nothing from decades of development in comparable board games such as "Republic of Rome".

And to dream, how it might have been ....

Well, there it is.

/OOC

Gnish! Gnash! Gni!

*waves axe*

*creeps back into coffin*

Gah!

*closes coffin*

Drisos

03-20-2008, 00:22

Hey Krast! ~:wave:

You could win by knowing which of the 100 units to select from its overbalanced attributes. You could win with the same army over and again, regardless of terrain.

To this day I still never tried MTW well enough to speak of it.. but the words above fit to my vision on RTW as well.. though I didn't play online much, people brought the samen factions, same armies, etc.. no variation at all. No significant terrain or weather stuff. It's simply boring. And I've not even mentioned the presence of waaay too many waaaay to annoying/childish people in the foyer.

Before I bought STW, I saw an add for it. I thought it was one of the RTS-style games, and didn't expect to try it. RTS was never my bag. When I discovered the idea of STW, I got excited and the rest was history.

Also recognizable! :yes: I never liked the turn-baser strategy stuff.. I only liked cossacks, age of empires, etc. Yet, STW did it for me. By far my favourite. ~:) There's way more time to think, etc, because of the turn system. ~:)

Btw, have you heard of Samurai Wars, or considered trying it? (mod for MTW:VI, with an MP crowd.)

TosaInu

03-20-2008, 00:40

Hello Krasturak.

caravel

03-20-2008, 01:18

Welcome back Krasturak :thumbsup:

I agree with those defending Shogun; it seems like vcklfjw64 (seems like a troll to me, good to see he's gone) has never played the game and only wanted to cause some ruckus. I'm glad to see the Sword Dojo react so well to it, though!
I'm always suspicious of those that register with gibberish names to make one single post full of absolute bile in a particular thread, targeted at a particular post or individual, in perhaps the least busy forum on the board and then proceed to disappear. I suppose IP addresses reveal the whole truth... :book2:

I must say that I for one don't relate immersion to eye candy and eye candy alone. A tiled map that loads up a representative battle map from the tile on the campaign map doesn't really do it for me, especially when 99% of these maps are the same boring flat land on or around the roads. That alone doesn't cause me to sit there stunned at the brilliance of it's conception, it doesn't amount to "immersion" either. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it doesn't shine through as a brilliant feature that I'd want to shout about.

On the whole the STW map may be risk-like, but the RTW map still reminds me of Transport Tycoon or Sim City, as at the end of the day it's a tiled map, nothing amazing and certainly nothing new. The one thing you can say about STW/MTW is that due to the Risk-style map, every battle had some meaning as every battle was for the control of the province itself and not simply a throwaway border skirmish, that you'll probably have to play again in an identical fashion in a few turns time. This is aside from the fact that most battles in the newer games tend to be boring and heavily bugged sieges as opposed to open battles anyway (cue the "historically most battles were sieges blah blah blah" claptrap).

I'd also have to debate the so called failing on "nVidia compatibility class". This issue simply doesn't exist. There are flaws in STW/MTW when trying to run it on newer graphics hardware, but this is a failing of many older games in fact and not just TW games. It is also a failing of the graphics card manufacturers not maintaining backwards compatibility in their drivers as older driver releases usually solve the problem.

:bow:

Drisos

03-20-2008, 01:47

The one thing you can say about STW/MTW is that due to the Risk-style map, every battle had some meaning as every battle was for the control of the province itself and not simply a throwaway border skirmish, that you'll probably have to play again in an identical fashion in a few turns time.

So true! In RTW, battles in open field are kind of useless. (unless you murder family members in battle)

It's all centered in 'settlements'.. they are your only goal. forts are useless, armies in open field are useless. etc. makes the game more boring.. (even more! :idea2: )

:bow:

eddy_purpus

03-20-2008, 03:50

hey man .
i been hearing alot about Shogun Total War .

so

that game comes with the total war eras pack ?

:feedback:

Martok

03-20-2008, 05:42

hey man .
i been hearing alot about Shogun Total War .

so

that game comes with the total war eras pack ?

:feedback:
Yes it does. Pick it up and play it -- you'll be glad you did. :yes:

caravel

03-20-2008, 21:17

So true! In RTW, battles in open field are kind of useless. (unless you murder family members in battle)

It's all centered in 'settlements'.. they are your only goal. forts are useless, armies in open field are useless. etc. makes the game more boring.. (even more! :idea2: )

:bow:
Precisely, it's a tedious settlement micromanagement game.

:bow:

eddy_purpus

03-21-2008, 01:31

Yes it does. Pick it up and play it -- you'll be glad you did. :yes:

Ok :vanish:

LoL I would like to play Shogvn Total war one of these days .
i will get it sooner than later :thumbsup:

thank you :shakehands:

TosaInu

03-21-2008, 12:04

Shogvn Total war

Romanvs.

ReluctantSamurai

03-22-2008, 02:25

Precisely, it's a tedious settlement micromanagement game.

Exactly:2thumbsup: When I got to the point where a two-hour long turn was an hour and three quarters managing settlements and 15min of resolving battles, that's when I decided to put the game back on the shelf...........................:no:

eddy_purpus

03-23-2008, 04:02

Romanvs.
Lol it because i like the v better than u letters in a word.
i dont know why i just like the way it looks in phrasses =P

TosaInu

03-23-2008, 13:58

Lol it because i like the v better than u letters in a word.
i dont know why i just like the way it looks in phrasses =P

~:)

Brave

03-26-2008, 17:28

Not a chance is it the worst, it is the forefounder of all happiness.

Yesugey

12-16-2009, 16:25

As you guys can easily see; we older players have strong emotional connection with STW and MTW, and it effects our decisions.

But newbies have a mistake too: surely RTW and M2TW is far more better than older ones, but better graphics and units are not everything, STW is better on some points, no matter how old it is.

As for my opinion:

After every new TW game, TW series lost things and won new features. On MTV, we had general's unit. With RTW we had really enjoyable unit type variations, Elephants, Chariots and alot more.

But producers of TW never been able to put everything we like on one basket. Weirdly, they always fix some mistakes, but beside making new ones, they also corrupt some good ideas.

You see; When we play Shogun, we wanted to take prisoners. So producers added taking captives option, which is really good improvement. But on RTW, they excluded that very basic feature.

And now in M2TW, we have captives but we cant kill them on the battlefield, which is very annoying because you have to release all prisoners if you want to gain some cash from captived enemy King.

On RTW, we like to watch wall defenders fall from the walls. But on M2TW, no one ever falls during fight!

On RTW, we had cool unit flag bearers for some unit types. (Urban Cohort has two.) I was so curious about the unit leaders of M2TW, but they were removed!

I liked the berserkers of RTW, but there are no Berserker, or Chanter unit on M2TW.. Pilgrims could be great chanters, for example.

On MTW and RTW, we were able to hit the buildings and burn to the ground. But on M2TW, there is no way to collapse a normal house! We cant hit an enemy unit if it hides behind a house...

There are tons of more examples.

I am ok with mistakes, and i believe TW series gets much much better with every new game. But they have to determine some points of the game.

G. Septimus

12-16-2009, 16:30