M2TW, does anyone like the original better [Archive]

OldSchool

03-05-2007, 09:46

Yeah. I guess I'm a die-hard. MTW is one of my all-time favorite games and I still play it. I bought Rome and didn't like it, so when I want to get my Total War on, I roll back my video drivers and load up good ol' MTW.

I don't see myself buying any more Total War games, but they seem to be doing just fine without me, and I'm quite happy modding and playing the one that I like, so no hard feelings on my part.

As far as why I like MTW better, I don't know how to get into that without sounding like I'm bashing the newer games, which I don't want to do. I should just say that I like the game for the tactical aspects of the battles and the strategic aspects of the campaign map. It's all about gameplay for me, and nice graphics or cool new features are just no substitute.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are plenty who prefer the newer games, and since I'm not allowed to have them shot, I've decided to pretend like that's a valid point of view. :no:

caravel

03-05-2007, 10:20

I still play MTW from time to time, but am trying to move on to Rome. M2TW I'm not intending to get until it's been patched a few times.

OmarPacha

03-05-2007, 11:17

I haven't got any hardware need with MTW2, as I have a good video card that allows me to play at 1280x1024 on maximum level of detail.
This said, I've played with MTW2 two campaigns, Venetians and Russians and then I've uninstalled :no: it.
Currently I'm playing and ~:thumb: modding MTWVI that I find, by far, more enjoyable than the other.

Cheers

caravel

03-05-2007, 11:48

My PC won't run it either, I forgot to mention that. For me it'll have to wait until I can upgrade and until the game has been patched a few times. I don't want to get into this sort of situation:

:director: :computer: :whip:

:stars:

The Unknown Guy

03-05-2007, 12:18

If I had had the hardware to run Rome (let alone MTW2), I´d have moved there straightfoward from Shogun instead of looking for a cheap offer in Ebay of MTW:VI

Caerfanan

03-05-2007, 14:42

I'm stuck with MTW:VI, I love too much the viks! :-)

I started a Rome campaign yesterday. The game is fairly different. I don't have a real opinion yet, but the game seems to be different... so I don't think that I'll quit MTW:VI for M2TW which looks much like Rome (but lags too much on my computer...). I guess I could be playing both...

I'm not in the "mod mood" though... I still play vanilla.

drone

03-05-2007, 17:07

I have M2TW, but I need to upgrade my machine to fully appreciate it, so I'm waiting for now (also want it patched as much as possible). I did not like Rome, the battles were too quick and easy, and the campaign map was just a chore to deal with. I have no problems playing MTW for a while yet, and I'm even looking into getting STW, which I never played.

Martok

03-05-2007, 18:37

Budwise

03-05-2007, 23:15

Thanks for your comments. I have moved over, I just came back and checked to see what people wrote. If you enjoy the older game stay with it. Rome didn't interest me either but M2TW has got my full attention.

Odin

03-06-2007, 19:53

I still prefer MTW/VI over Medieval 2. Both are fun games, but I find that Medieval 2 simply doesn't capture the atmosphere of the original. M2 actually improves on certain elements (religion being a big one); but for me at least, it lacks the same level of immersion as its predecessor.

I agree with Martok, for now. Having recently converted over to MTW2 and not played RTW the curve is steep. I agree with Martok that it just dosent grab me as capturing the atmosphere.

In defence of 2, i will say that we are comparing a polished MTW VI that has the benefit of extensive patching and user feedback. MTW2 is still a teething child that has some growing pains to get through. I see through the haze a great game emerging, the religion aspect (particularly the pope) is an upgrade, and diplomacy has the potential to be potent with some tweeks to AI behavor and a user mod.

Overall the battle AI seems lag behind MTW VI (XL Mod) as its simply rare in the 7 or so battles I have played in 2 that i ever feel in real trouble. The AI isnt able to muster much in the way of quality units. Additionally, the lack of factions at start lends to land grabs and I find the AI over stretched early and it takes a concerted effort by the player to wait until the catch up. By then your churning out specialized units because you have cities specialized...

So the short answer is comparing a baby to its older brother isnt really fair until the 2nd child grows up. MTW VI with the XL mod, today, to me is a better game.

Caliburn

03-12-2007, 00:44

The games are very different, and both (and even Rome, not to mention Shogun) can be quite enjoyable. It's a good thing that there is really no need to choose between them, though my hardware doesn't really keep up with the battle graphics. Both are flexible when it comes to playing style but very differently. In VI there were glory goals, raking in the cash with a tiny faction and developing only a few regions, while in M2 developing trade is dirt easy, and developing other aspects of a region isn't so central (short building times, no REAL need to specialize, if you manage the income).

Spreading out and collecting new lands is the most important thing in the long run. But then again, you can butter the Pope as well as all the other factions, use Assassins in creative ways. (After the nasty Hungarians, my allies, captured Constantinople it is easy enough to sabotage all the order-enhancing buildings and maybe even the chrusader himself - wait a few turns, after standing a stack of quality troops to create more morale penalty and presto! Rebellion, and the city of cities is ready for the taking).

Great games, but I still see myself returning to MTW:VI after some 5 years, whereas I'm not so sure about M2. But that might just be nostalgia or something, like preferring Super Mario (8 bit) over whatever they have these days (not like in the good old days...)

Ignoramus

03-12-2007, 02:19

I agree with what Martok said. M2 just doesn't have the immersion of the original. Also, although I feel challenged in battles, they are not really of any consequence if I lose them. The AI is horrible in following up after its victories, and as such it's pretty hard to lose.

_Aetius_

03-12-2007, 08:02

M2TW is superior to MTW VI in all of the major aspects of the game, in terms of religion, diplomacy, trade, missions, unit rosters, in terms of how it looks it's miles ahead of MTW VI obviously, graphics aren't everything but they add so much to this kind of game as realism plays a big part.

At the same time I think they are to different to compare to much, one is 2 generations further on than the other, how can such games be compared when such leaps have been taken in the years between their releases?

VI is a great game and M2TW doesnt quite have that feeling/mood MTW VI has, but is streets ahead of the catastophe that was RTW. I always feel mods can improve a game, make it more realistic to appeal to those of us who want a specialised version of the game instead of the commercial version with appeals to everyone.

I believe mods can build on an original and make it a greater more refined more realistic experience, that should be the role of mods, they make games better but shouldnt have to make games playable like in the case of RTW. RTW vanilla is IMO totally unplayable, only with the Realism mod could I enjoy it.

M2TW is a success, because I am very happy playing it as it is, just as I did with VI, XL made it better as did BKB's super mod, but MTW VI wasnt crying out for a mod and neither is M2TW IMO.

The AI in TW games has never been particularly good AFAIK, in VI the AI trained way to many skirmisher units and used to attack my fully balanced army with little more than an army of ballistas and trebuchets. It's better in M2TW, but then M2TW stretches the AI far more than in VI so were there are gaps in the AI's capabilities they are bound to stand out far more. VI did a great job most of the time in papering over the cracks, the simplicity of the campaign map is the best example I think.

Is MTW VI better than M2TW as a game? Not by a long shot, but as an experience VI has a special significance that only Final Fantasy VII equals to me in terms of games. In pure terms though M2TW is massively superior.

chris12345

03-12-2007, 11:00

must admit found M2TW a real turnoff. the graphics are nice but the battle scenes arnt much better than RTW. the biggest downfall for me was the AI. the diplomacy side is an absolute nightmare which makes the gameplay very restricted. it reminds me of the old command and conquer - build a base and conquer the enemy. next level - build a base and conquer the enemy. theres no ability to use tact or cunning with M2TW AT ALL. a very poor showing that should have been released as an add-on at most for no more than £15. will be sticking to RTW and advise others to do the same.

caravel

03-12-2007, 11:39

Unfortunately TW made the transition to base building with the release of RTW. I have found RTW to be similarly uninspiring. I am currently on another campaign as Gaul, I found the Greek Cities campaign to be much to easy, and after giving the Thracians, Macedonians, Pontus and the Romans collectively a good hiding I've lost interest. There is one formation and one combination of units that always seems to work. Hitting the enemy sufficiently hard in a battle triggers an all out rout, even if I'm out numbered 4 to 1. The Gaulish campaign is little better, I have one some stupidly ridiculous victories and look set to wipe out the Julii, with my forces besieging their last city. The only units I've used so far are Warbands, , Skirmisher Warband, Swordsmen and Barbarian Cavalry. The Britons arranged trade and map information, then attacked the next year, they are now gone from mainland Europe. The following year they arrived with the offer "please do not attack - accept or we will attack" (????). I cleared that, and countered with my own proposal, managing to secure 20 years of tribute at 200 denarii a time and a ceasefire. Then they went and allied with my worst enemies the Julii, so I proceeded to attack and destroy their last army on the mainland, which was another easy victory despite the enemy being twice my size with better units and some of the fabulous suicide chariots (the ones that are so good at hurling themselves at a phalanx with violent abandon). The diplomacy is extremely poor, the AI is extremely poor, and if diplomacy is poor in M2TW it is just continuing on from the RTW diplomacy.

econ21

03-12-2007, 12:24

the diplomacy side is an absolute nightmare which makes the gameplay very restricted.

If you want the diplomacy to work you either (a) have to keep the difficulty level at medium; and/or (b) work on good relations and a good reputation. On higher campaign difficulties, relations with the AI are programmed to worsen over time. So if you want meaningful alliances, good neighbours etc, you have to do something to counter-attack that - typically gifting money. Your reputation will also slide if you do nasty stuff like sack cities or assassinate people; this will also cause your relations to deteriorate. In some of the Citadel threads, you can find examples of people have maintained excellent relations with many factions and a spotless reputation. But most of us casual players just focus on the combat and get total war as a result.

it reminds me of the old command and conquer - build a base and conquer the enemy. next level - build a base and conquer the enemy. ... a very poor showing that should have been released as an add-on at most for no more than £15. will be sticking to RTW and advise others to do the same.

Weird - its far more challenging than RTW in my opinion. Play on VH battles; never sack a city and don't rush the AI - then tell me it is very poor.

theres no ability to use tact or cunning with M2TW AT ALL.

The battles allow for tact and cunning just as much as the earlier titles. I've played three battles in a M2TW PBM and each one allowed me to use different cunning tactics to take a settlement:

The "he's behind you" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1389546&postcount=3

The "ladder feints" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1435424&postcount=12

The "how to take a settlement with no siege engines" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1452279&postcount=21

caravel

03-12-2007, 15:45

econ21

03-12-2007, 18:30

_Aetius_

03-12-2007, 20:12

Indeed, and Homer had a good write-up but that Ulysses was just exploiting the weak Trojan AI with that wooden horse thing...

To be pedantic right back at you: I'll wager more tact and cunning went into ancient and medieval sieges than field battles. The siege engineers of the time, from Archimedes onwards, were typically more cerebral than the field commanders. Medieval field battles, particularly, tended to be unimaginative affairs - form up three battle divisions and have at it, sort of thing. With siege assaults, trying to take the enemy by surprise and overwhelm a weak point was critical to avoiding a bloodbath.

I agree with you here, there aren't as many examples as people would think of a battle where one commander won by a stroke of genius over the other, battles were probably as a standard nowhere near as imaginative as Cannae for example. More likely to have been more of a Zama, a long bloodfest, both sides hacking away at the other until one couldnt take it anymore, the inevitable rout claiming more lives than the battle itself.

Sieges were different, it often took ingenuity to seize a well defended city or fortress, a small piece of information, finding the tiniest of access holes the defenders knew nothing of, they could go on for months or even years as both sides tried to outwit the other. Some were decided by storming, but it was often only the last resort as a bloodbath would take place regardless who won.

Odin

03-12-2007, 20:30

Hmmm... those are great write ups, but as far as tactics go, I'm not sure they're the sort of "open battle" tactics that I would call "tactics".

If I wanted to get all critical and pedantic ( ~;) ) I could call those examples AI exploits, taking advantage of the AI's inability to coordinate it's forces and fight a battle on multiple fronts.

:bow:

I had a battle with an AI rouge army in wales last night, the AI was the weaker force. While I was getting my units in order and moving to locations I wanted, the AI placed 2 long bow units on a cliff with a spearmen support unit that guarded the only path leading to the commanders mailed nights and 2 more escort spearmen.

I was on very hard, and i took losses but i did win. I had to think tactically in order to win, do I bum rush the general and have his 2 spearmen charge down a slight slope at me? all the while taking fire from ranged units?

Do i take out the archer position? I took out the archer position with the only units i had fast enough to get to them without being chewed up in a hail of arrows. I sent 2 hobilars first and they got chewed up, next were mailed knights. sent 2 units of them and they got the job done, but with 50-60% losses.

Eliminating thier position on the cliff allowed my ranged units unfettered access to the generals position, and even then when the arrows were spent I had to go up a slight slope and rout them out, taking more losses.

So the AI used terrain and set up a decent defensive position, nothing I couldnt handle, but he wasnt running around make foolish charges then feint back which I have seen the AI do in MTWVI many many times.

caravel

03-12-2007, 21:54

Indeed, and Homer had a good write-up but that Ulysses was just exploiting the weak Trojan AI with that wooden horse thing...
Totally different. Troy didn't have automatic doors that open for friendly units and allow enemy units to slip in.

To be pedantic right back at you: I'll wager more tact and cunning went into ancient and medieval sieges than field battles. The siege engineers of the time, from Archimedes onwards, were typically more cerebral than the field commanders. Medieval field battles, particularly, tended to be unimaginative affairs - form up three battle divisions and have at it, sort of thing. With siege assaults, trying to take the enemy by surprise and overwhelm a weak point was critical to avoiding a bloodbath.
I wasn't contesting that point. When I said "field" tactics I was referring to tactics that don't involved the exploitation of the AI's inability to coordinate it's forces. Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about. They're nothing new, they're not evidence of a great improvement in the battle engine either. They are simply a matter of deployment.

More to the point - I've only played 3 battles, all sieges, in that PBM so far but they each gave me pause for thought. I could have just barrelled through a breach or even autoresolved, but to say there is no ability to use tact or cunning is just wrong.
I wasn't saying that there was no ability to use tact or cunning. What I did say was that if I was going to be critical and pedantic I could have called all of your tactics AI exploits. In my opinion they are a bit of both. I feel sure that you fought those battles very well, but concentrated on the feints of the ladders, the back door and sneaking in the front door with the routers. The question is, if that were a multiplayer scenario do you believe you would still get away with it? ~;)

Edit: I wasn't being hostile, nor picking an argument either, if it came across like that, or if this post comes across as argumentative, then I apologise.

:bow:

Ignoramus

03-13-2007, 11:25

To be honest, I agree with Cambyses.

To be fair, MTW2 has improved over Rome, yes. But I still find that the only battles I lose are either because of the shield bug(and thus Dismounted Men at Arms getting slaughtered by Peasants) or if I'm hopelessly outnumbered.

I've enjoyed the PBM that econ's in, and fought several battles too. However, none of my victories have been to my skill, rather the AI's lack of it. They allow me to single out their general all too often, which results in an instant rout.

In Rome, I, too, found it uninspiring. Campaigns were a walk-over, and battles were ridiculously biased in cavalry's favour.

econ21

03-13-2007, 11:32

Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about.

Linking is not shouting.

They're nothing new, they're not evidence of a great improvement in the battle engine either.

Did I say they were?

I wasn't saying that there was no ability to use tact or cunning.

Indeed, but I was responding to the poster who said there was no such ability.

caravel

03-13-2007, 13:25

Linking is not shouting.
Misunderstanding?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+nothing+to+shout+about

Did I say they were?
I didn't say that you did, you've quoted selectively. I was making a side statement that the types of tactics you're using aren't as a direct result of improvements to the battle engine. My main statement was this:

Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about. They're nothing new...

Indeed, but I was responding to the poster who said there was no such ability.
Basically I think this debate is going nowhere. Perhaps I was too quick to jump on your example and was over critical of it, in reality I cannot comment accurately on M2TW until I've played it, so any of my opinions are from an RTW perspective. Though so far, a lot of the user feedback I'm reading about M2TW is quite off putting. Still, it is an unknown quantity, at present, and like Rome will probably need to be patched a few times before it's decently playable.

:bow:

caravel

03-18-2007, 00:32

I was playing a siege in RTW today and was back into the "head shaking disbelief" mode. Basically I was playing as Gaul and had a tiny garrison of two units, Mercenary Hoplites and Chosen Swordsmen for the record, besieged in the city just to the south of Rome (forgot it's name!). My total number of men was just under 300, the Brutii attacking have 2500 including ballistas. They began lined up (attacking on only one front despite the size of their force) in front of the front gates out of range, with their ballistas shooting repeatedly at the gatehouse... they went on by shooting repeatedly at the gatehouse until the gatehouse was stated to be "100% destroyed" (two crumpled looking towers though apart from that solid as a rock (bug!?) ), they did not shoot at the gate itself which would have actually served the purpose of allowing them easy entry. It was then that the Brutii force with it's 2 battering rams, 2 scaling ladder teams and a siege tower advanced towards the walls. Then they waited in directly front of the walls for their ballistas to start once again firing at a tower for no obvious reason?! All the time their men were getting shot up by this tower. Once it was destroyed they finally advanced the siege equipment to the walls and began to ram the gates. My men were defeated in the square eventually, but the point is that the AI was unbelievably inadequate.

Can anyone say if this has improved in M2TW?? I'm not saying that MTW sieges were anything special because they definitely weren't, but are M2TW sieges noticeably better, and does the scenario above still occur?

Martok

03-19-2007, 20:30

Bearing in mind that I don't really recall any specifics at this point (it's been a month or two since I played), my opinion of the AI in Medieval 2 is that while it's somewhat better at assaulting cities than in Rome, it's still not what I would define as truly competent.

There's less aimless milling about of troops and the computer is more decisive in its actions, but it doesn't utilize its artillery that well and sometimes employs units ill-suited to attacking fortifications. (I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. :inquisitive: )

Caerfanan

03-20-2007, 20:47

(I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. :inquisitive: )

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?

:stupido2:

Are the crossbowmen a low intelligence and brash unit?

Martok

03-20-2007, 22:06

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?

:stupido2:
Now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that crossbowmen are -- for the moment, at least -- the better choice for storming fortifications. Due to the well-known shield bug, many swordsmen and spearmen in Medieval 2 suffer penalties to their melee abilities, and it's entirely possible that units (such as x-bows) without shields are actually superior to them at the moment. The problem is that the AI isn't aware of the shield bug, and should therefore still be selecting medium/heavy infantry over missile troops when assaulting cities/castles. ~:rolleyes:

EDIT: In fairness, however, I should add that I only defended a couple of siege battles; so the enemy using crossbows for taking the walls may have only been an anomaly.

Caerfanan

03-21-2007, 10:35

EDIT: In fairness, however, I should add that I only defended a couple of siege battles; so the enemy using crossbows for taking the walls may have only been an anomaly.
Was your enemy the French? I read somewhere else in the forum something about a french general sending his xbowmen charging in a bridge battle! :laugh4:

What is the shield bug? I don't play M2 yet

econ21

03-21-2007, 10:58

Can anyone say if this has improved in M2TW?? I'm not saying that MTW sieges were anything special because they definitely weren't, but are M2TW sieges noticeably better, and does the scenario above still occur?

M2TW sieges are noticeably better. I've often been wrongfooted by the AI and had to defend a settlement with a miserable garrison (this wrongfooting almost never happened to me in RTW and is evidence of the improved strategic AI & challenge of M2TW). Typically, I lose the siege defence. When the AI has artillery it tends to stay out of range of the towers and make multiple breaches in the walls, destroying towers with any left over ammo. Only when the artillery has expended its ammo does it storm the settlement. Quite frankly, I've learnt from the AI in terms of a methodical approach to storming a settlement.

I can't say whether the scenario you mentioned happens in M2TW or not, as my experience of siege defences is not extensive. But in the couple of dozen or so I've played, I've never experienced it. The AI does concentrate on one side of the settlement though - at least while it has only modest sized armies (I recall from BI that sieges by multiple stacks could sometimes lead to multiple sides of the settlement being attacked).

The big problem I noticed with the BI siege AI was that it always seemed to buy a small amount of siege equipment - a ram, two ladders and a tower. That is just not enough to take down a settlement guarded by anything but a token Roman force. The virtual inability of the AI to take stonewalled settlements is a big flaw in BI. In M2TW, it does not seem to be so constrained.

BlackKnight1234

07-17-2009, 23:27

I have medieval 2 total war rome total war empire total war and medieval total war and all of them work very well

oz_wwjd

07-18-2009, 02:10

the first one is and will always be my favourite. It's only due to the fact that it refuses to work with Nividia series 8 cards that prevents me from playing it.

Kaidonni

07-18-2009, 10:42

I no longer have MTW Gold on the computer, owing to the battle mouse-over bug (fine, I did find a somewhat effective way to improvise, but wasn't motivated enough to play that way). Can't play M2TW because the disc drive doesn't recognise it (we have another disc drive that does, but it isn't connected). RTW...not bothering at the moment, might try some of the updated mod releases, but last time around I just didn't feel like playing it. Didn't feel like it had the correct variety. I am now a Stalker and a Civ III Complete player. Of course, should I get my own computer one day...I wonder, can you have two graphics cards? Because if so...

EDIT: Although, heh, talk about necroposting...meh, seen threads older than this reinvigorated.

King Kurt

07-22-2009, 15:16

Ah - so nice to be back in the Main hall

I have recently started playing MTW2 after a daliance with RTW and I must say I quite enjoy it. I like the range of things you can do - diplomacy, religion, trade, the castle/ town split etc. Unlike Martok, it does feel more like being in control of a Medieval Kingdom - especially if you play the short campaign. that gives you historic oppolents and you do not have to conquer the world.

As old lags of the Main Hall will know, I loved MTW and VI and was active here for several years before a change of PC moved mr on. I thought RTW was OK, but did not like the micro management of the settlements and loads of other things. However having moved on to MTW2 my enthusiasm is rekindled - I really want to play whenever I can and spend time reading the guides on the forum. I feel I have a lot to learn before I master the game. With MTW I did feel I had mastered the game - once you got beyond about a dozen moves you were always likely to win - I don't feel that yet with MTW2 - but it may come with time. Where RTW and MTW2 win out is the realistic move distance - no longer an army from Norway poping up in Egypt - you have to plan and you can use the terrian so much more - a recent RTW game had my small force guarding a river crossing and it driving back sucessive attacks as the only way to my city was over the river.

So - just my 2 pennyworth - and, as always, good to visit the haunts of my old friend Martok:2thumbsup:

Oh - and Martok - is Brett going to be a Viking????

caravel

07-22-2009, 15:56

Ludens

07-22-2009, 17:26

I've recently picked up M2:TW + kingdoms for the sake of playing the upcoming Europa Barbarorum 2 modification. I haven't played either S:TW or M:TW (or unmodded R:TW for that matter) for several years now because I don't have much time for playing, and when I do I generally played Civilization 4 or Europa Barbarorum. So-far I have played a single campaign in vanilla M2:TW to try it out. It is definitely an improvement over R:TW. The battles are longer and more tactical, the A.I. is better and diplomacy seems to work. But I am not as involved in it as I was in the original M:TW.

On the campaign map there are many improvements over M:TW: trade and naval warfare work better, unit movement is more logical, the building tree is simplified but due to the castle-town system it offers more options, the diplomacy screen is far more informative and there are some nice options for Papal manipulation. However, micromanaging agents is still a pain and I am still not sure whether the 3D map is an improvement over the old province-based maps. Then there are some bad design decisions, like the merchant agent (an exploit and an annoyance at the same time), automatically worsening relations with A.I. factions at higher difficulty levels, and the decision to only have detailed information on other factions available when directly negotiating with them.

The character traits are a mixed bag. The traits & ancillaries seem a bit bare compared to R:TW and the descriptions are less clear and less funny, but it's still a better system than original M:TW. The loyalty trait is nice to have back, although I have not seen realistic massive uprisings like in M:TW. Instead, occasionally a stack led by a disloyal generals will simply join the rebels. This gets absurd when the crown prince decides to throw away his heritage in order to join the other rebel stacks in doing... well, mostly nothing. Administrative skill has disappeared, which I find annoying because now I have to search the character traits to see how good the character is at managing settlements. Piety is back and characters now have a dread-chivalry rating, which is a nice touch. Sadly, my kings always end up being high-dread because of the numbers of spies I recruit. Apparently being chivalrous means being blind. Or naive. Or stupid. The most annoying change is the fact that you cannot choose a faction heir. Instead, this is done automatically, with no regard for the bloodline. Even original M:TW was better in this aspect.

Naval battles have been improved from R:TW. I get the impression the auto-calc works better, but you still get ping-ponging fleets. I've had one fleet that was essentially being hit back and forth by enemy fleets four times in a single turn before being sunk. Still, it is easier to destroy fleets than it was in vanilla R:TW, which is an improvement. Battles are also more decisive, and the A.I. seems better able to organize its units and generals on the campaign maps (although you will still see some weedy moves). Strategic A.I. is still overly belligerent, and likely to gang up on the player. Maybe this is related to the automatically worsening relations, though. I'd say that diplomacy is better than in any of the previous games. You have more options and thanks to the improved diplomacy screen you have a better idea why they attack. I also have been able to get cease-fires when I had clearly beaten a faction, something that you could not rely on in R:TW. The pointless naval wars from M1:TW are thankfully also gone.

However, the main reason we buy this game are the battles, and here it does fall short of M:TW. The battle maps are not a varied as M:TW, although they are a lot better than R:TW's battle maps which were usually dominated by a single feature. The same goes for the A.I.: more capable than in R:TW, but still not very good. M:TW battles had me at the edge of my seat, M2:TW battles are routine, although so far a more enjoyable routine than R:TW. I may change my mind once I get to know the game (and specifically the A.I.) better and have tried out higher difficulty levels, but my current verdict is: a decent game, but not as gripping as its predecessor.

MasterPhantom

07-22-2009, 18:28

I don't. It to hard figuring out who's who in the original when the battles takes places. Graphics were horrible in the original.

BlackKnight1234

07-22-2009, 22:06

I can tell you that campaign is better than all
But battels! Battels suckkkkkkkkkk!

blackfish

07-23-2009, 03:21

Original is the best:juggle2:

King Kurt

07-28-2009, 13:12

TREACHERY AND PERFIDY! Well I'm glad to see you're liking the newer games King Kurt. Personally I could never get into RTW or M2TW - though I prefer even RTW to the latter. In my case the battles are the big game breaker.

About the movement issue; that's a valid point but I believe that a balance between the two would have been better. In MTW this was one of the big flaws along with the 1 year per turn system, which meant that some armies could jump from Scotland to Egypt in a single turn - literally this is fine as 1 year = 1 turn but in gameplay terms it's bad. Though with RTW it was painful walking your agents/army stacks bit by bit from i.e. western Anatolia to southern Egypt.

:bow:

Treachery and Perfidy from Caravel - I'm honoured!!!

To be honest I haven't played that many battles under MTW2 yet, but they seem less challenging than under MTW. However I used to find that I didn't play many battles under MTW. For the first few years battles would be close and I would play every one, but once a campaign had got going the battles I felt the need to play drastically deminished as I would have stacks of good quality troops under 5/6/or 7 star generals and the results were always a foregone conclusion. The odd problem would crop up, but I did feel that within MTW, once your empire reached a critical mass, there was an inevitability in your winning/ conquering the world. I always dropped out at the 60% mark or there abouts, only once going all the way to a 100% victory. In contrast I have probably played, in proportion, more battles in RTW. In particular I remember a small Egyptian force defending a river line who held off a sucession of attacks from superior Selucid forces, enabling me to sucessfully beseige Antioch. Now you could say that the AI was a bit dumb by trying to do the same thing 5 or 6 times, but each battle was a close run thing with my small force holding off the larger. Moreover, you could not really set up a similar situation in MTW.

So I suppose what I am saying is that on a strategic level I am enjoying the newer games more than MTW as there is more to do, more to go wrong and more challenge. The shorter campaign gives you an option to face similar problems to history. Of the 2 I prefer MTW2 over RTW. RTW has far too much city micromanagement for me and I spend more time sorting revolting cities than I do conquering the world. As for MTW vs MTW2 - well the jury is still out. MTW was a game that really gripped me - I wanted to play it whenever I could. I feel a similar passion for MTW2 but not to the same intensity yet, but it is early days.

caravel

07-28-2009, 13:41

To be honest I haven't played that many battles under MTW2 yet, but they seem less challenging than under MTW. However I used to find that I didn't play many battles under MTW. For the first few years battles would be close and I would play every one, but once a campaign had got going the battles I felt the need to play drastically deminished as I would have stacks of good quality troops under 5/6/or 7 star generals and the results were always a foregone conclusion.
They're more frustrating than challenging. I find that battles are fundamentally broken due to the new style game mechanics. In M2TW the one on one combat is based on the animations and this is what actually ruins battles (it's also why there were so many bugs with certain units not being able to hit certain other units). STW, MTW and RTW have a simpler and better system where the fight animation is only cosmetic. When individual men in a STW/MTW/RTW unit are engaged they fight a target based on their stats (honour, defence, attack, charge, armour, morale etc). The M2TW men with a unit also seem to queue up to fight. Cavalry are also still too overpowered as they were in RTW.

The odd problem would crop up, but I did feel that within MTW, once your empire reached a critical mass, there was an inevitability in your winning/ conquering the world. I always dropped out at the 60% mark or there abouts, only once going all the way to a 100% victory. In contrast I have probably played, in proportion, more battles in RTW. In particular I remember a small Egyptian force defending a river line who held off a sucession of attacks from superior Selucid forces, enabling me to sucessfully beseige Antioch. Now you could say that the AI was a bit dumb by trying to do the same thing 5 or 6 times, but each battle was a close run thing with my small force holding off the larger. Moreover, you could not really set up a similar situation in MTW.
It is true that most players don't go for total domination in MTW because it gets fairly predictable after a time and you're essentially spamming huge stacks. But the same goes for RTW, I find that my faction has conquered a good swathe of the map and from that point onward my spam army is fighting my main opponent's spam army. Because every battle is not for a province in RTW/M2TW this means lots of meaningless battles - essentially fighting the same boring battle against the same pathetic AI, in the same location again and again. In short you will be forced to spam and autoresolve your way to victory - which is not so different to the later stages of an MTW campaign. And yes in RTW/M2TW the AI will tend to make the same moves, whether hostile or diplomatic, over and over, even if they don't make much sense. This occurs in M2TW because essentially it's the same game. M2TW has the same AI and diplomacy that was in RTW. And the problem with this was that the diplomatic AI did not "talk" to the strategic AI. (i.e. the egyptians offering a ceasefire the same year as their army lays seige, then offering it again, then laying seige again, etc, etc, etc,)

So I suppose what I am saying is that on a strategic level I am enjoying the newer games more than MTW as there is more to do, more to go wrong and more challenge. The shorter campaign gives you an option to face similar problems to history. Of the 2 I prefer MTW2 over RTW. RTW has far too much city micromanagement for me and I spend more time sorting revolting cities than I do conquering the world. As for MTW vs MTW2 - well the jury is still out. MTW was a game that really gripped me - I wanted to play it whenever I could. I feel a similar passion for MTW2 but not to the same intensity yet, but it is early days.
RTW was badly broken in that squalor could not be controlled except by pulling out of the city, exterminating the populace and invading again! I understand that M2TW does not have this problem, but it still has many of the other problems of RTW and battles are IMHO worse than RTW's. At least RTW's could be easily modded and most problems fixed. Personally I could not stand M2TW after about an hour of playing. It went on the shelf and has been there ever since.

I also found the RTW/M2TW camapaign map interesting for a while - but this was short lived. It does involve a lot of micromanagement and unit/agent movement is still flawed. I also still think navies in RTW/M2TW are even worse than the poorly implimented shipping in MTW.

You'll be back. Good luck with M2TW King Kurt, I hope it works for you.

:bow:

oz_wwjd

07-29-2009, 14:14

Actually when I played MTw I liked to go the other way,let the AI mass huge stacks against me,and see if I can defeat them with my garrison forces. It makes for an epic battle,although such battles have taken me the better part of 2-3 hours to successfully bring to a close,also it makes for an interesting tactical challenge.

Roark

07-30-2009, 01:10

In my opinion, the first MTW is leagues ahead of anything else in the series.

SHOGUN
I found this to be nasty and clunky, with units moonwalking and jamming against each other regularly. From memory, archers were absurdly overpowered as well, taxing even heavily armoured units in a nasty way.

ROME
Rome was ridiculously easy as soon as I got myself some heavy cavalry. I just trounced everyone. Sieges were awkward and unwieldy, and I found that charging around the deserted streets of massive cities to be pointless and silly, especially to find that my goal is a little red flag in the middle of town. Strategic map movement was illogical and ambushes and other mechanics I found incomprehensible, as well as the sudden disappearance of entire enemy armies.

M2TW
This was in some ways the easiest of all the Total War games, for me. Just too easy to present a challenge and therefore enjoyment, and the battlefield was not immersive or given to strategic thinking in my experience. Very pretty, but not much fun at all for me. I didn't see any point in devising complex tactics or orchestrating a battle the way I can in the first one.

MTW has the advantage of some awesome mods as well. I haven't played vanilla MTW since 2006.

caravel

07-30-2009, 08:47

SHOGUN
I found this to be nasty and clunky, with units moonwalking and jamming against each other regularly. From memory, archers were absurdly overpowered as well, taxing even heavily armoured units in a nasty way.
That's a very different experience to my own and most other's here. STW and MTW are the same engine. The main differences are not in battles but on the campaign map.

TW consists of two engines. The campaign map engine effectively saves and closes when a battle starts and the units in the province where the battle takes place are "handed over" to the battle map engine. When the battle finishes, the battle map hands the data back to the campaign map engine. MTW's campaign map has more features than STW's but the underyling code is the same. The battle map is pretty much identical with a few tweaks and improvements to the AI - though in fact it's not a linear improvement. The STW AI is better in some respects though overall the MTW one is superior.

I did not find archers overpowered either. I'm wondering what version of the game you were playing - though I personaly know of no STW or STW/MI version exhibiting these issues.

:bow:

Roark

07-31-2009, 05:45

Yeah, well I found the AI alone in MTW to be enough of a boon to make it better by far than Shogun. I don't really understand what the die-hards see in it, to be honest. The campaign map was so small and limited that there seemed to be an inerrant playing out of almost exactly the same story/developments between the factions as the years went by, much like the Viking campaign in MTW

I'm interested to know what you consider to be superior about the AI in Shogun...

I only played vanilla but, from memory, I found that I could kill around a third of a charging infantry unit just with archers in Shogun. In any case, they were heavily taxed before they reached my front lines. I just started producing heaps of archers, and got sick of massacring everyone whilst they were toing and froing in bizarre ways on the battlfield map.

caravel

07-31-2009, 08:36

Well as I said, I'm not familiar with this problem. As to what is better about the AI, the MTW AI is undoubtedly better in most ways, the main problem though is that the armies are poorly balanced compared to the STW army roster and so don't make the best possible use of it. In my experience STW battles are quite a lot more challenging because of this. I have never had much difficulty in winning MTW battles unless seriously outnumbered or up against "uber units" - I still regularly lose STW battles. Also the STW AI makes better use of terrain and in particular woods. For some reason the MTW does not take as much advantage of the woods. Apart from this the MTW/VI AI is superior though.

Beirut

08-11-2009, 00:15

caravel

08-11-2009, 08:31

I much prefer the original M:TW.

My new rig runs M:TW2 very nicely, but I can't stand the campaign. Probably because I cannot understand it no matter how hard I try. "First, walk a 50' general from this town to that town so that town has a 50' general, now turn around twice, spit, and dance for two-minutes in order to create a..." Drives me absolutely freaking bonkers. I hate the icons. Hate the map. Hate the... everything. Custom battles are fun, though. But I miss the campaigns.

I just play M:TW on my old rig which I gave to my woman. Runs M:TW perfectly and I'm having a lot of fun with it. Again. :sunny:

True enough. I don't put much stock in graphics, but M2TW's graphics are truly horrible. Yes they can be "3D" and more advanced than MTW, but the artwork is nasty and tacky looking. RTW was bad enough but this is worse. STW/MTW had a certain "class", but the M2TW artwork is far too "Shrek" for my liking.

:bow:

tomrayner

08-11-2009, 08:59

I've been toying with the idea of buying M2TW but am not sure how it would run on my computer - I've heard it can be quite so slow and choppy if your processor isn't up to speed (like any game).

I've got an AMD Athalon XP2400 (2.0gz) with 128mb RAM and Nvideo Gforce 4 graphics card... am I in for a chop-fest? If it'll even run at all.

caravel

08-11-2009, 09:07

I will run very poorly on that machine, if at all. The lack of shader 1 support would likely be the show stopper.

Minimum System Requirements:

* Microsoft® Windows® 2000/XP
* Celeron 1.5GHz Pentium 4® (1500MHz) or equivalent AMD® processor
* 512MB RAM
* 11GB of uncompressed free hard disk space
* 100% DirectX® 9.0c compatible 16-bit sound cardand latest drivers
* 100% Windows® 2000/XP compatible mouse,keyboard and latest drivers
* DirectX® 9.0c
* 128MB Hardware Accelerated video card with Shader 1 support and the latest drivers. Must be 100% DirectX® 9.0c compatible
* 1024 x 768 minimum display resolution
* Internet (TCP / IP) play supported; Internet play requires broadband connection and latest drivers; LAN play requires Network card.

You could get a better entry level graphics card and a decent amount of RAM and give it a try - though you can still expect choppiness. They're called "minimum" system requirements for a reason.

(to be honest even if you don't get M2TW, you still could do with more RAM in that machine)

caravel

08-11-2009, 09:11

Scratch that - just remembered that your CPU won't run it due to the lack of SSE2 support. It's a new PC I'm afraid.

I had the same CPU myself and upgraded for the same reason... M2TW was not worth upgrading a PC for, but in hindsight I suppose the thing needed upgrading anyway. The problem is that now I can no longer run MTW1...

tomrayner

08-11-2009, 09:34

Thanks for that Caravel, it's as I suspected.

Maybe I'll just download Redux or Tyberius for a new challenge instead... any recommendations. i'm sick of the AI attacking me with vast peasant/arquebusier/crossbow armies (or whatever other combination of crap troops they've tried)

caravel

08-11-2009, 11:11

It's difficult to recommend mods as everyone gets something different out of this game.

If you want more challenge and you like the Shogun Total War theme, then I would recommend the Samurai Warlords mod (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=105). Bear in mind that I'm highly biased when it comes to this mod however, but I think it's the best MTW mod ever. The SW mod aproaches the game from a more purist standpoint. All factions have the same units (as in STW) and this gives the best play balance and balanced armies (you won't get attacked by the AI fielding only one type of unit etc). Make sure you download the patch and the sound add on.

The Tyberius mod (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1965082) is an add on for Viking Horde's XL mod (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31201). If you want more unit, faction and province variety then that's probably the one for you. Tyberius did a very good job revamping the graphics in the XL/Tyberius mod. Many of his improvements are on the battlefield sprites themselves - which are exceptional. I think there is a version of the Tyberius mod that includes the XL mod, but not sure.

You could also try the Medmod. It tries to be more historically accurate and restricts units to homelands and it mostly succeeds at this. This approach has it's pros and cons however as strict homelands restrictions also affect rebelling troops - giving some very unusual rebellions. The Medmod is probably more suited to hardened players and those that don't mind further tweaking it (i.e. a bit of DIY modding).

If it's the Medieval era you want, as I suspect it is, then go with the XL/Tyberius Mod. It's the most popular and widely played also. XL also removes peasants and adds many more units so those peasant armies should be a thing of the past.

-Edit: Straying a bit off topic here, so if Mithrandir or bamff want to split this to a new thread?

:bow: