MTW question

[Caius]

Hey all MTW players, Caius Flaminius here.

Im not a MTW player, so thats why I dont take a look here.
I came here to ask, whats different between Rome and Medieval?
Are there good mods for Medieval?
Is it worth buying?

Cheers from Rome :beam: (Joke)

Caivs Flaminivs

[Roman_Man#3]

MTW is an awesome game. Gameplay is much more solid than RTW, the AI isn't nearly as bad. It does play like a risk game though, you can move your troops to adjacent regions, not like the movement in RTW.

I would suggest getting it.

RM3

[Martok]

Hey Caius! It's a pleasant surprise to see you here in this neck of the woods. ~:wave:


I came here to ask, whats different between Rome and Medieval?
Oh boy, where does one start? :sweatdrop:

Well as Roman_Man#3 said, army/navy/agent movement works differently on the campaign map in MTW. Since the map isn't 3D, you simply move things from one region to another. It's not as realistic, of course, but the AI can handle it much better.

On a somewhat-related subject: Obviously the graphics aren't going to be anywhere near as "pretty" as Rome's are. They were pretty decent at the time MTW first came out, but they're definitely showing their age now. I'm sure you're already aware of that, but it bears repeating, as some people just can't get past the games older graphics and battle engine.

AI: While it's certainly not perfect, the AI in MTW is still far, far better than in Rome. Whether you're talking about the campaign AI or the combat AI, either way it's much more competent. It does still make stupid mistakes, however, and certain things are somewhat broken. As is typical for all TW games, diplomacy is mostly non-sensical and counter-intuitive; and the computer-controlled factions don't use agents very effectively, particularly spies and assassins.

In battle, however, the AI can actually be quite cunning. It will use advanced maneuvers (ambushses, feigned retreats, etc.) against you, especially on the higher difficulty levels. It's not very good at assaulting bridges and castles, sadly; but on an open field, the computer is a fairly dangerous opponent.

Factions can have civil wars, which is kind of fun. If you have a crappy king with sons that aren't any better and you want to get rid of them, you can even trigger a civil war on purpose -- either by assassinating your own king (yes, you can do that in MTW!), or by forcing down the loyalty of one of your highest-ranking generals. Then you can choose to back the "Rebels" and oust your own king off the throne!

Of course, religion plays a more significant factor in MTW than in Rome. Dealing with the Pope, calling Crusades & Jihads on the infedel, using one of your Inquisitors to try that enemy general for heresy....it's all good bloody fun. :yes: Generals in command of a Crusade/Jihad often gain traits that increase their piety and/or zeal, which is a nice little touch.

I think that's enough for the moment. I could really fill out an entire thread on the differences between Rome and MTW. The only other thing I'll add for the moment is that MTW just seems to have more flavor and atmosphere than Rome. I don't know if there's any one thing that can explain why that is, but I do find the game to be much more immersive than its descendant. MTW feels more like its own world, whereas Rome always felt a little more "gamey" to me.


Are there good mods for Medieval?
Tons!

The most popular "expansion" mods are BKB, XL, and Wes' MedMod. These mods keep the same medieval setting, mostly focusing on adding content (new factions, units, buildings, etc.). The most popular "total conversion" mods are Hellas Total War, Pike & Musket, and Samurai Wars. These convert the game to another period/area entirely (Hellas TW focuses on ancient Greece, Samurai Wars is basically a Shogun mod, etc.).

All these mods are highly regarded, and add tremendously to the game's replayability. There are mumerous other mods available as well, such as Caravel's Pocket Mod. (That's the one I intend to play once I have my new PC up and running.) The mods alone practically make MTW/VI worth getting. :yes:


Is it worth buying?
Without a doubt, yes. Given that you can usually find MTW/VI for around $20.00 (U.S.), it's already pretty reasonably priced. When you factor in all the wonderful mods that are available as well, its value is greatly increased.

So run, don't walk, to your nearest game store or Amazon website and get this terrific game! You'll be glad you did. ~:)

[Roark]

$0.02:

- Plainer graphics, yet more immersive.
- Tougher, smarter AI.
- VI campaign is a whole new map and style of play
- XL mod dominates. Period. There's 3-4 other really good mods, which Martok has outlined above.

Buy it, dude. You'll love it. I haven't played another computer game for any serious length of time since I purchased MTW.

[Caius]

Wow, Im thinking about the fact if im going to buy it or no.
Shamefully, I dont have all the money.

VI is Viking Invasion?
Is there a 'combo' with both?

And, at least, some screenies of mods?

Thank you

Caius

[Roman_Man#3]

You can get MTW/VI invasion gold, which has both games. or you can get eras, which has every Total War game with expansions, except M2TW. For some screens, I would suggest looking at the hosted mods sections.


Cheers:beam:
RM3

[Glyndwr in the Soke]

I am still struggling with my disappointment regarding RTW and MTW2. Some of the things I really liked about MTW and STW cannot be found in RTW or MTW2, even if I like a lot about both. As far as gameplay goes: Well, buying those two basically made me want play MTW again, which I had stopped for a long time, whereas I stopped RTW only a few weeks after getting it, and I am still struggling to find the motivation to finish my initial campaign with MTW2. :wall:


!That's how good I believe MTW, especially with VI, is!

[caravel]

I have repeatedly tried to "get into" RTW but have failed, this is why M2TW which is to all intents and purposes much the same thing doesn't really appeal. The eye candy graphics don't really add to the appeal either. Overall, the bad points in RTW seem to outweigh the good, and for myself mods just don't address that game's fundamental flaws. While EB and RTR are stunning, for myself they're more of a history lesson than a strategy game, and with all of their vast improvements I still find the campaign game to be as flawed as ever. The main issue though is the battles, after a few weeks of RTW campaigns and tedious battles, I finally returned to MTW a much worse TW player than when I had left, and was severely punished for this (accidentally right clicking instead of left clicking was not even half of it!).

I have now managed to regain most of my old "abilities", and am fighting some real tactical battles again. The main differences are the pace, the morale, fatigue, weather, terrain and the cleverness of the AI. I wrongly assumed the AI to be stupid, how could I forget?! The RTW AI either rushes you, or stays put and infinitely rotates it's formation to avoid flanking. The MTW AI does a lot more than that, it flanks, it takes advantage of your weaknesses and it deploys pretty well - not perfectly but good enough - onto high ground into woods, makes good use of the terrain (I was surprised when my flanking force was outflanked and routed off the field by the Byzantine Steppe and Alan Cavalry. My strategy deployment and timing was sloppy and poorly orchestrated.). The emphasis on MTW battles is good tactics winning the day over uber units and bumrushes. There isn't this "shock and rout" or "phalanx for the win" formula that wins every battle regardless of tactics. There are the annoying cases of Jedis, the ever present dodgy TW sieges and some units are quite overpowered, but overall balance is considerably better. Even mounted knights can be brought down by lowly Ghazi Infantry hitting them from the rear or flank.

The Pocket Mod, Martok mentioned will be resuming some time in the near future. The Pocket Mod concentrates on fixing annoying problems with the game, fixing some historical inaccuracies and reassigning, renaming and rebalancing units. The Pocket Mod is open to contributions from all orgahs so tends to be quite varied in it's approach.

The difficulty some players will have that have only played RTW or M2TW and none of the earlier games, is with the Risk style campaign map system which is totally different to the RTW one. Personally I prefer it and always have, but I know a lot of players on here either dislike it or prefer the RTW campaign map. If you can get used to the Risk style map and very basic graphics, by today's standards, then you're half way there. If you're one of those people that can't deal with lower quality graphics, 2D sprites and a map that many describe as "chess like" (though it is not really chess like at all), then it may not be your thing.

:bow:

[Noir]

STW and MTW, are altogether in a different league. They may be described as tactical/strategic wargames, something that sadly cannot be said about the newer ones.

As for the battles, i'd rather not touch this at all. Much like Caravel, i had my fair fill of chore, before firing up the Viking Campaign a fateful afternoon and got into a state of enlightment and subsequently Nirvana.

TW may never be what it was, but i'll employ all tricks in the book (mods, home modding, emulators etc etc) and keep enjoying the first two games for as long as i do.

[gaiusjulii]

I have been gagging to play RTW ever since it came out and only recently at great expense went and upgraded my comp and started playing RTW and lets just say its different, any better?? Personally I think of MTW and RTW as 2 seprate types of game a bit like the hobbit and LOTR :book: . I do like the new Campaign map style but everything else well its just not Total war and the whole squaler things just sucks ass :furious3: . I have been playing MTW since it was released and upgraded to VI day it was released and I have never looked back, in my eyes MTW is like a ugly Girlfirend that does everything for you, she may not look great but by god you love her.... and I have recently started playing my first ever Mod which is XL and its awesome and really sorted out some of the minor discrepencies out for me like the english channel is actually now a Barrier :2thumbsup: I love you XL

so all in all you really need to play this game. Oh and dont play Medieval without the VI its not that great and auto Manage on tax is AWFUL. MTW VI is far superior.

[gaiusjulii]

I have been gagging to play RTW ever since it came out and only recently at great expense went and upgraded my comp and started playing RTW and lets just say its different, any better?? Personally I think of MTW and RTW as 2 seprate types of game a bit like the hobbit and LOTR :book: . I do like the new Campaign map style but everything else well its just not Total war and the whole squaler things just sucks ass :furious3: . I have been playing MTW since it was released and upgraded to VI day it was released and I have never looked back, in my eyes MTW is like a ugly Girlfirend that does everything for you, she may not look great but by god you love her.... and I have recently started playing my first ever Mod which is XL and its awesome and really sorted out some of the minor discrepencies out for me like the english channel is actually now a Barrier :2thumbsup: I love you XL

so all in all you really need to play this game. Oh and dont play Medieval without the VI its not that great and auto Manage on tax is AWFUL. MTW VI is far superior.
One more quick thing if you are really into your diplomacy then you will be disapointed as there might aswell be none In MTW thats the one thing i can say RTW did get right

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Just to add to all the great information that has been added so far - another thing that is different is the tech trees. Compared to Rome it is much more complex. Often it require more than one building to gain a unit - for example - Feudal Knights require a Royal Estate and a Armourers Workshop to create them.

Another thing worth noting is the slower speed of the battle. M:TW provides a much longer time before units route enabling one to be able to use their tactical skills against the foe prior the the battle being over.

Although, among all of the superb positives there are a a negative. On this side of the argument there is the control style. For an RTS player, such as myself, it was rather hard to get used to at first, but, on the positive side of things, I soon enough I got used to it and managed to be able coordinate my troops successfully, or at least, almost successfully! The battle tutorials helped here!

I'm quite sure that you will enjoy this old time classic Caius - I most certainly have enjoyed it much more than I have Rome, despite it's many strengths.

[Martok]

One more quick thing if you are really into your diplomacy then you will be disapointed as there might aswell be none In MTW thats the one thing i can say RTW did get right
I must repectfully diagree with you there. In my experience, diplomacy in *all* the TW games is mostly broken. Yes, Rome and Medieval 2 has more features and options, but the AI is unable to properly take advantage of them, and its actions are just as bizarre and nonsensical as in Shogun & MTW.

I'll grant you that diplomacy in Medieval 2 is a little more transparent and easier to understand, but that doesn't mean you can actually have meaningful interaction with the other factions. It should be noted that others have said they find M2's diplomacy to be quite good, so perhaps I've just been unlucky in this regard. However, I remain extremely doubtful that it's any great improvement over the first three Total War titles.

@Omanes: You raise very good points about MTW's battles -- both the good and the bad. :bow: I've found the battle pace (in terms of both movement speeds and kill speeds) to be pretty close to what I consider ideal. It's maybe just a tad slow (especially in massive battles), but I much prefer that to too fast.

You're also right about the control scheme and combat interface not being the most user-friendly. While it wasn't overly difficult for me to pick up and get used to, I also can't deny that Rome and Medieval 2 are much better in this regard -- I find their battle UI to be much more intuitive and easy to use.

[drone]

@Omanes: You raise very good points about MTW's battles -- both the good and the bad. :bow: I've found the battle pace (in terms of both movement speeds and kill speeds) to be pretty close to what I consider ideal. It's maybe just a tad slow (especially in massive battles), but I much prefer that to too fast.
On this note, the advantage goes to MTW because you get a choice. If you want the battle to go faster, you can adjust the slider bar to speed up the action. RTW did not give you the option to slow it down, so you were stuck with the 2 minute clickfest. I will give CA the benefit of the doubt here, I can imagine problems with controlled 3D graphics and animations. But the ability to choose the battle pace is nice in MTW.

[caravel]

I must repectfully diagree with you there. In my experience, diplomacy in *all* the TW games is mostly broken. Yes, Rome and Medieval 2 has more features and options, but the AI is unable to properly take advantage of them, and its actions are just as bizarre and nonsensical as in Shogun & MTW.
The RTW diplomacy is easily the most abysmal I've yet encountered. It is both inconsistent and worthless. The AI simply has no idea that it exists but appears to be working on two non communicative levels. The military machine goes about it's business while the diplomats run about trying to negotiate whatever seems to spring into their little minds. Such as the classic:

Proposal: "Please do not attack! :sweatdrop: "

Demand: "Accept or we will attack :viking: "

Literally nothing is accepted unless you add a sufficient cash bribe. In fact while the diplomats are approaching you with offers of a ceasefire, trade rights or an alliance, their armies have other ideas and are heading your way to attack one of your settlements the next turn.

[gaiusjulii]

Okay After reading the Recent comments on the Whole Diplomacy can of worms I unintentionally opened I would like to retract my Statement and Blame my Obviously wrong Ideas on lack of PLaying time In RTW which i have subsequently stopped playing to go Back to my beloved MTW WIth XL Mod Update. DUe to Boredom with RTW.... wow a whole 3 weeks Not bad lol

[Martok]

@ Cambyses: Yeah, it's as if the right hand doesn't know (or care) what the left hand is doing. It's almost as if the campaign military AI and the diplomacy AI aren't even aware of each other's existence. :inquisitive:

@ gaiusjulii No worries. I doubt many here would blame you for having given up on Rome after only a short time. ~;)

[The Unknown Guy]

you know, I bought MTW gold instead of Rome by sheer chance, aka, my laptop being old, and MTW gold being ten € instead of the 40€ asked for Rome. It appears I got lucky... :p

All that said, I downloaded the "forever" theme from Jack Van Dyck´s page, and it´s çuite good

[naut]

for myself they're more of a history lesson than a strategy game
So true. :laugh4:


The RTW diplomacy is easily the most abysmal I've yet encountered.
Don't get me started on that, I've had nations refusing my demands even when they have one settlement left and no proper army. :dizzy2:

[General Dazza]

On that point about strategy games being history lessons, I think that MTW has just the right level of historically correct v gameplay value.

Not sure how many of you played Hearts Of Iron. HoI was mostly a very good WWII strategy game, but I think it went too far into historical accuracy re what you could do (and don;t get me started on the bugs). It was engaging to play but I eventually got bored with limited scope.

With MTW though, I believe the level of historical accuracy is enough and you have the opportunity to enjoy gameplay no matter which faction you play. And then there's the GA component.

Not sure what EB and RTR are, but I haven't anything as long-term engaging as MTW.