What Total War do you think is the best and why?

[Veles Shadow]

My Fav is RTW because I know all the fations there I've played it loads and I have about 3 Mega Campains:smg: ! It is also the First Total War game with Really Good Graphics My Fav Faction is Seleucids.What TW Games are your Fav and why?:knight:

[Shieldmaiden]

You know the thread will just turn into a graphics vs gameplay argument? As usual...

But, my personal favourite TW is Rome, because of its playability (the older TW's have a clunky interface IMHO) and my interest in the period :book:

However, for pure gameplay I'd pick Shogun :2thumbsup: Its just a classic, and still feels fresh years later (I find its tactical depth - and especially AI - superior to Rome).

[The Wandering Scholar]

I have played Shogun, Medieval and ome, out of them I would say Rome purely because better graphics means better gameplay. Rome has a campaign map which is smooth instead of clunky ie you can move anywhere on Rome, you can only move into the next province on MTW and STW. PLus the time period is more interesting IMO although there was wars galore in the other time frames. ETW/ M2TW should be better, yes you guesse4d it better graphics = better gameplay. Even though the time frames are not as interesting with them two more recent games. R2TW if it is ever brought out would top it all IMO. It would be good to see a replica of the enormous barbarian armies in that game even if that means that the graphics are sub-par.

[Charge]

better graphics means better gameplayNow that is :viking:

or :damnmate:

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

M:TW, although I must confess that Shogun was a classic also.

Graphics in a game a relatively irrelevant factor in enjoyment I can get out of it. In my opinion, they are only really needed to show the player the essentials of what's going on. Yes, it may be nice to have a photo-realistic experience, but when it comes down to it other factors are much more critical.

On that note, M:TW/S:TW style graphics actually serve the purpose of showing the player what is going on better than Rome and it's successors. Units are easier to define when zoomed out - in Rome everything transforms to a blur of sprites. This is essential for players such as myself, who prefer to watch a battle from overhead rather than from down on the soldier's level of things.

Moving away from the eye-candy perspective, M:TW and S:TW has much better AI both on the field and on the campaign map. R:TW has the major issue of an AI that lacks power and tactical ability. This was effected by the campaign map's change from "risk" style map to a more RTS style map and the complete rewrite for the battle field AI. The AI seems incompetent at flanking and skirmishing. It also doesn't deal with many player tactics correctly, often leaving it vulnerable to exploits which the player can use. This cam make battles unchallenging for a more experienced player.

Another key issue is battle speed. R:TW runs like a Charlie Chaplin movie on fast forward - in other words, painfully fast. Although I could tolerate it when I first entered the TW series, when moving back to it from M:TW, I was forced to tediously modify the files to give units more hitpoints. This speed also leaves less room for both the player and the AI to use any tactical abilities that it may want to.

M:TW is feature filled with epic civil revolts, treason, plot and political intrigue. When it comes to this sort of thing, R:TW is, well, fairly empty. Although it does have some nice new features, such as the "improved" diplomacy, these are often completely broken or the AI simply doesn't know how to use them. There isn't the depth that M:TW has in pretty much every respect.

R:TW is also too easy. I've managed to build up a small Empire (all of Spain and part of Italy to a thin strip of upper Greece) in M:TW, but it took me from the start of the early period to 1453 to actually complete. I was also not the most powerful faction - the English were a lot more successful that me, and the Byzantines were battering me on the Greek front. Building up this empire took me many attempts. Several times I failed in my take over bids and had to start again. Also several times I foolishly declared war on the English, and had them landing in all my coastal provinces within a matter of a few short turns.

In R:TW I've only lost a campaign once and, regardless of who I play as, I always seem to end up controlling a large mass of land very quickly. This isn't helped by the ease of fund raising - in my largest M:TW empire I've never earnt more than 2,000 florins per turn (after costs have been subtracted). In R:TW a similar sized empire would be granting me infinite funds of about 50,000 denarii+ per turn.

~:)

[The Wandering Scholar]

Well said. Still eyecandy is important to me.

[Horseman]

Well I've played them all many times over and they all have their unique points. But overall my fave is RTW - Mainly because its the time period I am most interested in.

I do still play all the others though, depending on my whim at the time!

[Ravie]

Shogun... 'nuff said.

[Punicus]

I've played MTW and RTW. MTW was my first game and is just a pure classic, but I gotta say RTW is my favorite. I liked the campaign map system better and the battle system seemed to run better. They're both great but if I was given a choice, one or the other, I'd go Rome.

[TruePraetorian]

I own RTW, but Ive played a campaign and multiplayer in each one. I have to say Rome. Not only because of the time period, but overall enjoyment. Im from the US, so I can't relate to the great empires of Eurpoe, but the aniquity era influences every culture.

I also love the Roman's for thier plain organization :yes:

[Martok]

M:TW, although I must confess that Shogun was a classic also.

Graphics in a game a relatively irrelevant factor in enjoyment I can get out of it. In my opinion, they are only really needed to show the player the essentials of what's going on. Yes, it may be nice to have a photo-realistic experience, but when it comes down to it other factors are much more critical.

On that note, M:TW/S:TW style graphics actually serve the purpose of showing the player what is going on better than Rome and it's successors. Units are easier to define when zoomed out - in Rome everything transforms to a blur of sprites. This is essential for players such as myself, who prefer to watch a battle from overhead rather than from down on the soldier's level of things.

Moving away from the eye-candy perspective, M:TW and S:TW has much better AI both on the field and on the campaign map. R:TW has the major issue of an AI that lacks power and tactical ability. This was effected by the campaign map's change from "risk" style map to a more RTS style map and the complete rewrite for the battle field AI. The AI seems incompetent at flanking and skirmishing. It also doesn't deal with many player tactics correctly, often leaving it vulnerable to exploits which the player can use. This cam make battles unchallenging for a more experienced player.

Another key issue is battle speed. R:TW runs like a Charlie Chaplin movie on fast forward - in other words, painfully fast. Although I could tolerate it when I first entered the TW series, when moving back to it from M:TW, I was forced to tediously modify the files to give units more hitpoints. This speed also leaves less room for both the player and the AI to use any tactical abilities that it may want to.

M:TW is feature filled with epic civil revolts, treason, plot and political intrigue. When it comes to this sort of thing, R:TW is, well, fairly empty. Although it does have some nice new features, such as the "improved" diplomacy, these are often completely broken or the AI simply doesn't know how to use them. There isn't the depth that M:TW has in pretty much every respect.

R:TW is also too easy. I've managed to build up a small Empire (all of Spain and part of Italy to a thin strip of upper Greece) in M:TW, but it took me from the start of the early period to 1453 to actually complete. I was also not the most powerful faction - the English were a lot more successful that me, and the Byzantines were battering me on the Greek front. Building up this empire took me many attempts. Several times I failed in my take over bids and had to start again. Also several times I foolishly declared war on the English, and had them landing in all my coastal provinces within a matter of a few short turns.

In R:TW I've only lost a campaign once and, regardless of who I play as, I always seem to end up controlling a large mass of land very quickly. This isn't helped by the ease of fund raising - in my largest M:TW empire I've never earnt more than 2,000 florins per turn (after costs have been subtracted). In R:TW a similar sized empire would be granting me infinite funds of about 50,000 denarii+ per turn.

~:)

^^^ What he said. :bow:

Medieval is my favorite, with Shogun an extremely close second. I place MTW first since I enjoy the time period more, but STW is actually the better overall game IMO.

Rome and Medieval 2 are both far, far behind the other two titles. As Omanes has said, pretty graphics are nice, but are absolutely no subsitute for great gameplay.

[Judge]

i must say i have stw, mtw/vi, rtw,bi, mtw2 and kingdoms............

without a doubt the best game i played is MTW/VI :thumbsup:

[caravel]

out of them I would say Rome purely because better graphics means better gameplay


ETW/ M2TW should be better, yes you guesse4d it better graphics = better gameplay.

So as a somewhat fitting analogy: better CGI equals better acting/plot/storyline!?

:laugh4:

[The Wandering Scholar]

Since when has a TW game had acting, plots and storylines? these are not plausible criteria.

I seem to have been ridiculed slightly by my opinion of graphics meaning better game play, yes I may have confused opinion with fact but generally they are all the same, different timescales with a campaign map and battles so therefore the game which portrays that campaign map and that battle map should be the best.

The graphics of the later titles are far better than the earlier ones which obviously the case. Therefore IMO (not fact) the later titles are better. Since RTW is IMO the most interesting era RTW is the best game.

[caravel]

Since when has a TW game had acting, plots and storylines? these are not plausible criteria.
It was an analogy and an entirely plausible one. You are effectively saying that "if it looks good it plays good". This quite simply isn't true. There is no way that any amount of eye candy can rescue an otherwise crap game.

I seem to have been ridiculed slightly by my opinion of graphics meaning better game play, yes I may have confused opinion with fact but generally they are all the same, different timescales with a campaign map and battles so therefore the game which portrays that campaign map and that battle map should be the best.
Some might say that you've invited ridicule with that statement, simply because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The graphics of the later titles are far better than the earlier ones which obviously the case.
True.

Therefore IMO (not fact) the later titles are better.
That's fine if it's your opinion. But in your previous post you were making the statement "better graphics = better gameplay".

Since RTW is IMO the most interesting era RTW is the best game.
I agree that RTW is loosely based upon what is quite arguably the most interesting period - just to make it clear that we agree on that point. What I disagree with is the statement that RTW is the best TW game which it clearly is not.

As far as graphics are concerned RTW has been surpassed by M2TW and for the record I don't think it's low poly clone armies were ever that much to get excited about anyway. In terms of gameplay, balance and AI, RTW is found severely wanting in all three departments. Also as far as historical accuracy is concerned RTW is probably the worst title in the series for this.

You need to ask yourself why RTW has been the the most heavily modded TW game in terms of historical realism and gameplay mods based on the same era as the vanilla game. Yes RTW is more moddable than previous titles but why is it that the most popular mods are not those based on other eras and settings, but are the realism and gameplay ones? This points to pronounced deficiencies and shortcomings in the vanilla game.

:bow:

[The Wandering Scholar]

It was an analogy and an entirely plausible one. You are effectively saying that "if it looks good it plays good". This quite simply isn't true. There is no way that any amount of eye candy can rescue an otherwise crap game.

What I said was better graphics make better gameplay ie the Halo series. With this example I am not talking about the campaign which is not what interests people. So therefore people buy the game for multiplayer (stay with me here) and why do people buy 1 then 2 then 3? The answer is simple better graphics, better weapons etc. This does not mean that Halo 1 was bad just the improvement in technology makes Halo 3 more appealing.


Some might say that you've invited ridicule with that statement, simply because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I like you caravel, you structure your arguments in a way which is most pleasant. I have to take it back with that dross. How does my comment not make sense? In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up. Therefore the later titles should be the best and they are but I have not played anything later than RTW (or TW3) therefore IMO RTW is the best game.



I agree that RTW is loosely based upon what is quite arguably the most interesting period - just to make it clear that we agree on that point. What I disagree with is the statement that RTW is the best TW game which it clearly is not.

I agree ETW should be the best.


As far as graphics are concerned RTW has been surpassed by M2TW and for the record I don't think it's low poly clone armies were ever that much to get excited about anyway. In terms of gameplay, balance and AI, RTW is found severely wanting in all three departments. Also as far as historical accuracy is concerned RTW is probably the worst title in the series for this.

Historical accuracy is a difficult subject I think that CA tried (and could well have failed) to appeal more to the casual gamer in RTW who are not bothered about historical accuracy. It is mainly critised on forums for the game like this one where the majority of members are interested in history, casual gamers IMO are not interested so much. The low poly clone armies are much better in RTW than they were in STW and MTW. Although sprites are an issue but are not nearly enough to put Rome last (or for that matter second).


You need to ask yourself why RTW has been the the most heavily modded TW game in terms of historical realism and gameplay mods based on the same era as the vanilla game. Yes RTW is more moddable than previous titles but why is it that the most popular mods are not those based on other eras and settings, but are the realism and gameplay ones? This points to pronounced deficiencies and shortcomings in the vanilla game.

But there are gameplay mods for previous titles. More could suggest a larger following.

[Nem]

Got to say MTW/VI. Shogun is a close second but didn't have quite the same depth.

I only play the MP side of TW so RTW and MTW2 are a total non starter.:thumbsdown:

[Puzz3D]

In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up.
The gameplay deteriorated when the graphics was improved. It's not the same game with better graphics.

[Spartan198]

I own and have played all but Kingdoms (which,on par with advice from my fellow Orgahs,I'm avoiding until the SecuRom thing is dealt with),but Rome and Alexander come up an even tie for first. The faction selection is varied and unique in Rome,but I like the Macedonian troop roster in Alexander better.

[caravel]

What I said was better graphics make better gameplay ie the Halo series. With this example I am not talking about the campaign which is not what interests people. So therefore people buy the game for multiplayer (stay with me here) and why do people buy 1 then 2 then 3? The answer is simple better graphics, better weapons etc. This does not mean that Halo 1 was bad just the improvement in technology makes Halo 3 more appealing.
No, in fact you said "better graphics = better gameplay". You were quite specific and you said it twice. Also FPS games are an wholly different animal. Some may buy the latest title due to better graphics, though most buy it due to improvements in physics, netcode and in terms of features, i.e. better weapons and vehicles etc.


I like you caravel, you structure your arguments in a way which is most pleasant.
:beam:

I have to take it back with that dross.
:sweatdrop:

How does my comment not make sense? In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up. Therefore the later titles should be the best and they are but I have not played anything later than RTW (or TW3) therefore IMO RTW is the best game.
You've obviously not played anything earlier than RTW either? Your statement makes no sense because you had stated that "better graphics = better gameplay". RTW is not STW/MTW "spruced up" it is a different game engine with a different campaign map. This is a known fact. STW/MTW had better tactical/battle AI and balance than RTW and so in some ways it did have better gameplay. RTW, the newer game, should have been superior in every way to the old engine. It wasn't.

I agree ETW should be the best.
Let me guess... because it will have "better graphics"?

Historical accuracy is a difficult subject I think that CA tried (and could well have failed) to appeal more to the casual gamer in RTW who are not bothered about historical accuracy. It is mainly critised on forums for the game like this one where the majority of members are interested in history, casual gamers IMO are not interested so much. The low poly clone armies are much better in RTW than they were in STW and MTW. Although sprites are an issue but are not nearly enough to put Rome last (or for that matter second).
The sprites in MTW and STW were perfect for the range they were normally viewed at. The RTW sprites that kick in once you're zoomed out to a certain range are inferior. The 3D models are only good if you're going to spend time up close inspecting your men. If you're doing that then you're clearly not keeping your eye on the battle as a whole - which is what TW battles are all about (well it's what they used to be about anyway). Really this is just a gimmick that is not needed and at the time served to distract from RTW's major shortcomings.

But there are gameplay mods for previous titles. More could suggest a larger following.
There are a few balancing mods for MTW, but there are more total conversions and others that simply add more factions, more provinces, more units and try to address some of the gameplay issues. This is understandable as it is the earlier game. What MTW doesn't have is it's own EB or RTR. It lacked a grand project of this kind. These kind of projects are ones that set out to fix problems with the game and resolve balance issues, while also addressing problems with historical accuracy. IMHO both of these mods fix a lot of historical innacuracies but deal less with the gameplay/balance side of things. This is probably due to the fact that only so much can be done with a game engine that is inherently flawed.

:bow:

[Raz]

Of all posts, I thought Puzz3D's would be the longest. ~:joker:
The Best? That's tough.
My Favourite? That's easy. MTW-VI. Finding the optimum balance of graphics vs gameplay is difficult, RTW was a nice game, and still is for some. But I now seldom play RTW or M2TW. I've clocked up countless hours on MTW-VI, and even more when you throw in the modifications.
It's able to absorb you and eventually, destroy your entire life from your very own living-room.

In fact, the last time I played it was a little less than thirty minutes ago according to my PC's clock. I would turn that into a poll - how long has it been since you last played Total War? But I'm too lazy. :grin:

[The Wandering Scholar]

No, in fact you said "better graphics = better gameplay". You were quite specific and you said it twice. Also FPS games are an wholly different animal. Some may buy the latest title due to better graphics, though most buy it due to improvements in physics, netcode and in terms of features, i.e. better weapons and vehicles etc.

= is makes, same difference. Your points about FPS are exactly mine. Later titles tend to improve. That is why people buy them.


You've obviously not played anything earlier than RTW either? Your statement makes no sense because you had stated that "better graphics = better gameplay". RTW is not STW/MTW "spruced up" it is a different game engine with a different campaign map. This is a known fact. STW/MTW had better tactical/battle AI and balance than RTW and so in some ways it did have better gameplay. RTW, the newer game, should have been superior in every way to the old engine. It wasn't.

But it has a campaign and battle map which plays a pivotal role in the game.


Let me guess... because it will have "better graphics"?

I was thinking more of improved technology as a whole.


The sprites in MTW and STW were perfect for the range they were normally viewed at. The RTW sprites that kick in once you're zoomed out to a certain range are inferior. The 3D models are only good if you're going to spend time up close inspecting your men. If you're doing that then you're clearly not keeping your eye on the battle as a whole - which is what TW battles are all about (well it's what they used to be about anyway). Really this is just a gimmick that is not needed and at the time served to distract from RTW's major shortcomings.

Like I said sprites cannot play a major role in this discussion.


This is understandable as it is the earlier game.

You hit the nail on the head there.

[caravel]

= is makes, same difference.
You're blatently trying to worm your way out of the absurd statement that you have made that "better graphics = better gameplay". I am going to make this response my last, as we're clearly getting nowhere here.

Your points about FPS are exactly mine. Later titles tend to improve. That is why people buy them.
Of course, but not only do they improve graphically, they must improve in terms of gameplay. No one goes out and buys a game again simply because it's had a facelift.

RTW promised epic battles of thousands of men, superior AI and a better campaign map and diplomacy, this is why TW players went out and bought it. It failed to deliver on this. AI and Diplomacy are indeed a joke.

But it has a campaign and battle map which plays a pivotal role in the game.
And that's pretty much where the similarity ends. To quote Mouzafphaerre, M2TW is MTW "in name only", it is not MTW and doesn't have the tactical battles of MTW. RTW battles are simple bumrushes of a confused mass of units all jumbled together. Generally cavalry charges rout almost everything, Roman units are superior and phalanxes turn chariots into soup. Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.

Like I said sprites cannot play a major role in this discussion.
Why not? The sprites in RTW should have improved, the gameplay should have improved, battles should have improved. In fact the only thing that improved were the 3D models for the units and buildings. How does improving these to the detriment of all else make for "better gameplay"?

[Puzz3D]

I would turn that into a poll - how long has it been since you last played Total War? But I'm too lazy. :grin:
Played a 7 hour session of Samurai Wars multiplayer yesterday, and a few turns of its SP campaign. That's STW ported to the MTW/VI engine which is really the best of both worlds. The best game matched to the best engine.

[TosaInu]

STW has 4 turns per year, only one harvest season and winter battles. MTW has none of this (yes, winter battles are there, but normally not in the campaign).

The campaign being short can be fixed (in more than one way: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local_links.php?linkid=639 ), but one harvest season and winterbattles?

[Ramses II CP]

Personally, for sheer joy of campaign, I'd take MTW: Viking Invasion over all the others. It had a tolerably good strategic AI, a fun story line, a good campaign length, and some truly excellent battles at times. Plus the factions were clearly not all equal, so if you wanted an easy campaign you could take the Vikings, and if you wanted a hard one you could take the Irish.

Shogun is a close second. Loved the battles, but the heavy cavalry dominance got to be a bit much late in every campaign.

MTW2 is third. I love the game, but by all the gods the strategic AI is terrible, and evidently nearly unfixable. The battle AI is, if anything, even worse. Has anyone ever lost a citadel to the AI?

I never bought Rome. I was waiting for the most damaging bugs to get sorted out, and lost interest before they were (...by mods evidently).

:egypt:

[The Wandering Scholar]

I was not going to reply but them question marks were just staring at me. I understand that you are not going to reply so I will try not be controversial.


You're blatently trying to worm your way out of the absurd statement that you have made that "better graphics = better gameplay". I am going to make this response my last, as we're clearly getting nowhere here.

Of course, but not only do they improve graphically, they must improve in terms of gameplay. No one goes out and buys a game again simply because it's had a facelift.

RTW promised epic battles of thousands of men, superior AI and a better campaign map and diplomacy, this is why TW players went out and bought it. It failed to deliver on this. AI and Diplomacy are indeed a joke.

And that's pretty much where the similarity ends. To quote Mouzafphaerre, M2TW is MTW "in name only", it is not MTW and doesn't have the tactical battles of MTW. RTW battles are simple bumrushes of a confused mass of units all jumbled together. Generally cavalry charges rout almost everything, Roman units are superior and phalanxes turn chariots into soup. Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.

Why not? The sprites in RTW should have improved, the gameplay should have improved, battles should have improved. In fact the only thing that improved were the 3D models for the units and buildings. How does improving these to the detriment of all else make for "better gameplay"?

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to. I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.

I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing? Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.

Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire. Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were. Oh and take for example the battle between Caesar and Sertorius in Spain where legions on legions were in a stalemate before Caesar ordered his cavalry to charge the flank of Sertorius' troops, as soon as they they hit Sertorius' tired army broke and ran. This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.

[Martok]

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to. I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.
Adding new features to a game is pointless unless the computer is able to use said features with a reasonable degree of competency/proficiency. Therefore, the campaign map in RTW/M2TW is actually worse than the STW/MTW map because the AI handles it poorly.



I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing?
"Slightly" easier?

Rome's AI doesn't use tactics in battle; it doesn't flank or attemp envelopment, it sends units into battle piecemeal instead of as a cohesive whole, and it doesn't know how to utilize most units effectively. On the campaign map, it constantly sends pitiful half-stacks of troops at your armies that are easily mowed down.

And to be quite blunt, diplomacy *is* a joke in RTW (although to be fair, it's been a weakness in all the Total War titles, STW & MTW included). Sure, Rome's diplomacy model is more sophisticated than the 2 earlier games; but again, this is another "feature" that the AI doesn't know how to use properly.



Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.
I highly doubt that. It was painfully obvious from the beginning that with all the emphasis on Rome's new battle engine and its shiny graphics, the AI was a low priority.



Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire. Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were. Oh and take for example the battle between Caesar and Sertorius in Spain where legions on legions were in a stalemate before Caesar ordered his cavalry to charge the flank of Sertorius' troops, as soon as they they hit Sertorius' tired army broke and ran. This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.
Setting aside that Caesar fought against Pompey's sons (not Sertorius) in the battle of Munda, it's still beside the point. Rome was famous for its infantry legions, and justly so -- it was they that did the bulk of the fighting. I'm not saying that cavalry didn't play its part, but it certainly didn't take center stage on the battlefield as a general rule.

So it is indeed ironic that cavalry in RTW is so powerful, when it's the infantry that should be supreme (especially with respect to the Romans themselves).

[Myrddraal]

I most enjoyed MTW:VI.

Just because it was great fun. Perhaps not so historical, but really good gameplay.

[Puzz3D]

Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.
So, it's not the same game with better graphics. It's an inferior game with better graphics. BTW, multiplayer gameplay has also been in decline ever since the Mongol Invasion add-on to STW.

[Eikon the Magistrate]

Ive only played RTW MTW and MTW2 but of those I liked MTW best. Mostly I suppose because of the gameplay and the options afforded to the player. Also I found the battles in MTW to be more *epic* in nature than MTW2 ..seems that the AI dosent put up much struggle even on VH conditions, and there is never enuf carnage to go around ... I havent had a battle in MTW2 come even close to the scale that I would on MTW typically involving many thousands of troops on either side...(ie .. against the moors and egyptians 2k/5k was quite normal... hours and hours of battletime. Also the faction control itself required more maintenance and perhaps imagination with the first MTW title.

In the first MTW title, the factions behaved historically... even with the Moors and their attempts to take over Iberia. And the factions were more fractured and easily turned to rebellion. I enjoyed splitting factions or choosing my own side.

On the other hand.. with MTW2 at least naval and siege battles seem to work properly and theres the New World and all those nice graphics..

[caravel]

I was not going to reply but them question marks were just staring at me. I understand that you are not going to reply so I will try not be controversial.
I wasn't going to reply either, but yet again you've dropped another clanger.

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to.
No, characters can only move on the flat land and the roads. They cannot move into the mountains or forest, this is far from free movement. Perhaps it is unwise to move one's armies through the mountains and high passes, but it should be allowed. If I can deploy my army to the middle of a scorching desert and leave them there for a few years then surely I can deploy them to the centre of a forest or high in the mountains? Army stacks in RTW move along the roads from one province to the next and nothing more. This gives predictably flat and boring battle maps with little variation. This is pretty much how every other strategy title works and is nothing new. It's not any more "advanced".

I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.
It is not a major improvement over the "chess map", as you call it, in itself. The RTW map is a simple tiled map with relief and 3D buildings on top. The "freedom" of movement" allows enemies into your provinces unchecked turning 99% of all battles into siege battles. I'm not saying that such a map doesn't have potential as an improvement over the risk map, it certainly does, but first it needs a lot of tweaking and improvement to make a decent and usable campaign out of it. The first step to improvement is to give total freedom of movement to all pieces on the map, with extended movement for agents, and reinstate provinces as viable areas of control That is to say that it should not be necessary to have your army inside the city to maintain order, simply having them within the borders of the province itself should be enough. This would allow you to position those men on the frontiers, perhaps in forts or defending bridges and other strategic positions, while still maintaining public order.

I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing? Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.
I said "a joke" because AI and diplomacy in RTW are substandard. Battle AI, campaign map AI and campaign map diplomacy are all problematic. Diplomacy is especially bad and CA have acknowledged that the diplomacy in RTW and M2TW was a problem due to the fact that the military AI was detached from the diplomatic AI. That is to say that an emissary can arrive to offer a ceasefire (perhaps even the classic: "please do not attack" - "accept or we will attack") and directly afterwards that emissary's faction will besiege one of your settlements! This is why I gave up looking at the diplomatic info shown at the end of every turn. The diplomacy is also extremely simplistic and entirely random. If you make an offer and it is refused trying again will force the "bandying empty words" refusal. Large cash bribes are the only sure way to have a good chance of getting the AI to accept your proposal, and at times the AI will offer you a ceasefire which if you counter with a "give me settlement X" in addition, they will often accept it for no apparent reason and hand you over a prime settlement (which they will usually besiege again the following turn!). There are many more examples of poor diplomacy, but in short the diplomatic AI is broken.

Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire.
Ahh... thank you for sharing that one with us. And there was me thinking it was down to Roman military organisation, culture and logistics that were the key factors in expanding the empire. So it was RTW style super storm trooper legions all along? You learn something new every day... :inquisitive:

Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were.
Yes, how stupid of me and how clever of you. Let's ignore the fact that the phalanxes in RTW are just as effective against infantry, overpowered and so severely bugged that a few realism mods have taken the phalanx formation out altogether as they are unable to balance it. I have won battles in RTW with 4 or 5 units of armoured hoplites, two units of peltasts and the general defending the square of a city from quite literally thousands of the dumbest enemies known to man. Is this your "slightly easier" AI? The enemy throw themselves at the spearpoints like lemmings, and watching the enemy general's cavalry come in at full kilter and the chariots fall to bits on contact is a good laugh.

This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.
Once again you make a flawed statement when allude to the inferiority of Gaulish war bands. In terms of military organisation yes, but in terms of martial skill in single combat most certainly not. This effectively means that the outcome of an RTW campaign should be down to the skill of the player and influences, skills and ability of your generals and not the imbalances of unit types and in particular the imbalance in favour of the Roman factions. Also the cavalry charge really didn't come into it's own during the period as the stirrup had not come into widespread use in Europe at that time. In Europe the period was mainly one of infantry warfare with cavalry warfare being more dominant in the east.

[Spongie]

Give it up, Tom0. You lost the debate as far back as the (frankly ludicrous) claim that "better graphics = better gameplay" and it's just been getting worse ever since. Time to rout off the battlefield.....

[AngarakaS]

To be honest, I love them all - regardless of graphics, gameplay bugs (er "features" :D) and whether I can talk my brother into letting me beat him repeatedly around the head with an army or two!

Overall though, right at this moment, RTW is proving my first love. That whole time period, a time of HUGE change for the world as it was then is just amazing and to be able to field armies at a time when tactics were becoming more refined is good fun too.

[The Wandering Scholar]

So, it's not the same game with better graphics. It's an inferior game with better graphics

nb easier does not mean inferior.



Give it up, Tom0. You lost the debate as far back as the (frankly ludicrous) claim that "better graphics = better gameplay" and it's just been getting worse ever since. Time to rout off the battlefield.....


I still stick to my point of better graphics equaling better gameplay.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Might I suggest we clam down and discuss this in a rational manner. If you have any issues with the actions of other members, feel free to use the report post button (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/sdojo/buttons/report.gif) to notify the relevant staff of the issue.

Thanks :bow:

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Medieval, my first Total War, takes army innovations to a new level. For example the number of ranks that spearmen, infantry, and archers are most effective at.

The game is extremely balanced, this requires less uniqueness in factions I guess, but means more tactics are involved. So, battles can be very long, and new decisions will have to be made. Thankfully for Froggy's EXTREMELY good MTW guide, I finally won some quick battles.

Even now, sometimes the AI defeats me, and I always beat M2 armies on VH battles. (Full stack/whatever)

I kinda prefer M2 in campaign, however it's just sad how broken the AI is; I hope the new patch to be released, makes M2 into the game, I guess, that it was supposed to be.

BTW the best multiplayer experience I had was in MTW, I assume it's just as good in STW.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.Oh my, that happened to me as well. Simply put, if you haven't played MTW or STW you are not a TW veteran.

[Hound of Ulster]

The first TW game I played was MTW-VI (bought on a lark my first summer away from home.). My assesments (I only play single player)

STW/MI...brutal is an understatement. If you make a single mistake against the AI your screwed, even on the lower difficulty settings. Faction selection is a bit small, but your victory conditions are more flexiable. Unit selection is also small, and mixed forces are better. Graphics crude (even for a game made in 2000-2001). Atmosphere is wonderful.
Overall grade (out of 5) 4.0

MTW/VI...Actually easier than STW. Civil Wars and disloyal generals make you watch your back. Cavalry not as good as they should be for the time frame. Shines best in XL mod (for time-period) and ATW mod (sheer variety). Most stable modability. Atmosphere not as good. Map a little bit smaller than prefered Graphics slightly better than STW.
Overall grade 4.1(gets more points because of mods)

RTW...despite stupid AI is still fun. Really shines in RTR, Roma Surrectum, and EB mods. vanilla map is a huge drawback, making eastern factions effectivly unplayable. Big unit selection for major factions a plus. Each faction brings a differant flavor to the party. Cavalry slightly over-powered, but considering that the Romans never beat the Parthians in a fair fight this is understandable. Not as well-researched as previous games. ahistorical units a minus. Graphics are very good.
Overall grade 3.5 (loses points for silly AI, but gains a lot from mods, most of which correct ahistoricality and too-small map)

RTWBI...I count BI as a seperate game because of the differant features and overall differant flavor. Roman Rebels make things interesting. Religion adds difficulty to campaign. Doesn't fix AI issues. small vanilla map actually gives advantage to Sassinsids, as they don't have an Eastern border to defend. Wierd siege tower bug a huge problem. Hording is a great feature which should have been in RTW itself. Like RTW, works best with mods, with Rio's and IB being the big winners. IBFD especially opens up a whole new dimension by adding bigger map and Hephalites, which keeps the Sassinsids honest.
Overall grade 3.6 (loses points for smaller faction selection, but gains big for mods)

M2TW...graphics are too sophisticated. For a game that is played mostly by casual gamers and history buffs, extremely advanced graphics were a mistake. Map is bigger, but I really can't evualate this one because of the fact I can't play it in full.
Overall grade none

M2TWKingdoms...as with M2TW
Overall grade none

My verdict. MTW/VI is best TW game, but STW is tied for second with RTW and RTWBI, but each is good game in its own right.

[Good Ship Chuckle]

RTW by far.
But specifically, I like vanilla over BI.

[Samurai Waki]

Shogun. Simply because back in '00 I was completely thunderstruck. I had never imagined a game like this could possibly have existed, I liked the combat, the History, and the Vids. MTWs gameplay may have been less linear and more in depth, but STW just had the first time thing... Rome and M2:TW are way to easy, and despite the better graphics add nothing meaty to the gameplay (and in fact take away a lot). I didn't get that anxious feeling whenever I was parted with either title. But when I had to go to bed or school, and be parted from my STW, I just about went nuts.

[Spartan198]

I've played all Total Wars except Kingdoms,but I have to go with Rome on this one. It's not because of the graphics,but simply because I'm far more familiar with the period than I am with medieval Europe and feudal Japan.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

To me it is Rome Total War...
It was the first TW game I had and I think it is far better than the other TW game I have (M2TW) ..
I like the periode and the battles are much more enjoyable ..
:2thumbsup:

[Gregoshi]

Japanese History was a zero-interest topic for me (aside from WW2). STW changed all that. Not only were the battles great, but the immersion factor sucked me right into an very heightened interest in Japan and its history.

RTW was the exact opposite - I had a very high interest in Rome and the time period, but the game play failed for me. RTW had lots of features that looked good on paper but turned out weak in inplementation. For example, you can move anywhere on the map, but I eventually realized that 95% of my battles were fought on flat maps with a road running throught it...oh, yeah, and a rock. The battle speed has been mentioned a few times already.

MTW seemed to be a pretty good game but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, I didn't play it as much as I should have. I didn't get M2TW, so I can't comment on it.

[Martok]

Japanese History was a zero-interest topic for me (aside from WW2). STW changed all that. Not only were the battles great, but the immersion factor sucked me right into an very heightened interest in Japan and its history.
Same here. I couldn't have possibly cared less about the history of fedual Japan....until Shogun came along. After that, I couldn't get enough of samurai & Sun Tzu. :yes:

[Raz]

I've always liked the Feudal Japan era - mainly the ninjas. Plus I haven't played STW. So what does that mean, if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC? :thinking:

[Spartan198]

I've always liked the Feudal Japan era - mainly the ninjas. Plus I haven't played STW. So what does that mean, if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC? :thinking:

That's how it happened with me and R:TW / BI. :whip:

[Quintus.JC]

Medieval II is excellent but Rome is the better game in many ways, never played Shougon.

[macsen rufus]

I have to put MTW:VI top, with STW a very close second.

What really struck me when I first tried MTW was that for the first time ever in a stretegy game, I had to actually use REAL tactics, like controlling terrain features, flanking, formations etc, and consider morale, weather, valour and other factors. Just clicking faster wasn't an option.

I did try RTW and BI, but after a couple of months I got seriously bored with them. Initially I had the "ooh pretty" reaction, but by the time I learnt the game, there was no real tactical depth to it. I characterise the typical RTW battle as half an hour of marching, 5 seconds of confused melee, then half an hour of running away / chasing depending on the result. Every battle seemed the same after a couple of campaigns. It wasn't long before I was getting MTW withdrawal and went back to that and STW again (which means a change of graphics drivers, making RTW unplayable now). In light of this I haven't even considered M2TW and probably won't touch Empires either. I do want to give EB a try, though, that's about the only positive thing in RTW's favour for me.

STW really wins on its atmosphere - nothing else matches it. Marching your samurai off into the dense fog, not knowing where the enemy might be hiding makes the battles a lot more tense, and as Tosa said the four seasons and a single harvest adds more challenges because it makes forward planning a lot more unpredictable - you wait all year, depserate for more troops, and then have a terrible harvest! It can really force you to adapt or die. And like Gregoshi and Martok, I found my general interest in Japanese history suddenly leapt up :bow:


if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC?

:yes: :yes: :yes:

[General Appo]

The best TW game? A hard question. I havn´t played STW or MTW (:embarassed:) so I can´t really speak about them. I´d say that I´ve had more fun with RTW, and that is what counts, is it not? MTW2 is a great game too, just that it and RTW pales in comparison to EB.
MTW2 might be the best TW game I´ve played so far, but RTW is the one I´ve enjoyed the most, so I´ll go with RTW.

[8Koala]

I'm seeing alot more nostalgia than anything in this thread. Everybody has their own preference though, and I think MTW is the best campaign and BI was the most fun I have had playing multiplayer. M2TW is a disaster in both campaign and multiplayer, and I have only been playing it for a few weeks now. I agree with the notion that the experience for multiplayer has been on the decline, but that is perhaps because the game is taking on more than it can handle. Using unit/faction diversity while adding new unit types certainly makes it more difficult to balance the game, but at the same time is more appealing from a marketing standpoint. Is it safe to say that more people play the game now than they did in Shogun era? If so, that may allow more resources into the development of the game so that they don't botch it up like they did with M2TW and Kingdoms. Somehow return to the old but with the eyecandy that is so regretfully delicious.

[SingandSmile0]

I have played Shogun.

[Caerfanan]

Uh... I would place myself in the "martok + Caravel + Macsen Rufus" generation. I played RTW and MTW and enjoyed both, but in terms of the battles themselves... No doubt, MTW.. I just recently had those repeated battles against the glden horde in Kiev "easy bridge battles". Except during the third battle with your experienced but thinner troops, in the third wave of assaillants, when the fresh mongol cavalry just decides to rush to the other bridge, where you have only a few guys left....

[Caerfanan]

Oh, about nostalgia, I don't really get why speaking of nostalgia. You try "game_name V2" and find it less interesting than "game_name V1". Why stick to V2?

I think that a difference stands between multiplayer players and campaign players, for in multiplayer only the battle itself is important... So Cool units and Eye candy tends to have a better impact?

[Theodotos I]

As far as strictly CA production, the original MTW is the best. Very, very difficult game to master, good trait system, challenging battles, so forth. The only drawback was the graphics on the battlemap. But, I would have to throw my weight(for whatever it's worth), behind RTW for one simple reason: Europa Barbarorum. This is an incredible mod that completely owns anything Creative Assembly has ever put out for sheer depth and complexity. It's unparalleled. I try not to be too hard on CA because they did after all give us this game system in the first place, but they've slipped over the years. Dowload EB and give it a try. It's incredible.

[Puzz3D]

But, I would have to throw my weight(for whatever it's worth), behind RTW for one simple reason: Europa Barbarorum.
I might try it, but there are serious problems with RTW that Europa Barbarorum can't fix. For instance:

1. the strategic AI doesn't know how to play on the campaign map.
2. there is a bias in the strategic AI that makes it underestimate the strength of a player's army causing the AI to attack when it shouldn't.
3. there is no way to stop the over effectiveness of blobbing units in battle.
4. the battle AI doesn't protect the flanks of its army.
5. the battle AI frontally charges superior enemy units with inferior units.
6. the battle AI doesn't know its men have shields.
7. the battle AI won't move a unit that's under fire out of range.
8. the battle AI doesn't coordinate multiple armies.
9. the battle AI runs its units to exhaustion.
10. the battle AI throws pila after a unit is engaged in melee.
11. the battle AI doesn't use the secondary weapon.
12. the phalanx has the butt spike bug which kills cavalry hitting it from behind.
13. the differential between walk and run speed is incorrect unless EB made new animation skeletons.
14. the calculation for the effect of armor and shield protection is screwed up.
15. the AI doesn't protect its artillery from melee attack (this is a problem in MTW as well).
16. the combat model is not robust leading to too high unpredictability of combat results.

[Orda Khan]

I would have expected RTW to be the best title (either with or without BI) probably because the era evokes so much interest and also because of the pre release hype (TV etc). CA made a series of errors and M2TW is still suffering the same fate, plus it is a rehash of an old title.
I've never been too impressed with the campaign AI, in any of the titles.
The toughest realtime battle would be STW but even there, the AI did stupid things.
Since STW, MP has declined to the point where I quit playing. I didn't buy Kingdoms and I won't be buying ETW.

Saying that, the EB team did a tremendous job with RTW, maybe if CA hired these guys their games would be worth buying

......Orda

[Hound of Ulster]

I think your preferance seems to be dictated by which TW game you played first. The A.I's problem is not that it's stupid, its that its too clever and tries what appears on the field to be the easy way, which in battle is not always the best way. Most mods do thier best to fix some of the more glaring issues, however. I've noticed in RTR, IBFD, Rio's, and RS that the A.I seems 'smarter' on a certain level, especially about unit selection and general tactics.

[Baby Boomer]

I'd say a tie between RTW and MTW.

Both have excellent mods. I found RTW the most appealing original campaign. I never found interest in Roman history and vaguely studied into that area of history just after. Mods such as NTW and FATW entrance me. I find original camapgins (*awful*) compared to the Mod produced these days. Bloody marvellous.

For MTW I found the original campaign okay whe I first tried it ('03 or '04) but now I don't like it. I can't get used to the campaign graphics and lack of things mentioned in RTW and M2TW. I do like the battle's though and find them much more atractvie then RTW, M2TW or by the looks STW. Mods for MTW are also good. Unfortunely they never attained the piece's of art which RTW proudly hosts (And M2TW is coming better now) But cegoroch's Pike and Musket mod and The Lordz Napoleonic mod provide the greatest interest (Just surf over to the Chapter House forums; and you'll find a Interactive History called Religious Wars; my favourtie in history)

But all up Empires is looking (and sounding) to be the best. Things such as destructibe environment, ship battles, isfiring weapons, wounded men and such smoke of battle (And the added favour 1400 to 2000 are my absolutefavourtie eras) I eagerly anticpate it.

I unfortunely never tried STW; and don't want to. The graphics are a step back (Graphics are important to me unless gameplay is overpowering, sadly the case lost in most games. But games such as EUIII, HoI and even MTW a siginifcant examples) and factions very shallow (Repetitive)

I haven't tried Kingdoms ever but hope to attain it by this June, I look forward most of all to the America's Campaigns which I am assured is bloody brilliant (As is the Brittania campaign by the sounds)

If CA stays true to their word I hope to see all the stuff they mentioned plus wildife, better graphics, hundreds of tiny things which make all the diffrence in the world (Admit it; when everything is in a good game but it lacks a tiny thing your slightly disappointed) ETW will be a inspiring and jaw breaking (And PC breaking:clown: ) game.

That's my 2 cents.

[caravel]

I unfortunely never tried STW; and don't want to. The graphics are a step back and factions very shallow (Repetitive)
How can you say the factions are "shallow" and repetitive if you've never actually played the game? Also the graphics are not a "step back" as this is actually an older game.

[The Wandering Scholar]

The factions are repetitve though as they feature similar if not the same units. Not sure how shallow can be used in this case.

[Puzz3D]

When you zoom out the graphics in STW and MTW are superior to any other Total war game. Also, in STW the units are more distinguishable from each other, and in STW/MTW more distinguishable from the ground textures than in the games since RTW. This is extremely important when playing multiplayer.



I think your preferance seems to be dictated by which TW game you played first.
Not in my case. I was perfectly willing and did migrate to the new releases, but the quality of the battlefield gameplay in multiplayer continually declined after the first release. I finally stopped migrating to the new release after trying RTW.


The A.I's problem is not that it's stupid, its that its too clever and tries what appears on the field to be the easy way, which in battle is not always the best way.
The problem is that features have been put into the game that the AI doesn't know how to handle. The AI then makes stupid moves. Also, starting with RTW, the AI was made to attack with inferior forces and use inferior units for frontal assault. That is stupid especially when morale is low because the AI routs and suffers massive casualties.


Most mods do thier best to fix some of the more glaring issues, however. I've noticed in RTR, IBFD, Rio's, and RS that the A.I seems 'smarter' on a certain level, especially about unit selection and general tactics.
The mods can't fix any of the problems I mentioned in my previous post. Even the creators of EB don't claim any improvement of the AI other than some benefit from using the Darth formations. The best mods can do is remove stuff from the gameplay that the AI doesn't know how to handle.

[Puzz3D]

The factions are repetitve though as they feature similar if not the same units.
All the factions in STW have access to the same unit types, but the facions are not the same. There are diffences is topography, income, quality of generals and distribution of resources, and each faction has a different personality and reduced cost for different unit types that alters their building and training strategy. The AI techs up its units properly as well and every unit is useful, so you don't have AI factions full of useless obsolete units. The game is challenging because the AI makes good moves within the simplied game structure on both the strategic map and the tactical battlefield, and gives the impression of being more intelligent than it actually is.

In contrast, the RTW AI seems stupid to me because it makes too many mistakes. RTW is more complex, but it hasn't been fine tuned. Also, Creative Assembly has admitted that they dumbed down the battlefield gameplay because new players would be confused if they had to manage fatigue or morale or such things as downhill combat bonus. So these tactical aspects were minimized so that they have almost no effect anymore. And, the strategic AI doesn't know how to handle the new style map where movement is calculated by distance.

[Baby Boomer]

How can you say the factions are "shallow" and repetitive if you've never actually played the game? Also the graphics are not a "step back" as this is actually an older game.

I've heard that commonly stated; it was merely stating a opinion I heard beforehand. I also know the game is a older game; hence the reason the graphics are a step back... I have heard the Battle AI to be good and the Weather Effects seem better then the newer TW games.:balloon2:

I will be certian to try STW if I get time and my PC can handle it (No, my PC isn't that bad; perhaps being a older game it can't run I meant)

[caravel]

STW has atmosphere, elegance, superb battles, excellent in game movies that add to the immersion factor and the best music of all the TW titles. The campaign is simple and intuitive, not overcomplex leaving the main focus on the battles. The main thing is that the campaign does work and the campaign AI can handle the map reasonably, unlike in later titles where it clearly cannot.

In terms of graphics I'd say they're acceptable. The terrain is a bit low res and blurry and the seams are visible between sections. MTW doesn't have this issue. Apart from that and a few of the silly units, and unit imbalances introduced in the MI expansion you can't really fault it.

What I hate about later TW titles is getting the sense that I'm only winning because of how poor the AI is.

[Orda Khan]

Plus of course, it has the finest weather conditions of the lot. Even the improved graphics of M2TW can not match STW when it comes to conditions like snow, rain and fog

.....Orda

[Gregoshi]

Plus of course, it has the finest weather conditions of the lot. Even the improved graphics of M2TW can not match STW when it comes to conditions like snow, rain and fog

.....Orda
:yes:

And don't forget the thunderstorms! ~:eek:

[The Wandering Scholar]

STW has excellent in game movies that add to the immersion factor and the best music of all the TW titles.

I apologised for confusion fact with oppinion, I think you should do the same here.

[caravel]

I apologised for confusion fact with oppinion, I think you should do the same here.
Firstly you made no such apology, secondly no such apology was required. Thirdly why should I apologise for an opinion? It is a fact that STW had excellent in game movies, such as the assassination movies and the throne room. It is also a fact that it had the best music of the series so far.



BAFTA 2001 Award for Video Game Original Soundtrack, Shogun: Total War - Warlord Edition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_van_Dyck

RTW won the same award for it's music, but I've never known anyone that preferred the RTW music to that of STW. When people have visited me in the past I've had STW on pause a few occasions with the music audible. Most people have commented to the effect of "what is that lovely music?". Most can't believe it's coming from a computer game when I inform them of this. The only comparably good music in RTW is probably the Roman faction campaign map music or the theme music. Though overall it is pretty good and better than that of MTW, but not on the same consistent level as with STW.

Gregoshi and Orda Khan are also correct about the weather effects, which have never been bettered IMHO. It's all about immersion, not plastic looking eye candy and polygonal models. The weather in STW was perfectly in tune with the music and environments. As soon as a battle began you would hear the mournful sound of those "pipes" on a foggy morning. You could almost imagine being there. It all connected perfectly into one big audio visual symphony.

You see the difference between my argument and yours is that mine at least has some basis and I did not repeat the same illogical and ridiculous statement as fact several times over. You see, the fundamental of your statement amounted to: better cosmetics = better functionality. This implies that if one's car has broken down one should get it resprayed and valeted - problem solved. Not very scholarly.

:bow:

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

although i dont like to pick a favourite game in my favourite series i would have 2 say that my favourite is shogun total war. i think that the ai is better and provides a bit more of a challenge whereas in RTW the ai can often be poor. i do however think that rome has much better graphics but i disagree with the wandering scholar because i feel that this doesnt compensate for poor ai.

[The Wandering Scholar]

*sigh* when will you two bob gamers ever learn? Modern gaming is the whole package, casual gaming a sense of self achievement, what do you achieve by getting your ass kicked round a battle field? Self determination so you must stay up till 3am each night to finally win one battle?

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"

What about the joys of managing an empire? Please, do not start banging on about being the bobby fischer overlords that you aspire to be.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

*sigh* when will you two bob gamers ever learn? Modern gaming is the whole package, casual gaming a sense of self achievement, what do you achieve by getting your ass kicked round a battle field? Self determination so you must stay up till 3am each night to finally win one battle?

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"

What about the joys of managing an empire? Please, do not start banging on about being the bobby fischer overlords that you aspire to be.

your obviously a respected member more so than me because your a member and im not, and as much as i respect your opinion i have to disagree. i think that you get a better sense of achievement from beating complex and realistic ai who provide some sort of a challenge rather than ai who cant use all the functions that the human player can making them easy to defeat. sorry if i offend anybody here i honestly do respect your opinions! :yes:

[The Wandering Scholar]

your obviously a respected member more so than me because your a member and im not, and as much as i respect your opinion i have to disagree. i think that you get a better sense of achievement from beating complex and realistic ai who provide some sort of a challenge rather than ai who cant use all the functions that the human player can making them easy to defeat. sorry if i offend anybody here i honestly do respect your opinions!


I have to applaud you on your manners Majar Sam. Your polite manner and willingness to overcome previous wrongs should grant you member status in no time at all.

Or maybe you get an increased sense of achievement in winning more battles, taking more settlements, rising to the top? (edit) in the same amount of time

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

well thankyou, i do try to be as polite as possible. and as a matter of fact i feel asthough ive achieved more if ive worked for something as opposed to it been gifted to me.

[The Wandering Scholar]

That is the attitude to have.

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

ill take that as a compliment shall i?

[Martok]

Or maybe you get an increased sense of achievement in winning more battles, taking more settlements, rising to the top? (edit) in the same amount of time
Only if one has defeated an opponent who's actually challenging (which the AI in RTW never was). Otherwise such victories are meaningless.

[caravel]

And that is all you care about? Oh wait sorry, "what is that splendid music, Caravel?"
The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better music = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all. :yes:

[Et_Majar_Sam_18]

The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better music = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all. :yes:

Quite true indeed.

[Puzz3D]

OK. I went back and played a Shogun campaign (STW/MI Warlords Edition) to see how hard it was. It depends on which clan you play, but since I never played Shimazu and I have a Shimazu campaign (normal difficulty setting) in progress with Samurai Warlords I chose Shimazu on normal difficulty. The only changes I've made to Shogun is to return the gun stats to the original STW v1.12 stats, and a couple of other minor alterations. The guns didn't play a role in my Shogun campaign because nobody got guns before the end of the campaign.

I started on Friday night and finished the campaign on Sunday morning. I played out all the battles except for auto-resolving 3 battles near the end of the campaign. I won all but two or three of the battles. I made use of the geisha to eliminate Uesugi late in the game, but he was going down to defeat very soon anyway. I always had enough money even though Shimazu is supposed to be a poor clan. I had conquered 30 provinces after 100 turns (25 years), and conquered all 60 provinces in 136 turns. No AI clan presented formidable resistance, and I never lost a province once I had taken it. It appeared that the AI clans were weakened by fighting among themselves, and a single AI clan had not yet taken over the other half of the map at the point I had half. Once I had half, it only took me 36 turns to take the northern half. To make this campaign challenging I would have to play on expert difficulty, and I may give that a try.

For comparison, in my Samurai Warlords Shimazu campaign, which started in 1467 with 1 turn per year, I was only able to capture 15 provinces after 104 turns, and 20 provinces after 234 turns. The game ends around 1865, so I only have about 166 turns left. The economics limits to a greater degree how many troops a province can support, and you have to disband low loyalty units to avoid civil wars. The threat of clan re-emergence also slows down expansion and the AI might be having trouble managing this, but it doesn't seem to benefit the human player except to prevent one AI clan from dominating the map. The vices and virtures may tend to reduce the number of good generals. In any case, I definitely have less good generals available than I did in my Shogun campaign. I lost many battles in this campaign. The battle AI is slightly stronger than the Shogun battle AI in that AI generals don't suicide and cavalry tries to flank. The AI uses a good selection of units, and guns come into use fairly soon in the campaign.

In both games the battle AI is good and doesn't make blatant mistakes but it's predictable, so the human player can use that to gain an advantage. The AI doesn't use ranged units as well as it uses melee units.

On the strategic side in Samurai Wars I use the command line argument, -loyalty:180, so that the AI doesn't let province loyalty drop too low, but it doesn't seem to disband low loyalty units and that causes the AI clans to have periodic civil wars. The human player can take advantage of this to expand by a few provinces, but it's very easy to overextend and get into trouble. I also had one civil war myself which seemed almost inevitable, despite my best efforts to avoid it, due to some very low quality heirs which you can't disband and a low influence daimyo. This campaign is hard even at at the normal difficulty setting, and I think Shimazu is one of the easier campaigns. I lost 7 times in a row playing Takeda, but I did well with Oda and Ashikaga. There are 24 playable clans in all.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Only if one has defeated an opponent who's actually challenging (which the AI in RTW never was). Otherwise such victories are meaningless.

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.

[The Wandering Scholar]

The difference is that I have put my argument across in a different manner and not for example "better graphics = better gameplay". My argument all along has had some basis whereas your's has had none at all. :yes:

Apart from better graphics = bettter gameplay :inquisitive:

[Martok]

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.
So you derive more satisfaction from defeating an easy opponent than you would had you beaten a tougher enemy. :inquisitive: Well to each his own, I guess.

[The Wandering Scholar]

You can just sit back, chill out and have a fun relaxing time. Rather than having full concentration for hours on end, there is a mass audience for passive gamers, one which CA chipped into with RTW

[caravel]

Maybe meaningless to you but not to the average gamer.
No, I would say it's more so: meaningful to you but meaningless to the "average gamer". Try not to bring the "average gamer" down to your level just to try and support your argument. Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics this does not mean that the "average gamer" doesn't either.

Also I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term "passive gamer". That sounds like a load of poppycock as well. Does the "passive gamer" sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side? I think you'll find that all gaming is interactive in some way and it is this that makes a game, a game after all.

:beam:

[The Wandering Scholar]

No, I would say it's more so: meaningful to you but meaningless to the "average gamer". Try not to bring the "average gamer" down to your level just to try and support your argument. Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics this does not mean that the "average gamer" doesn't either.

Also I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term "passive gamer". That sounds like a load of poppycock as well. Does the "passive gamer sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side? I think you'll find that all gaming is interactive in some way and it is this that makes a game, a game after all.

:beam:

As a matter of fact I do not class myself as the average gamer, when have I said that? So therefore Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics is a PA.

A passive gamer is a gamer who lets life pass him by ie he gets in from work, plonks his ass, chills out with a ice cold drink and has fun. Not sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side. An active gamer would sit forward, engage and be determined to challenge ones self and hence go for harder games.

[caravel]

As a matter of fact I do not class myself as the average gamer, when have I said that? So therefore Because you quite obviously cannot fight and win a decent difficulty battle through use of proper tactics is a PA.
All of your comments so far have placed you firmly in your "passive gamer" category. But now we're on to the "average gamer" I see?


A passive gamer is a gamer who lets life pass him by ie he gets in from work, plonks his ass, chills out with a ice cold drink and has fun. Not sit in front of the pc while drooling and rocking from side to side. An active gamer would sit forward, engage and be determined to challenge ones self and hence go for harder games.
Ah, now I get it. So from this I can conclude that the "average gamer", after gently setting his backside down, relaxes with a nice beverage at room temperature and has a pretty spiffing old time looking at the nice graphics? But does not sit forward so much as to necessitate a visit to the chiropracter?

:book2:

[Puzz3D]

You can just sit back, chill out and have a fun relaxing time. Rather than having full concentration for hours on end, there is a mass audience for passive gamers, one which CA chipped into with RTW
That's right. They increased sales by dumbing down the game, and I expect this trend to continue in Empire Total War. The increased diplomatic features in RTW were useless because you can completely ignore diplomacy when playing the campaign. As far as battles go, I've seen the naval interface for ETW, and it's less comprehensive than Privateer's Bounty which is a much older game. The land battles in ETW have also been simplified in an as yet unspecified way.

[The Wandering Scholar]

That's right. They increased sales by dumbing down the game, and I expect this trend to continue in Empire Total War. The increased diplomatic features in RTW were useless because you can completely ignore diplomacy when playing the campaign. As far as battles go, I've seen the naval interface for ETW, and it's less comprehensive than Privateer's Bounty which is a much older game. The land battles in ETW have also been simplified in an as yet unspecified way.

Thankyou Puzz3D, they made the game easier and sold more copies... A nice move by CA.



All of your comments so far have placed you firmly in your "passive gamer" category. But now we're on to the "average gamer" I see?

Completely unfounded.


Ah, now I get it. So from this I can conclude that the "average gamer", after gently setting his backside down, relaxes with a nice beverage at room temperature and has a pretty spiffing old time looking at the nice graphics? But does not sit forward so much as to necessitate a visit to the chiropracter?

*Another sigh* Caravel, are you an obnoxious person? You have purposefully mis-quoted me for your own ends, again. You seem to be having difficuly grasping the whole idea of a passive gamer.

[Caerfanan]

Well... I'll say that each one has it reasons to prefer a game on another. Some other person have as well a reason to "fight" about what is best and why. But here's a difference. When you play a game to get rid of the heavy thoughts of the day, you don't play the same game as when you have been in holidays for a week and are bored: that's why shooting at stupid rabbits while jumping everywhere is a good game sometimes, and managing a whole empire is a good game at other times.

Some people listen to music to ease their mind, some to analyze technically the use of an instrument (I know some of those), some to get some energy, some to sleep.. They could argue for ages, and try to be "objectively saying that their view is the best because"... Forgetting that they don't have the same goal first...

All games have a reason to be the best for someone. Speaking of why you like it can then give to someone else the idea of trying it - but you won't logically force anyone into doing anything.

[TosaInu]

Well... I'll say that each one has it reasons to prefer a game on another. Some other person have as well a reason to "fight" about what is best and why. But here's a difference. When you play a game to get rid of the heavy thoughts of the day, you don't play the same game as when you have been in holidays for a week and are bored: that's why shooting at stupid rabbits while jumping everywhere is a good game sometimes, and managing a whole empire is a good game at other times.

Some people listen to music to ease their mind, some to analyze technically the use of an instrument (I know some of those), some to get some energy, some to sleep.. They could argue for ages, and try to be "objectively saying that their view is the best because"... Forgetting that they don't have the same goal first...

All games have a reason to be the best for someone. Speaking of why you like it can then give to someone else the idea of trying it - but you won't logically force anyone into doing anything.

:yes:

[caravel]

Completely unfounded.
Really? You had first defined the phenomenon of the "passive gamer" in this thread. Now it seems that you resent being regarded as being among their number, even though all of your previous comments place you firmly in this category? You've just said again that it was a "great move" by CA in making the game easier? I'm not going to collect up a big bundle of your quotes. I invite anyone to go and have a look through the thread.

*Another sigh* Caravel, are you an obnoxious person?
Never ask an obnoxious person if he/she is obnoxious or not. You should know this. :laugh4:

You have purposefully mis-quoted me for your own ends, again. You seem to be having difficuly grasping the whole idea of a passive gamer.
Allow me to voice my disagreement. I have not misquoted you at all, I'm merely trying to illustrate the inane nature of the worthless classifications or "pigeonholes" that you're coming up with. I simply cannot take your "passive gamer" / "average gamer" gibberish seriously, because it is in essence lame marketing jargon that has it's origins in, yes you guessed it, marketing! It was in fact you that directly misquoted me earlier on in the thread. I chose to ignore this as it quite simply wasn't worth the effort of responding to.

Though now I feel that we are wandering offtopic somewhat?

Back on topic: Which TW is the best? Why STW of course! And why is that I hear you ask? Well because it had geishas (:gring:) and geishas (:gring:) = better gameplay and if you disagree with me... well errrmmm you're abnoxious and and...

:thumbsup:

[Gregoshi]

:listen: caravel, you remember that STW does not have camels, right?

:laugh4:

[caravel]

:listen: caravel, you remember that STW does not have camels, right?

:laugh4:
Shhhh... :quiet:














better camels = better gameplay

[Orda Khan]

The battle AI is slightly stronger than the Shogun battle AI in that AI generals don't suicide and cavalry tries to flank. The AI uses a good selection of units, and guns come into use fairly soon in the campaign.
I don't know if I would agree, though it's been a while since I played a campaign with the Samurai mod, perhaps it has been updated.
I completed a campaign with Uesugi and I can remember being particularly sick of seeing endless Kensai on the battlefield. Of course, they soon drop when peppered with arrows but they are still not cost effective.
Generals (Hatamoto) still insisted on riding up to my units to commence fire with their bows, which generally resulted in them dying or being routed by the volleys of arrows they received. Incidentally, I tried some custom battles and noticed that if the enemy general was a cav unit, it would charge your line sooner or later.
The AI has never grasped how to effectively use ranged units but sending a number of units (monks and yari cav) to stand directly behind a unit under fire, incurring all the back kills, is one of the things I was thinking about when I made my earlier 'stupid' comment

......Orda

[Hound of Ulster]

I've been meaning to respond to this one for a while now...

I might try it, but there are serious problems with RTW that Europa Barbarorum can't fix. For instance:

1. the strategic AI doesn't know how to play on the campaign map. on higher difficulty settings it does
2. there is a bias in the strategic AI that makes it underestimate the strength of a player's army causing the AI to attack when it shouldn't. This does not occur on higher difficulty settings or in the mods
3. there is no way to stop the over effectiveness of blobbing units in battle.
4. the battle AI doesn't protect the flanks of its army.generals with better traits will flank YOU, which leaves them vunerable to you flanking them
5. the battle AI frontally charges superior enemy units with inferior units.What's a better way to waist your enemy's missiles than charging with your most useless unit
6. the battle AI doesn't know its men have shields.massed infantry are always more vunerable to archer fire, and only the Romans had the Testudo, and not until late in the timeframe covered in RTW
7. the battle AI won't move a unit that's under fire out of range.That's a serious problem only on sieges with cavalry. The A.I will try to reform its line or charge, depending on the traits of the general commanding the army
8. the battle AI doesn't coordinate multiple armies. Yes it can on the higher difficulty settings and it tries to combine forces that are widely seperated
9. the battle AI runs its units to exhaustion. No it doesn't. If anything the AI is too cautious
10. the battle AI throws pila after a unit is engaged in melee. no it doesn't archers and skirmishers will often either join the melee or retire
11. the battle AI doesn't use the secondary weapon.yes it does, especially with the Romans
12. the phalanx has the butt spike bug which kills cavalry hitting it from behind.not in later versions of RTW, and this is not a bug, its realistic because not even the Samaritians had stirrups. This lack of control makes charging cavalry vunerable to being de-horsed when making contact with the enemy, and have you seen the butt-spike of a kontos spear used by most armies at the time?
13. the differential between walk and run speed is incorrect unless EB made new animation skeletons.fixed in most later RTW versions and the mods
14. the calculation for the effect of armor and shield protection is screwed up.Have you fought a battle between peasants and elite Roman legions? The Romans cut through the lower quality infantry like butter, but will suffer one or two losses on the initial charge
15. the AI doesn't protect its artillery from melee attack (this is a problem in MTW as well).artilllery is slow, unmanuverable and extremely vunerable to cavalry charges. The AI's problem in vanilla RTW is that it places the artillery too close to the front line and not behind the line on higher ground
16. the combat model is not robust leading to too high unpredictability of combat results.wha?

What you are basically arguing for is an AI that is a combanation of Hannibal, Atilla, and Scipio Africanus on steriods using units built like T-72 tanks. Which would make the game unplayable by everybody except you.

[Flying Pig]

I like Romeon the harder difficulties but easy is useless- you can kill a Spartan Phalanx with 1 unit of Light Infantry and 1 Medium Cavalry!

[Puzz3D]

What you are basically arguing for is an AI that is a combanation of Hannibal, Atilla, and Scipio Africanus on steriods using units built like T-72 tanks. Which would make the game unplayable by everybody except you.
I'm asking for nothing more than an AI that's as good as the one created for Shogun. Of course, it would be nice to have some refinements of that AI, but that's not what happened in this series.

[TosaInu]

What you are basically arguing for is an AI that is a combanation of Hannibal, Atilla, and Scipio Africanus ..

Hello Hound of Ulster,

Sorry for tearing your message out of context, but that would actually be nice.

Very nice indeed, if some factions/generals showed some of the great skills those ancient generals had. Afaik, generals have command stars and that influences how tough his units are, RTW and or M2TW also have things like night attacker and such (?), but I don't recall having seen an AI army on the battlefield pulling off something nasty and unseen in other AI armies.

[The Wandering Scholar]

:daisy:

[Tony Furze]

My head goes with MTW, but my heart is 100% with Shogun.

[Puzz3D]

I've been meaning to respond to this one for a while...

Well I'll respond to this point by point, but I will try EB tonight on the highest difficulty setting.


1. the strategic AI doesn't know how to play on the campaign map. on higher difficulty settings it does.
I play on normal difficulty because I don't want the AI using cheats which alters one's perception of just how good the AI is. It's my understanding that the AI is as smart as it ever gets on normal difficulty. This is certainly the case in STW and MTW, but maybe RTW is different, although, I don't recall any such claim by CA.


2. there is a bias in the strategic AI that makes it underestimate the strength of a player's army causing the AI to attack when it shouldn't. This does not occur on higher difficulty settings or in the mods.
Ok. This will be true if the strategic AI does not factor in the combat bonus given to the tactical AI on the higher difficulty settings. It very likely doesn't factor that in because the strategic AI and the tactical AI are separate.


4. the battle AI doesn't protect the flanks of its army. generals with better traits will flank YOU, which leaves them vunerable to you flanking them.
The best I ever saw the RTW tactical AI play was in a battle using the SPQR mod where the AI held units in reserve, and used them to counterflank the units I sent in to flank the main battleline. There was fog so this came as a surprise to me since I didn't see the reserve units. I was using RTW 1.2 at the time. Generally, the AI just comes straight at you, but it does try to hit one side of your line. It does send units out to flank your line, but this move is not very well coordinated with timing of the frontal attack except in mods that slow down the combat resolution time.

Just the same, the AI doesn't really think defensively in terms of protecting its own flanks. It doesn't with the older STW/MTW tactical AI either unless an enemy unit gets within the proximity range, but the problem was more apparent in RTW due to the presence of the phalanx which is highly effective frontally but very weak on the sides and back and slow to change facing. In either STW or MTW you cannot race around a spear unit with a cavalry unit and hit the spear from the flank or rear because the spear unit can pivot fast enough to always face the cavalry unit. In RTW this is not the case. How can this have been screwed up like this unless CA just isn't paying enough attention to the tactical considerations? They treated movement speed as though it were an arbitrary variable that didn't affect tactical possibilities when in fact it does. If EB slowed down the cavalry then this won't be a problem for a lone phalanx unit, but vulnerability on the ends of the battle line is still an issue for the following reason.

In RTW 1.2 the AI would break up its phalanx line and send individual units to hit the flanks of enemy units in the opposing battleline which completely exposed the flanks of its individual phalanx units. This was corrected in later versions of RTW by making the units stay in line, but it leaves the tactical AI more vulnerable to flank attacks on its line because its reluctant to break a unit out from the end of the battleline even if the enemy's battle line is too far away to engage. In my opinion this needs additional fine tuning to work well tactically or better yet a new defensive mode for the tactical AI. You don't see the problem when the AI's army is stronger than yours because it attacks, but you see it when the AI's army is weaker. At least in STW the AI would withdraw from the battlefield if it was outclassed which is the smart thing to do. In RTW that would be even smarter because, unless the AI is defending a city, there's no important location that is being defended. I'll try EB and see if it plays differently, but even the creators of EB said that they didn't change the tactical AI. Of course, they can't change the tactical AI because its hard coded.


5. the battle AI frontally charges superior enemy units with inferior units. What's a better way to waist your enemy's missiles than charging with your most useless unit.
Come on. I'm not going to shoot its most useless unit just because the AI marches it out. Also, those weak units won't get to your line because when they get close the AI changes its mind and marches its unit back to its own lines. Then you can shoot it in the back, and the AI doesn't even make the unit run back while your are shooting it. In STW, the AI tries to make an indirect attack when its unit is weaker than the enemy unit. This is much smarter than charging frontally into the stronger unit.


6. the battle AI doesn't know its men have shields. massed infantry are always more vunerable to archer fire, and only the Romans had the Testudo, and not until late in the timeframe covered in RTW.
I'm talking about the ability to move a horse archer up on the right most unit of the AI's battle line and shoot into the right side of the unit. The unit has a shield, but the AI just lets the unit stand there. The men in the unit don't try to protect themselves with their shield which is right there on their left arm. I've never seen the AI play this dumb in STW over thousands of battes. Of course, STW doesn't have shields. This is an excellent example of how CA introduces features to their games, but doesn't make the feature known to the AI.


7. the battle AI won't move a unit that's under fire out of range. That's a serious problem only on sieges with cavalry. The A.I will try to reform its line or charge, depending on the traits of the general commanding the army.
How about move the unit back or into some trees like the STW AI does? I've never seen the RTW AI do this.


8. the battle AI doesn't coordinate multiple armies. Yes it can on the higher difficulty settings and it tries to combine forces that are widely seperated.
Yes on the strategic map, but I was referring to the tactical map where the AI will attack with one army instead of waiting for the second army to get into position. Multiple armies on the battlefield is very rare in STW. It happens more often in MTW, and quite often the AI won't charge until both armies are ready to charge simultaneously.


9. the battle AI runs its units to exhaustion. No it doesn't. If anything the AI is too cautious.
On many occasions I've observed the AI running its units in RTW when it should be walking. It clearly doesn't understand that running will cause fatigue. It doesn't understand this in STW either, but at least there the AI doesn't run its units until it decides to charge. I think that CA made the AI unit more inclined to run in RTW because they were obsessed with speeding up the battles in order to capture more of the RTS market. It's considerations like these that adversely impacted the tactical gameplay, and its why CA continues to refuse to impliment the best tactical gameplay they are capable of designing in their newer games.


10. the battle AI throws pila after a unit is engaged in melee. no it doesn't archers and skirmishers will often either join the melee or retire.
Yes they do throw the pila after engaging in melee. It's a known bug introduced in the final v1.5/v1.6 version of RTW/BI.


11. the battle AI doesn't use the secondary weapon. yes it does, especially with the Romans.
Ok. I'll test this tonight because the last time I tested the cataphract they did not use their axe and continued to fight with their lance after the charge.


12. the phalanx has the butt spike bug which kills cavalry hitting it from behind. not in later versions of RTW, and this is not a bug, its realistic because not even the Samaritians had stirrups. This lack of control makes charging cavalry vunerable to being de-horsed when making contact with the enemy, and have you seen the butt-spike of a kontos spear used by most armies at the time?
Yes it's another problem introduced by the patch that fixed the non-reversal of cavalry charge on the phalanx. It appears that the cavalry charge is not only reversed by the sarissa frontally, but is also reversed by the puny butt spike as well. Keep in mind also that the men at the back of the phalanx don't even have their sarissa lowered. The effect is so severe that you are better off walking cavalry into the back of a phalanx than charging into it.


13. the differential between walk and run speed is incorrect unless EB made new animation skeletons. fixed in most later RTW versions and the mods.
It wasn't fixed in the final version of RTW/BI, and you can't fix it with the terrain speed modifier because that slows down both walking and running speed. The difference between the walk and run speeds is still wrong by any kind of historical analysis you want to do. When we asked CA about this they said the game wasn't supposed to be a history lesson. Well that's inconsistent when their marketing department expounds upon how Total War games are based on history and how realistic it is. When pressed further on this they said the game has an historical flavor. Well. the later games fail on that account as well because STW is almost universally regarded as having the best historical atmosphere of all the Total war games not to mention the most realistic weather system as well.


14. the calculation for the effect of armor and shield protection is screwed up. Have you fought a battle between peasants and elite Roman legions? The Romans cut through the lower quality infantry like butter, but will suffer one or two losses on the initial charge.
Maybe CBR will comment because he ran the quantitative tests on armor. I've worked with him enough on testing to know that he's very precise, and I'm not going to repeat the tests because RTW has too many problems for me to waste my time testing the game. Besides, there is no more chance of patching RTW, and this problem is hard coded so mods can't fix it.


15. the AI doesn't protect its artillery from melee attack (this is a problem in MTW as well).artilllery is slow, unmanuverable and extremely vunerable to cavalry charges. The AI's problem in vanilla RTW is that it places the artillery too close to the front line and not behind the line on higher ground.
Every time the AI decides to move its army it leaves the slower moving artillery unprotected. That's when you can jump on it with cavalry.

[Puzz3D]

I don't know if I would agree, though it's been a while since I played a campaign with the Samurai mod, perhaps it has been updated.
I completed a campaign with Uesugi and I can remember being particularly sick of seeing endless Kensai on the battlefield. Of course, they soon drop when peppered with arrows but they are still not cost effective.
I agree with you about the kensai. I would have removed it from the campaign, and the only reason I don't in my own campaign is that I'm playtesting the mod so it has to be left in since barocca wants it in. We did remove this unit from multiplayer because it's impossible to balance it.


Generals (Hatamoto) still insisted on riding up to my units to commence fire with their bows, which generally resulted in them dying or being routed by the volleys of arrows they received.
The hatamoto has a longer range bow, so it will often shoot from beyond the range of return fire, but not always. It might be due to them targetting a unit that's behind your own shooters. It's clear that the AI doesn't understand that the hatamoto has reduced firepower compared to standard size unit. The AI was designed for all units to have the same number of men.

The hatamoto has armor = 5 which is the highest armor value used in the mod and in STW. We did try armor = 6, but that seemed to be too high for penetration of arrows, but it might be worth rechecking that. It might be worthwhile to reduce the power of guns from 4 hitpoints down to 2 to help the general survive better in the face of guns. This won't affect the survivability of men other than the general because they all have only 1 hitpoint. All in all however, I find the general to be highly survivable as he is currently implimented.


Incidentally, I tried some custom battles and noticed that if the enemy general was a cav unit, it would charge your line sooner or later.
Yes, but I think that's good because then the general has a chance of causing the enemy line to break. I use this tactic myself with the hatamoto genreral in multiplayer. At least the AI is not charging the enemy with the general immediately which is suicide.


The AI has never grasped how to effectively use ranged units but sending a number of units (monks and yari cav) to stand directly behind a unit under fire, incurring all the back kills, is one of the things I was thinking about when I made my earlier 'stupid' comment.
Right. The Total War AI has never understood that it is going to take losses from ranged fire. It doesn't react until after a unit has sustained substantial losses. This is an area where the AI should have been improved if not in the MI add-on then certainly by the time MTW was released. MTW/VI has a bug whereby the AI will sometimes move one or more units on top of a unit that is under fire. You could elect not to take advantage of this exploit against the AI when it happens. LongJohn tried to fix this, but he was unable to find the cause in the time he had available for the last patch to VI.

BTW, the AI uses the cav archer fairly well. I'm even reluctant to chase a cav archer with a yari cav because the losses and fatigue that the more expensive yari cav incures is often not worth the damage caused to the cav archer. In many cases the yari cav has to break off the pursuit before contact anyway because of othr enemy units in the area.

[The Wandering Scholar]

:daisy:

I would like to point out that what I said was not offensive in any way and I would like TosaInu to put my post back where it belongs. Or am I not allowed to question authority?

[Puzz3D]

From the Europa Barbarorum FAQ:


Q: Which is the recommend difficult setting for Europa Barbarorum?

A: Europa Barbarorum is best played on Very Hard / Medium. The AI is aggressive (in particular the slave faction) but don’t get stat bonuses on the battlefield. If you want a real challenge try VH/VH but be aware enemy units on the battlefield are getting massive bonuses (afaik: +7 attack, +7 defence, and a huge morale boost), you could have your fullstack army is hacked to pieces by 5 units levies...


Q: Do you have improved the AI in any way?

A: No, the AI is completely hardcoded, and cannot be altered.

[The Wandering Scholar]

EB is hardest on VH/H,

[Puzz3D]

EB is hardest on VH/H,
Well try telling that to Hound of Ulster. The AI is going to play the same way as it does in XGM which I've played extensively. In fact, the BI AI which XGM uses is better than the RTW AI that EB uses.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Right OK, HoU you heard that?

[TosaInu]

Well try telling that to Hound of Ulster. The AI is going to play the same way as it does in XGM which I've played extensively. In fact, the BI AI which XGM uses is better than the RTW AI that EB uses.

We compare the BI AI to the RTW AI then?

[Callahan9119]

i remember all of them differently than what they really are, i went back and played shogun again a while ago and was shocked at how simplistic and <forgive me> boring it was.

i'v played them all since shogun pretty much the day they were released and its just about not getting caught up in the memories.

shogun was the most fun single player and original mtw was best fun i had on multi

but i'd rather play mtw2 than any of the others currently, and i bet if i could take mtw2 back with me in a time machine and had a computer that could play it, my 5 years ago self would rather play mtw2 instead of ol mtw

i do know i wont be playing "empires" or whatever this new thing they are putting out is :damnmate:

[Drisos]

I only tried STW and RTW so far. Stw being my favourite.. well, favourite.. I don't really like RTW so maybe I can't call stw favourite among good games.. :P

STW SP is far more challenging, it seems. In the BI campaign, I take whatever barbarian factian, just build up my army and siege one city after another. nothing stops me. No one ever attacks me. :S There's some cool new stuff in the campaign though. Religion, more difficult loytalty system (though it's ridiculous you'll have to destroy public baths to keep population low enough not to have revolts..), a different style of moving, etc.
But the battles.. yuck. I don't like the graphics over the STW graphics at all. RTW may have more detail, but as Puzz said, in STW the units are recognizable, all have 'their own look', etc. Plus, the way people fight, kill, and fall, are ridiculous in RTW. I don't want to see detail when it looks so bad. Do something good, or don't do it..
Plus, the battles are far from easy. Waaaay too simple. For instance, I had to play stw for months and ask advice here before I could deal with the highest difficulty. With RTW I started the second campaign I played on highest setting, because it had been too easy. I just create 1 or 2 all-cav armies. They move fast across the map, and kill any army to the last man within seconds. No challenge at all. I don't even need flanking, etc, etc.
In STW, I still lose battles now and then. In RTW I have never, unless it was a hopeless situation. (outnumered.)

Plus, shogun has far better atmosphere. For me, RTW is a game. Shogun is an adventure.

And the small MP community I took part of for a few months was great. I still miss it. While I got disgusted about the public in the RTW foyer within minutes after the first time I logged in there..

:bow:

[R'as al Ghul]

It has been claimed in this thread that the AI behaves differently on the different difficulty levels. That's not quite true.
In STW and MTW there's no difference for the campaign AI.
In STW and MTW the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.

In RTW and M2 the campaign AI gets increasingly aggressive the higher the campaign difficulty is selected. (it can be argued if the AI's behaviour on levels higher than normal is smart or desirable).
In RTW and M2 the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.

Here's an excerpt from frogbeastegg's RTW guide:

Difficulty

Difficulty is split into two categories; campaign map and battle map. Explaining exactly how difficulty works is … complicated. See, there are unknown factors, there is the known set of factors CA themselves told us, and there are the things players have guessed at.

Battle map
Normal is a level playing ground with no advantage to either side. I shall quote CA developer JeromeGrasdyke on the effects of difficulty on combat bonuses: “The combat bonuses are easy; they apply to attack only, while on Easy the human player gets a +4 bonus, on Hard the AI is given +4, and on Very Hard +7. The morale bonuses are much more complex, as they work on a series of sliding scales.” Unfortunately the very hard bonus is rather ridiculous and it allows the AI do crazy things, such as smashing a phalanx head on with plain hastati. The AI achieves results which should never happen, and the general attitude I have seen expressed towards this difficulty is one of frustration. So for now I recommend sticking with normal; it might be rather easy for veterans but at least your phalanx works …

Campaign map
Given that I only play with this set to very hard a true comparison is a tad difficult. This does seem to differ depending on whether you play a BI or RTW campaign, for example you starting money in BI is always the same, regardless of the setting, whereas in RTW you start with less money on the higher levels. The AI in both should be more aggressive on higher levels, and will use agents more to bribe your armies and cities on very hard. On the lower levels I’m told the AI will only target diplomats.

The readme for the 1.1 patch says that campaign map difficulty affects the results of auto-resolved battles. Although it does not actually state what changes are made for each difficulty it seems logical to assume that on easier difficulties the battles are most likely to give you favourable results, whereas on the harder levels you will take more losses and lose more battles.



It's an established fact that the Total War AI does not have different "personalities" in so far as it would act smarter on higher difficulties and afaik CA has never claimed otherwise.
The boni applied to the units and given by generals makes the battles harder to win and may deceive the perception of players.

-----------------------------
On Samurai Warlords:

It's my opinion that the STW and MTW AI's can deal quite good with the limited set of units that STW and the Samurai Warlords mod offer.
I also claim that I've fixed the problem of suicide generals in beta_8 of our mod by changing parameters for the Hatamoto unit. As long as the General is a Hatamoto unit you usually won't see any suicide attacks.
The Kensai is indeed hard to balance and I've not yet succeeded in terms of production of this unit. The AI, although it builds less Kensai than in beta_5, still loves this unit. I assume it's because of the high attack value, which is probably also the reason for Artillery spam in all titles.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

It's also my feeling/observation that the battlefield AI is the same for all factions and levels within a game title.

Tweaking the unitstats can have an effect on the behaviour of a unit, in that it starts making manoeuvres it otherwise wouldn't, but this is, how to say, more a side-effect than changing the AI, which is hardcoded.

It would be nice if generals/factions or even units can be told to adhere to this or that strategy. The Ikko scenario (ADF/BDF) is supposed to have an outraged mob of angry farmers. In some parts they have no hope to win, but they attack nevertheless. The ADF/BDF files leave only two options:

-they are so strong that they act as berserkers and also win.
-they don't win, but refuse to even get close.

[caravel]

I've found that when playing RTW on VH campaign map difficulty that the AI doesn't get any more clever but actually gets more aggressive in that it sends armies continually against it's enemies with terminator like persistence. These armies tend to be much more fragmented (multiple stacks attacking in a non cohesive and uncoordinated fashion) and are still led by captains, lacking the leadership of a general.

[Puzz3D]

I've found that when playing RTW on VH campaign map difficulty that the AI doesn't get any more clever but actually gets more aggressive in that it sends armies continually against it's enemies with terminator like persistence. These armies tend to be much more fragmented (multiple stacks attacking in a non cohesive and uncoordinated fashion) and are still led by captains, lacking the leadership of a general.
IIRC, this is where the BI strategic AI is improved because it consolidates stacks and puts generals into these stacks. I use the XGM mod and that can be played with either the RTW exe or the BI exe, so you can get a good comparison between the two AI's. I just haven't played it with the RTW exe in a very long time because I prefer using the BI exe. I won't say that you never see a general traveling alone in BI, but the AI always attacks me with large armies which does make the battles more difficult. I am playing Carthage, and the Egyptians attack relentlessly across the Sahara desert, which isn't historical, but it forced me to focus on driving back the Egyptians instead of going after Rome, which hasn't been easy because the economics is tight and good units are expensive. I'm playing XGM on normal/normal difficulty. At the strategic level the game is hard, but the battles all exhibit the same problems with the AI that I mentioned earlier and you have to fight a lot of those battles.

[Puzz3D]

It has been claimed in this thread that the AI behaves differently on the different difficulty levels. That's not quite true.

In STW and MTW the only difference for the battlefield AI is the bonus that is applied to units.
Not true R'as, and even I overlooked a change to the battle AI on the hard difficulty setting. This is from frogbeastegg's Guide to Medieval Total War (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31445), and I clearly remember the posts by Gil Jaysmith and LongJohn2 which she references here:

On difficulty
There are four difficulties, easy, normal, hard and expert. Your difficulty will decide how much money you start off with, any bonuses given to you or the AI and what tactics the AI will use on the two maps. Starting funds are as follows:
Easy = 10000 florins
Normal= 8000 florins
Hard = 6000 florins
Expert = 4000 florins
On easy the player will get an extra +4 to morale in battle, making it harder for the AI to rout your troops. On expert the AI get this bonus. Normal and hard don't give anyone a bonus. The AI will use different tactics on the battlefield depending on your difficulty. Here is a list provided by GilJaySmith, one of the developers of Total War:
- On expert the AI gets a morale bonus - on easy the player gets one
- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed

In addition to these changes LongJohn (another developer) says the following: The combat strength of the a.i. units is affected by the difficulty level.
On easy its combat effectiveness is reduced by 30-40% (can't remember the exact figure).
On hard it's increased by 10-15%, and on expert its 30%. 30% being around 75% of the increase you'd get from 1 valour upgrade.

[R'as al Ghul]

Not true R'as, and even I overlooked a change to the battle AI on the hard difficulty setting. This is from frogbeastegg's Guide to Medieval Total War (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31445), and I clearly remember the posts by Gil Jaysmith and LongJohn2 which she references here:
Yes, true. I had forgotten about that.



- On hard and above, AI skirmishers will try to avoid being pincered
- On easy the AI will not consider going into loose formation to avoid being shot at
- On easy the AI will not consider outflanking, double-envelopment, or stop-and-shoot tactics
- On easy the AI won't move troops out of the way of castle walls that may be about to collapse
- On easy the AI will try to hide rather than flee if the battle is going badly
- On easy the AI will not try ambushes
- On easy the AI will not try the 'appear weak' battle plan
- The AI is more likely to deploy in woods on harder difficulties, and less likely to camp near the red zone on easier difficulties
- The AI is more likely to consider scouting the map to find the rest of your army if it can't see it all on higher difficulties
- On easy the AI will not skirmish
- On higher than easy, the AI will specifically consider sh00ting at your artillery
- On easy the AI will generally attack rather than defend, and will not consider withdrawing for a much longer time
- On higher than easy, the AI will check to see if it's marching into enfilade fire when attacking your main body
- On easy the AI may come out of a wall breach to chase you if you attack and are repulsed
I cut out the parts that are clear and were mentioned before. Like combat bonus etc.
Honestly, I can only confirm that on higher difficulties the AI will try to ambush and will scout for ambushes and hidden units, it also goes into "loose" formation sometimes.
I'm not convinced that the other points are true or can be noticed by players.
Especially the claim that the AI will use "stop and shoot" tactics or will "move units out of the way of collapsing walls" seem more like wishful thinking.
What's the "appear weak" plan?

[TosaInu]

What's the "appear weak" plan?

Pull a tosa.

[R'as al Ghul]

Pull a tosa.
:laugh4:
I've seen that and I wish the AI could pull that of.

[Motep]

MTW, it the first I played, and in my mind is the best. (havent played shogun or M2TW, so, meh...) I enjoy the game immensely, and only wish my computer could still play it. Lord knows I miss it. I love the strategic elelment, and I just have so many great memories of that game, that I can harly stand not playing it again. (one of my best is conquering europe with an army of peasants, and later being quickly pushed back to england by the islamic nations and russia. I did lose that one, but still, it was a very fun experience)

[Puzz3D]

Honestly, I can only confirm that on higher difficulties the AI will try to ambush and will scout for ambushes and hidden units, it also goes into "loose" formation sometimes.
I'm not convinced that the other points are true or can be noticed by players. Especially the claim that the AI will use "stop and shoot" tactics or will "move units out of the way of collapsing walls" seem more like wishful thinking. What's the "appear weak" plan?
I've seen the MTW AI use double-envelopment by sending cavalry out to both flanks, and I remember LongJohn talking about making this change to cavalry in one of the MTW patches to make cavalry try to flank more often. In STW, I've seen the AI conduct a double-envelopment ambush, but this is caused by the presence of two forests on both the left and right sides of the map, the tendency of the AI to hide its troops in trees and the tendency of the AI to try to set up amushes. I've never seen the AI make this double ambush in MTW, but it might be due to the topology of the maps.

You see the AI use the "stop and shoot" tactic all the time in MTW and STW. That's when the AI stops it's advance to shoot at you instead of just continuing to move forward and charge. The use of this tactic may be more pronounced in MTW than it was in STW, and doesn't really work to the AI's advantage unless it outnumbers you by a lot of shooters since it doesn't use shooters as well as a human player can. On a side note, you'll notice that AI archers don't always release their arrows on an animation cycle. This mechanic is no doubt there to conserve ammo for the possibility of shooting enemy melee units after the human player's archers had run out of ammo. This was a more effective tactic in STW because the men in the unit retain all of the unused ammo regardless of the number of men left in the unit. In MTW, dead men take their ammo with them, so the tactic of skipping volleys works to the detriment of the AI shooters because the unit looses killing potential as it sustains casualties in a skirmish with the player's shooters.

I'm not sure what the appear weak plan is other than a delayed attack. In other words, the AI knows it has the stronger army, but doesn't attack right away hoping that the human play will attack it instead.

The AI definitely uses loose formation, but it puts units into loose formation only after they have sustained significant casualties, casualty rate or casualty proportion (I'm not sure which). As soon as the casualty rate drops as a result of going into loose the AI will return the unit to close formation only to go back to loose again when the casualty rate increases. What would be smarter is for the AI to go into loose sooner and stay in loose as long as the unit is under fire.

I've never seen the AI sustain casualties from collapsing walls when defending a castle. On the other hand, I have sustained such casualties by placing my units too close to the inside of a collapsing wall when I'm defending a castle.

[Emperor Mithdrates]

Overall though, right at this moment, RTW is proving my first love. That whole time period, a time of HUGE change for the world as it was then is just amazing and to be able to field armies at a time when tactics were becoming more refined is good fun too.

I totaly agree. Rome total war is set in the best time period for battles. This was the time when empires were forged through conquest and the sweat of ones brow, not through the petty deals of diplomats. This is the time of true bravery and warfare.:2thumbsup:

[Puzz3D]

Rome total war is set in the best time period for battles. This was the time when empires were forged through conquest and the sweat of ones brow, not through the petty deals of diplomats. This is the time of true bravery and warfare.:2thumbsup:
The Sengoku Jidai was also such a time. In fact, it translates as "warring states" or "the age of the country at war". During this period there was nearly constant military conflict in Japan that lasted roughly from the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th century. Japan was unified under a single daimyo by the end of the Sengoku Jidai which is the objective of the game.

[Hound of Ulster]

It seems Puzz is talking about differant versions of RTW than myself, but he does have a good overall point about the AI being silly (I just wouldn't call it dumb).

The reason why I mentioned that some of the mods seem, to me at least, to make the AI at least appear to be smarter is a campaign I'm currently running with the Parthians in RTR 1.9 Platinum. In this campaign, the Seluecids send wave after wave of infantry stacks against my all-cav forces (I only use infantry for garrison duty) and I beat them every time (N/N setting), but the odd part is that, at first the Seluecids sent mixed forces (cav/infantry/skirimishers) against me. When that didn't work (mostly because I attacked the skrimshers first and isolated the general's unit with my cataphracts), they started send forces made up of phalanxes of mixed quality, often charging my horse archers with the phalanxes to try to bring the HAs into hand-to-hand combat (In response, I would simply have the HA unit under assault from the infantry withdraw and keep firing using the Parthian shot). When all-phalanx forces didn't work, the AI started using Agrysipides Legionaroi (ersatz Legionaries with pila) and skirmishers against me (they stll can't beat me beacuse the Seluecid infantry match up poorly against the Parthian cavalry, but the AI bribed the Armenians to declare war on me, which has slowed my push into Mesopatamia to a crawl as the AI for the Armenians is 'smart' and has started sending cavalry heavy forces against me, and the ersatz legionaries do inflict heavy casulities on me). In short, the AI in this campaign seems to adapt to my tactics. Is it really 'adapting'? I can't say with any certainty, but the campaign has become a huge war with myself and the Bactrains against the Seleucids and Armenians. The AI has made some mystifing decisions, but its putting up one hell of a fight nonetheless.

Overall, could the AI be better in the TW series?
Yes
Is CA willing to spend that extra time to make the AI better?
No, but crafting a playable game is harder than most of us think

[Puzz3D]

The reason why I mentioned that some of the mods seem, to me at least, to make the AI at least appear to be smarter is a campaign I'm currently running with the Parthians in RTR 1.9 Platinum. In this campaign, the Seluecids send wave after wave of infantry stacks against my all-cav forces (I only use infantry for garrison duty) and I beat them every time (N/N setting), but the odd part is that, at first the Seluecids sent mixed forces (cav/infantry/skirimishers) against me. When that didn't work (mostly because I attacked the skrimshers first and isolated the general's unit with my cataphracts), they started send forces made up of phalanxes of mixed quality, often charging my horse archers with the phalanxes to try to bring the HAs into hand-to-hand combat (In response, I would simply have the HA unit under assault from the infantry withdraw and keep firing using the Parthian shot). When all-phalanx forces didn't work, the AI started using Agrysipides Legionaroi (ersatz Legionaries with pila) and skirmishers against me (they stll can't beat me beacuse the Seluecid infantry match up poorly against the Parthian cavalry, but the AI bribed the Armenians to declare war on me, which has slowed my push into Mesopatamia to a crawl as the AI for the Armenians is 'smart' and has started sending cavalry heavy forces against me, and the ersatz legionaries do inflict heavy casulities on me). In short, the AI in this campaign seems to adapt to my tactics. Is it really 'adapting'? I can't say with any certainty, but the campaign has become a huge war with myself and the Bactrains against the Seleucids and Armenians. The AI has made some mystifing decisions, but its putting up one hell of a fight nonetheless.
Well I'm glad you are getting a challenging campaign with that RTR mod. I also get one with XGM for RTW/BI. In fact, I lost repeatedly playing Carthage and going after Rome because Ptolemy kept attacking me relentlessly. I don't remember if I tried to get Ptolemy off my back using diplomacy. I think I did, and it didn't work. I'm doing much better in the campaign where I decided to go after Ptolemy militarily from the start. However, I stopped playing my XGM campaign because the huge number of battles that you have to play were not as tactically interesting to me as the ones played with Samurai Warlords which also has a difficult campaign.

Doesn't the fact that you are doing so well with all cavalry armies seem wrong to you? Where is the combined arms gameplay that the AI was designed to use?

When Creative Assembly introduced STW, they talked about making a learning AI that would adjust its tactics based on what worked and what didn't. They never did make that learning AI for the battlefield. However, in STW and possibly MTW you will see the AI randomly choose a battlefield strategy from several choices. They did implement a bit of a learning AI at the strategic level by making the AI invade a province with more troops if it had lost the battle for that province the previous turn. The AI will keep on increasing its invasion force, if it can, for that province each time it looses. Anything more than that seems to me to be happening by chance. The RTW AI is notorious for breaking alliances, so it can't be using them in a long term strategic plan. I think the most it does is gang up on the human player if he becomes too big which is a smart thing for it to do. I don't think the strategic AI can adjust what it builds based on the tactical battles because CA has said that the strategic AI and tactical AI are completely separate.


Overall, could the AI be better in the TW series?
Yes
Is CA willing to spend that extra time to make the AI better?
No, but crafting a playable game is harder than most of us think
Yes, but its Creative Assembly that decided to bite off more than it could chew with their ever increasing number of units and features while a beautifully implemented and well balanced tactical system was allowed to deteriorate. They had a great start with the first game, but they lost the handle in their pursuit of increasing sales. The biggest decline was with RTW where, not coincidentally, they brought down a curtain of secrecy on how the game worked so that the players would have a much harder time determining what had been removed and what no longer worked correctly. You don't see the guys who used to do those in depth tests on the game around here anymore because almost all of them left.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

[Hound of Ulster]

Doesn't the fact that you are doing so well with all cavalry armies seem wrong to you? Where is the combined arms gameplay that the AI was designed to use? I use all cavalry forces with the Parthians/Sassinsids because 1)it's historically accurate and 2) thier cavalry are really, really good. As to your second bit, I really don't know. As RTR is a mod (duh!) and does tweak the unit selection, I really don't know.

My biggest gripe with the A.I is a lack of imagination with unit selection (lets face it, unit selection is half the battle). It often won't use the best units available to it, only the easiset to recruit (hence why I have never faced Sassinsid heavy cav while playing as the ERE in BI). If you can make the AI smarter with unit selection (this is why most mods drop peasants, because the AI has a tendency to over-use them) than you can make the AI a lot smarter on the field.

[Martok]

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.
I don't think anyone here would argue that improved graphics can make a game better -- that point has never really been in contention.

What *is* being disputed is the assertion that a game is good simply because it has nice-looking graphics. Unless a title's underlying mechanics & gameplay are solid, the most beautiful and/or realistic graphics engine in the world can't make it a good game. After one gets done "ooh-ing and ahh-ing" over the pretty visuals, there needs to be something more substantial underneath backing it up -- otherwise, a game is little more than a hardware demo.

[Gregoshi]

I don't think anyone here would argue that improved graphics can make a game better -- that point has never really been in contention.

What *is* being disputed is the assertion that a game is good simply because it has nice-looking graphics.

:yes:

"Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue." Yes, but it is still a dead parrot.

[Puzz3D]

I use all cavalry forces with the Parthians/Sassinsids because 1)it's historically accurate and 2) thier cavalry are really, really good.
I'd venture to say too good. You're not going to claim that they could have beaten Rome or the Greeks/Macedonians are you? However, I'll bet you can win the game with those cavalry factions. Factions like that should not be able to conquer the whole map, but should have more limited winning conditions. Even Rome never conquered the whole map depicted in the game.



My biggest gripe with the A.I is a lack of imagination with unit selection (lets face it, unit selection is half the battle). It often won't use the best units available to it, only the easiset to recruit (hence why I have never faced Sassinsid heavy cav while playing as the ERE in BI). If you can make the AI smarter with unit selection (this is why most mods drop peasants, because the AI has a tendency to over-use them) than you can make the AI a lot smarter on the field.
You can add the all artillery armies of MTW to that list, and you even got those all artillery AI armies in the MedMod which was one of the better mods created for MTW.

Well the AI's unit selection is a big reason why we have good battles vs the AI in STW and Samurai Wars. The AI does train the better units, and because the gameplay has a strong rock, paper, scissors system the AI plays a stronger game. The reason is that it was designed to operate within a rock, paper, scissors system. The PR for STW emphasized the RPS gameplay design, but the RPS was continually weakened with each installment of the series to the point where the AI plays a weak game unless it simply has a much better army than you have.

I don't know if the RPS was further weakened in M2TW/Kingdoms, but I do know that the claim about returning the tactical gameplay to its former style before RTW by people like Bob Smith of Creative Assembly was not entirely true because they left the charge speeds at RTW levels. They never intended to really go back to the former gameplay, and just did their usual PR promotion of trying to suck in former fans of the series to purchase M2TW as they did with RTW. How many times do they think former customers are going to fall for the same trick? You see what happened with M2TW? They pulled out of supporting it, and said it was too hard to fix it because the problems were in the basic design of the engine. At least with ETW they are telling people that the tactical gameplay it's not going to be anything like their previous games. I shudder to think what it's going to be like. Les Grognards will probably be out by then, and it might be decent. That game maker is at least trying to take real time tactical wargaming in the direction that Creative Assembly should have by fielding even larger armies on larger battlefields. I remember the claim by CA that RTW had larger battlefield maps than MTW, but when we went on multiplayer we found out that the RTW battlefields were smaller than large maps in MTW. The units also moved at higher speed than previously which effectively reduces the size of the map further. You got more units to control, but they were smaller so the number of men on the battlefield was actually less which they never mentioned in their PR for the game. You also had less time to control these more numerous units, and the sprite graphics were degraded (which they never mentioned). Yes we were mislead by cleaver PR semantics.

[TosaInu]

I'd venture to say too good. You're not going to claim that they could have beaten Rome or the Greeks/Macedonians are you?

There are ifs and buts and maybe I miss the point, but the largest empire on earth was that of the Mongols, a horse faction.

[caravel]

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.
Speaking for myself, I'm afraid that I fell out of love with "jaw dropping visuals", as I like to call them, several years ago. I am far more impressed by clever game design and AI these days.

Personally I don't think TW games benefit much from the latest eye candy, because a battle is best viewed from such a height that small details such as randomised faces for invidividual men in the unit or men that get bloodier and dirtier as they fight, are largely irrelevant. Better map designs with more emphasis on effects and use of terrain and weather would be more desirable than such visuals. If they want to improve visuals CA would do better in improving the landscapes and appearance of cities, rivers, farmland and forests, especially when viewed from a distance. Armies also need much improvment in this respect.

Graphics in general have a lifespan. Good AI doesn't. You will probably look back on ETW in 5-10 years time and laugh at the 'primitive' graphics just as you are doing with STW/MTW now. Unless AI improves in line with visuals I will not be buying any new TW games solely based on the fact that they, quite debatably, look better. IMHO decent quality sprites will always be better than angular 3D models that turn into blurry blobs when viewed at range.

:bow:

[Caerfanan]

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

We can't deny that, but a question about your preferences. if the "next improvement" on a game you play says "better graphics, but game less challenging", would you be 100% happy with that?

I don't know/remember with which game you started playong, but there's probably a difference in opinions between those who started in 99 (?) with shogun, and played MTW afterwards, then RTW, then M2TW... And those who started directly with RTW or later. For there are a few changes in the way things work.

IMHO a 20 years old player who started with RTW 3 years ago could be... surprised by MTW/STW and find those games "old fashioned" maybe, when a 35 y.o. gamer who started with dots on a map 20 years ago would be more than satisfied with STW/RTW graphics

[Ravencroft]

Apparently, the better the graphics get, the worse the AI gets.

SO the opportunity cost of good AI is good graphics.

SO where did the original topic go? Looks like this thread degenerated into another graphics vs. gameplay thread.

[Puzz3D]

There are ifs and buts and maybe I miss the point, but the largest empire on earth was that of the Mongols, a horse faction.
I know Tosa, but that was much later than the time period covered by RTW.

[Puzz3D]

Personally I don't think TW games benefit much from the latest eye candy, because a battle is best viewed from such a height that small details such as randomised faces for invidividual men in the unit or men that get bloodier and dirtier as they fight, are largely irrelevant.
And, you don't even get faces for individual men when you zoom out to a level where you can actually play the game. What you get is 2D sprites in RTW and M2TW, and these sprites are of lower graphic detail than the sprites used in MTW or STW; the MTW sprites being more detailed than STW sprites. So, MTW has the most detailed spites of any Total War game.

[caravel]

And, you don't even get faces for individual men when you zoom out to a level where you can actually play the game. What you get is 2D sprites in RTW and M2TW, and these sprites are of lower graphic detail than the sprites used in MTW or STW; the MTW sprites being more detailed than STW sprites. So, MTW has the most detailed spites of any Total War game.
Precisely. If you view a unit from a certain height in RTW and then pan around the battlefield above that unit. You can see the 3D models for individual men turning into the blurry sprites as you do so. With mercenary units this is more obvious as the green of the 3D models is replaced by the rough equivalent of the faction colour.

[TosaInu]

I know Tosa, but that was much later than the time period covered by RTW.

Hello Puzz3D,

Yes, more than 1,000 years later.

I confess I'm not sure about the stirrup, that was something that made cavalry more effective, at least the charge. The bow has seen developments too.

And yes, the Roman empire did have its share of problems already, but the Huns in the 5th century were more than a small problem. That was a mounted force too.

I do not think it would be impossible for a horse army to defeat the toughest Roman legions. In fact, I guess it would be a very effective way to face that meatgrinder.

[The Wandering Scholar]

We can't deny that, but a question about your preferences. if the "next improvement" on a game you play says "better graphics, but game less challenging", would you be 100% happy with that?

I don't know/remember with which game you started playong, but there's probably a difference in opinions between those who started in 99 (?) with shogun, and played MTW afterwards, then RTW, then M2TW... And those who started directly with RTW or later. For there are a few changes in the way things work.

IMHO a 20 years old player who started with RTW 3 years ago could be... surprised by MTW/STW and find those games "old fashioned" maybe, when a 35 y.o. gamer who started with dots on a map 20 years ago would be more than satisfied with STW/RTW graphics


I started with Rome then almost immediately moved onto STW and MTW then most recently M2TW. So I do call STW/MTW old fashioned and hence cannot play them as the graphics totally ruin it for me.

I agree with what you are saying about a 35 yr old gamer being more satisfied about the graphics, that totally makes sense.

As for your first question, I have purposefully left it to the end as it is a rather challenging. That depends wheter or not I found the earlier games too taxing e.g. I would not like to see CA make the game anyless challenging than M2TW. Although I would like to see STW/MTW with better graphics.

[caravel]

I confess I'm not sure about the stirrup, that was something that made cavalry more effective, at least the charge. The bow has seen developments too.
The stirrup was highly significant, as before this cavalry charges as a viable battlefield tactic were not really possible.

The cavalry in RTW charge into enemies and melee with them as if stirrups are being used. Without stirrups, charges with lances are not possible as the rider will be unhorsed on impact and melee on horseback is hampered as the rider cannot stand in the stirrups while fighting and has to hold on somehow. Saddle horns or chains, as used by early Cataphracts to keep them in the saddle, are simply not on the same level as the stirrup. No stirrup means no mounted knights and this pretty much equates to no full scale cavalry charges.

This is why I feel that cavalry are overpowered in RTW, and chariots, which would have fallen almost out of use in the timeframe of the game, are insanely overpowered, though at the same time unpredictable and unbalanced.

[Hound of Ulster]

The stirrup was highly significant, as before this cavalry charges as a viable battlefield tactic were not really possible.

not correct. The Sassinsids especially deployed super-heavy armored cavalry, as did the Hephalitites, the Samaritains, and the Armenians from time to time before the introduction of the stirrup, and these cavalry would charge at full gallop against infantry and other cavalry. (source: Osprey Elite series 'Sassinsid Elite Cavalry AD 224-642') The fact that I beat the Seluecids in RTR and the ERE in Rio's BI mod and IBFD with all cavalry forces shows how much better the cavalry are in the period of RTW than at least the phalanx infantry perfered by the Diadochi states. Even the Romans had problems fighting all-cavalry forces (see Carrhae), so the fact that I'm beating infantry forces with smaller all-cav formations doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Where RTW messes up in terms of cavalry stats are the Roman cavalry, which even after the Marian reforms still weren't that good (Crassus's cavalry force at Carrhae was made up of Galatian Gauls, not Romans for the most part, and the Romans didn't deploy cavalry of a similiar nature to the Parthians/Sassinsids until the introduction of the Equites Parthi, Equites Cataphracti, and Equites Clibnarii in the 2nd or 3rd century AD). The AI also seems not to comprehend how to deal with all-cavalry formations (thier is a way, but I won't say:book: ) and seems to 'panic' when it sees its facing all cavalry formations.

[TosaInu]

Hello caravel,

What I'm not sure about is which factions had/used stirrups and when. The Huns were the first?

Edit: Hound of Ulster's post wasn't there yet. They didn't have a stirrup, did they have some other technique then? I recall knights used high saddle backs when jousting.

[Puzz3D]

Apparently, the better the graphics get, the worse the AI gets. SO the opportunity cost of good AI is good graphics.
Creative Assembly (I think it was MikeB) said that different programming teams work on graphics than work on AI, so there is no trade off because of that. I would say the faltering AI is due to not enough time in the development schedule to make the AI handle all of the features which have been continuously increasing with each release.

However, there is the issue of the graphic artist adversely affecting the play balance or game mechanics. Here is one example of that. In MTW, the Templar Knights had a lower charge bonus than other comprable knights. Players asked why since the Templars were historically an elite organization who were very capable fighters. LongJohn answered this by saying that the graphic artist has incorrectly depicted the Templar knight with a sword rather than a lance. LongJohn felt that he couldn't give a unit that charged with a draw sword as much charge bonus as a unit that charged with a lance, so he cut the charge bonus of the Templar in half and lowered the cost of the unit. Of course, this mistake wasn't noticed until the artwork was finished, and guess what? There's no time in the development schedule to change the artwork. Why is the graphic artist not consulting with the historical consultant or the designer of the battle mechanics in order to avoid such mistakes?

Take another example from M2TW. The graphic artist or whoever does the animations decided that a guy with a knife will swing his weapon faster than a guy with a sword or axe. So what happens? The guy with the knife beats the guy with the sword or axe because he gets a lot rolls of the dice in the melee. Clearly, the guy who did the animations didn't understand the game's mathematical combat calculation. Of course he doesn't because he's an artist not a mathematician. Can the animations be changed. No because there is not enough time in the developement schedule, and it's too much work for a patch as well. I know this was addressed to some extent in M2TW, but it never should have happened in the first place especially with things that you don't have time to go back an redo. Now why did this happen? Because up until M2TW, all units used the same combat cycle time. So, someone decided (The graphic artist?) to give different weapons different combat cycles without considering what that would do to the combat results.



SO where did the original topic go? Looks like this thread degenerated into another graphics vs. gameplay thread.
I think it changed into why one version of the game is better than another which is more interesting to discuss than simply saying which version you like best. It could have been posted as a pole, but there aren't enough people coming to this site anymore to produce statistically significant pole results, and those kinds of poles are not scientific anyway because there is no control group. In any case, ever since RTW was released the RTS type of player dominates Total War sales.

[noone23]

It would be RTW simply because two of my favorite mods - N2TW and ROP - use RTW as their base. I stiil like MTWVI very much what with all the mods I have for that game. Can a game be defined strictly by its mods? One thing I find bothersome in the TW games is how the AI army will split itself to try a cheesy outflanking manoevre. This is absolutely ahistorical as the whole idea in these battles was to keep an army together and in formation. This cheapo tactic merely serves to open up a new flank right in front of my waiting and eager troops. I can only imagine the fate of any RL general that would have tried that. He would, I believe, have had more to fear from his own superiors than from the enemy.

[Caerfanan]

I started with Rome then almost immediately moved onto STW and MTW then most recently M2TW. So I do call STW/MTW old fashioned and hence cannot play them as the graphics totally ruin it for me.
OK, thanks!


As for your first question, I have purposefully left it to the end as it is a rather challenging. That depends wheter or not I found the earlier games too taxing e.g. I would not like to see CA make the game anyless challenging than M2TW. Although I would like to see STW/MTW with better graphics.
I now some warmongers who would be bored by battles that looks unwinnable for me... What matters is that one has fun while playing! ~:cheers:

Then I just rethink of the ultimate TW game in my opinion, which would include varous levels of difficulties, campaign and battle, different micromanagement levels, and tons and tons of scenarios (maps + units + historical context)... So that everyone plays TW and finds what he seeks!

[caravel]

not correct. The Sassinsids especially deployed super-heavy armored cavalry, as did the Hephalitites, the Samaritains, and the Armenians from time to time before the introduction of the stirrup, and these cavalry would charge at full gallop against infantry and other cavalry. (source: Osprey Elite series 'Sassinsid Elite Cavalry AD 224-642')
I've already mentioned early pre stirrup cataphracts, they and their lances were effectively chained onto their horses. Mmost of these cavalry were apparently also armed with bows and historians generally disagree as to how they fought. Cataphracts are an exception rather than a rule. They should indeed be regarded as true heavy cavalry.

The fact that I beat the Seluecids in RTR and the ERE in Rio's BI mod and IBFD with all cavalry forces shows how much better the cavalry are in the period of RTW than at least the phalanx infantry perfered by the Diadochi states.
I'm thoroughly confused as to which game you're playing? In all eras cataphracts should be good, not overpowered but decent enough. In the BI campaign they would be a much more potent force.

Even the Romans had problems fighting all-cavalry forces (see Carrhae), so the fact that I'm beating infantry forces with smaller all-cav formations doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Where RTW messes up in terms of cavalry stats are the Roman cavalry, which even after the Marian reforms still weren't that good (Crassus's cavalry force at Carrhae was made up of Galatian Gauls, not Romans for the most part, and the Romans didn't deploy cavalry of a similiar nature to the Parthians/Sassinsids until the introduction of the Equites Parthi, Equites Cataphracti, and Equites Clibnarii in the 2nd or 3rd century AD).
We agree on that. My main gripe is with the generals' cavalry units, but some other cavalry units are also overpowered. I actually remember being decidedly underwhelmed by the parthian cataphracts in RTW in fact. I feel that those should have been the strongest cavalry in the game.

:bow:

[Ravencroft]

Well thanks for the explanation.

Now I know that the graphics and AI aren't mutually exclusive, just that CA is faced with a lot of deadlines.

[Orda Khan]

It was the Avars who are generally accepted for the introduction of the stirrup, though cruder forms existed earlier in the east.

The Parthians were able to deliver a crushing defeat of the Roman army under Crassus, however, even after hours of enduring arrow storms and exhausted by heat, his men were still able to repell the initial cataphract charge. What Crassus was unaware of was that the horse archers were not going to run out of arrows (which is what he was expecting) as the Parthians arranged for re-supply. Further drained by arrows and heat, they were eventually broken by cataphracts.
Given the right conditions, there is no good reason why an all cavalry army should not be able to defeat an infantry army. The Romans lost battles against the Sarmatians and the Huns and it was no coincidence that the eastern empire adopted similar cavalry among their armies.

I would argue that RTW gave too much strength to cavalry but it also introduced HA that did not sit as targets while they released their arrows. Of course, the invulnerable CC manoeuvre gave them an obvious exploit, which is a shame.
In MTW, it was possible to keep your infantry together, with crossbows close and endure all the arrows from a cavalry army, while inflicting enough kills with your crossbows. When the HA ran out of arrows you generally had enough men left to defeat any melee cavalry. In other words, the armour was too good.
In M2TW, I see a repeat of the problems that I came across in MTW. I'll admit I was impressed with the graphics (unless zoomed out) which made watching replays entertaining, because you can get in close and watch the action. But CA took away the option to save campaign and historical battles :dizzy2: and I was not impressed with the explosives launched by artillery and the way walls collapse into jigsaw pieces.
Tactics should always prevail over unit choice and STW offered this more so than any subsequent release

.......Orda

[TosaInu]

It was the Avars who are generally accepted for the introduction of the stirrup, though cruder forms existed earlier in the east.

The Avars.



The Parthians were able to deliver a crushing defeat of the Roman army under Crassus, however, even after hours of enduring arrow storms and exhausted by heat, his men were still able to repell the initial cataphract charge. What Crassus was unaware of was that the horse archers were not going to run out of arrows (which is what he was expecting) as the Parthians arranged for re-supply. Further drained by arrows and heat, they were eventually broken by cataphracts.

Patience is a virtue.


Given the right conditions, there is no good reason why an all cavalry army should not be able to defeat an infantry army. The Romans lost battles against the Sarmatians and the Huns and it was no coincidence that the eastern empire adopted similar cavalry among their armies.


I'm just an armchair general of course, but a cavalry army would be the army of choice to defeat legions. There are several battles where infantry destroyed legions, but I would prefer to keep a distance, provoke, exhaust and destroy them bit by bit. You need smart and mobile cavalry for that.

[eddy_purpus]

yea ummm .
I dont have favorites .
i like them all in diferent ways .
when it comes to RTW . . . the gameplay is at its best:thumbsup: :thumbsup: . . . the graphics are not too bad nor too good . they are just fine .
but referring to M2TW it looks a little more realistic i think .
beacuse in a unit , every soldier is dressed in diferent ways and that . its artistic but the gameplay somewhat i dont like it too much . when fighting on the battlefield . its just too slow . maybe its my graphic card . but yeah it is a cool game :thumbsup:
you can build castles and convert them to cities . i like the M2TW recruitment type . . . as the settlement grows .
the rec slots are more available and you can form an army faster than rome total war . :tongue: i like that . . .
if they could put that recruitment type in RTWBE it would be way better :tongue: :dizzy2: but you cant have it all :stunned:
soo yeah i like em all :thumbsup: :tongue: :dizzy2:


Edvard0

[Orda Khan]

Patience is a virtue.
Precisely

I'm just an armchair general of course, but a cavalry army would be the army of choice to defeat legions. There are several battles where infantry destroyed legions, but I would prefer to keep a distance, provoke, exhaust and destroy them bit by bit. You need smart and mobile cavalry for that.
Given the right conditions...such as Carrhae. Most TW maps have enough open space for cavalry use. In MTW it was too easy to beat cavalry armies, in RTW it became too easy to win with all cavalry

......Orda

[eddy_purpus]

man I feel like im behind the situation . . .
they say that STW is the best and i dont know why ?!!:gah:
i need to play STW . ill buy TWErasnext weekend =)
:thumbsup:



Edvard0

[deguerra]

I must say I am intrigued.

Now I more or less consider myself a RTW veteran, because I too started at S:TW and have bought every title (except for Alexander) along the way.

First things first. I am surprised RTW does so well in this "poll". I love the timeperiod myself, and hugely anticipated this game. But I have to say, I was quite dissapointed by what I got. Now I have to admit I was sucked in by the shiny graphics initially. But my personal "good graphics don't make good gameplay" realization came with RTW. To be honest, I'd have to say RTW was my least favourtie in the series.

M2TW isn't fantastic by anyone's (well probably by many people's in fact, but not by mine :D) standards. But I think it is a respectable, at least, improvement over RTW. There were some good innovations. I played vanilla M2TW much longer than I did RTW (eventually resorted to mods for both). Sure, there are things still to be fixed, but I thought that after Rome, M2TW was at least a step in the right direction. A small step, admittedly, but at least a step. So I have to say I prefer M2TW over Rome any day.

But which is actually best? I have to say for the new features and, yes, the graphics, the two above do remain contenders to my mind at least. But in the end, it is a question between Shogun and the original Medieval.

And to me, it was Medieval. I liked the variety in the factions (if not the units). I liked granting titles. I liked marrying off my princesses. And I liked going on crusade. Therefore, Medieval wins over Shogun most probably just because it was the later game, and thus had more features. Personally, I must also say I found battles in Shogun to be almost too hard. That is because I am a wuss. Medieval was better in that. (RTW and M2TW don't even get to compete in that category. The battles are a joke, even for me)

But once again, can people explain. Is the charm of RTW just in its timeperiod? Because to be honest, that alone doesn't do it for me.

[gml2322]

RTW has to take the cake because it was so revolutionary. It introduced a more realistic board that allowed armies to move within territories and introduced the concept of the family line, not to mention the inproved graphics.

[Puzz3D]

RTW has to take the cake because it was so revolutionary. It introduced a more realistic board that allowed armies to move within territories and introduced the concept of the family line, not to mention the inproved graphics.
The concept of the family line was introduced in Shogun. Also, the RTW AI doesn't know how to play on the new strategic map.

If you think the RTW battle engine was revolutionary, think again because its based on the earlier STW/MTW battle engine. The STW/MTW battle engine is actually a more realistic model of both melee combat and ranged combat. It was designed by a mathematician who understood probablility, statistics, coefficient of elasticity, covariance, linearity and physics, and who optimized these aspects of the combat model. Most of these optimizations were lost in CA's attempt to adapt the original battle engine to the new 3D units in RTW. There was a new parameter called stamina added and a new feature to allow shooting while moving, but they don't offset what was lost. One huge feature that was lost in the RTW battle engine was the squeezed too tight combat penalty.

[mrdun]

:daisy: RTW DOES have the best gameplay of the first three titles and by chance it is the first to have to have the best graphics!!

[Puzz3D]

RTW sprite graphics are of noticably lower spatial resolution than either STW or MTW sprites. So, I wouldn't say that RTW has the best graphics because I play the game zoomed out to where I can see most of my army. RTW men run and charge like cartoon figures because they move unrealistically fast, and they also jump or are thrown into the air in an unrealistic fashion. Then they suddenly go into slow motion when they engage an opponent in melee. At least STW and MTW units move at realistically scaled speeds, and have a more realistic 1 second combat cycle and 4 second reload time for archers.

[Parallel Pain]

And realistic ammunition amount for archers

And better scenary

And better tacitcs, and therefore better gameplay battle-wise.

[Wasp]

I'm still playing Shogun a lot (finished a campaign today, even), and the balance and replayability of the game is just so good it deserves my first spot. Medieval comes in second place, because the balance is a bit worse, but has good strategic options and some other fun things (personlized generals and such). Rome comes third, but I don't consider it the 'bronze' game. Didn't like it, although some changes have potential. I haven't played Medieval II.

[surprisingly keith]

Probably my favourite of the series is RTW, but that has nothing to do with the graphics I feel, I just prefer that period of history.

[Brave]

Suprisingly the only conclusion I can draw from 160 posts is that no TW game is better or worse than the others. Each game brings something different, something unique. Therefore I can give no answer to the question of : What Total War do you think is the best and why?

[Gregoshi]

Suprisingly the only conclusion I can draw from 160 posts is that no TW game is better or worse than the others. Each game brings something different, something unique. Therefore I can give no answer to the question of : What Total War do you think is the best and why?
That may be true as a group, but not as an individual. Sure, they each have something to offer, but which game has the "it" factor that you value most?

[Caerfanan]

Suprisingly the only conclusion I can draw from 160 posts is that no TW game is better or worse than the others. Each game brings something different, something unique. Therefore I can give no answer to the question of : What Total War do you think is the best and why?
That's no surprise to me! :yes: I think that according to what has more importance to you, you might prefer one game on another.

[PresidentShell]

Rome total war is probabaly the best total war game i have played. i have played MTW, RTW, and MTW2. Rome is based in the ancient antiquity peiod, which is by far my most favorite of topics. That and the combined strategy map...i bought it the first day and havent put it down.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

The first Total War game I played was Rome, I was weary before I bought it but after I started playing it I was amazed and I was hooked ever since. I than tried the original Medieval and honestly I was a little unimpressed at first but once I got into it I realised how much better the AI was than Rome but how worse the graphics are than Rome. (and the fact that you're men can't stand on walls) After Medieval II came out I started to play it and thought it had great graphics but it didn't have that "feel" to it like Rome Medieval did.

So here's how I rate the one's I have played:

#1. Rome
#2. Medieval
#3. Medieval II

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Suprisingly the only conclusion I can draw from 160 posts is that no TW game is better or worse than the others. Each game brings something different, something unique. Therefore I can give no answer to the question of : What Total War do you think is the best and why?

Agreed in that they're all good in different ways.


Probably my favourite of the series is RTW, but that has nothing to do with the graphics I feel, I just prefer that period of history.

And therefore Rome is best.

[Monk]

That's a very good question, each had something that worked for them in their own way and made them unique. I have enjoyed every TW game to date but my all time favorite has always and will always be Shogun. Shogun had such amazing atmosphere, from your adviser in the throne room to actually hearing the pleas of emissaries as they handed you a parchment of paper.

Plus the work put into the skies on the battlemap... amazing.

[ReluctantSamurai]

After reading through this thread it seems apparent to me that 'best' is a very subjective thing, indeed. Some here like the graphics, some complex strategy, some the battles. Some are swayed by the time period for the game in question....others are not.

I own only STW & RTW. I've played both quite extensively, for the most part patched only enough to remove or correct glaring deficiencies. I would have to say, that in the long run, STW will be the one that will continuously make it off of my shelf and on to my monitor screen. Why, you might ask?

Because after all the glitz & glamor of RTW wore off (call it graphics, call it complexity, etc) I was left playing a game that was...........boring and unchallenging. I won't get into all of the things that bothered me about RTW.....there are quite a few. So many, in fact, that they finally caused me to stop playing it.

Why does STW still hold interest for me despite its shortcomings (and there are definitely shortcomings)? Because, despite being a veteran (IMHO), I can still get bush-whacked by the AI. Because at the start of a battle, with the wind whipping battle standards about, the music wailing mournfully for those about to die, perhaps the horizon being lit by the occasional flashes of lightning.......I can identify with all those little sprites lined up ready to do battle.......I can feel trepidation about my battle plans....will they be enough? is my trap going to work, or am I going to be the one to fall for a trick? can I hold off the expected enemy reinforcements?

All those things contribute to a total immersion into the game that RTW never even came close to giving me. Certainly it was very cool to see my War Elephants smash into a line sending men flying high into the air........and it was very cool to watch my onagers and archers burn a village to the ground while enemy soldiers scurried about in terror........and it was a lot of fun playing all the various factions with each of their unique units.........and managing the strategic map was a challenge (at first).......etc...etc....etc.

But after awhile, all of those factors began to wear off and the game became tedious and predictable.....boring if you will. I'm sure I could play through all the mods (some of which appear to be quite good) and someday I just might. But from all appearances they will not correct those things that make me want to put the game away.....that is.....a terrible AI, predictable battle-maps, and a lack of ambiance that draws me into the game.

Someone here mentioned how smart CA was in creating a game that had a broader appeal, hence bigger profits for them. In the short-term, I would agree. After all, they have a business to run and making money is the name of the game. But is that a smart thing to do, in the LONG run?

Why does STW have such an appeal to many all these years after its release? It's my feeling that CA had created a game that made players think....made them feel......presented enough of a challenge to keep them coming back again and again.

Will the same be said for RTW, or M2TW, or any of the others.......after players move on to games with "better graphics" will they still return to play these games?

I guess only time will tell. But I can assure you, this player will STILL be dragging out STW from time to time, for many more years to come..........

[Youngie]

I think it has to be MTW, Rome has far better graphics, but the storyline/campaign in MTW has a more historic sort of feel, its more appealing i belive. I liken them to a Book and a TV. the TV's newer and has flashy light to be dazzled by, Whilst a book has a greater impact and can capture and enchant the reader. Old skool always wins :book:

[Parallel Pain]

I still remember reading at M2 forum in YUKU.

A guy was like "You know after all these campaign it dawned on me. M2TW doesn't feel very...medieval."

And everyone else was like "No really you just realized that now?":laugh4:

Same thing with RTW heh. Old school is best. But at least RTW have great mods.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

MTW

[Caerfanan]

And therefore Rome is best.
Err, If you prefer the historical period. A fan of feudal japan will "jump madly" on STW (most of my "gaming friends" did), and "fancy" RTW....

[Tristrem]

Really the question is which do you like better, chess or checkers?

The older games, (MTW, STW) are more like chess and require some sort of strategy to them, both on the map and on the battle field.

The newer ones are more like checkers. They are flashier, easier to learn and appeal to a larger audience. They are still somewhat fun to play. However anyone who has played chess will tell you checkers is a breeze, and you can almost play, and win any hard thinking without thinking. So while it is fun, it doesn't stimulate the mind the same way chess does.

This whole thread is comparing apples (the older games) to oranges (the newer ones). You can eat them both, make juice out of them, but in the apples are better because you can make pie with them, while no one wants an orange pie.

MTW, and STW just offer so much more than Rome or M2

[Martok]

This whole thread is comparing apples (the older games) to oranges (the newer ones). You can eat them both, make juice out of them, but in the apples are better because you can make pie with them, while no one wants an orange pie.
I think that just might get the award for "Quote of the Week". :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[caravel]

Hmm... I suppose to be fair one can make marmalade with the oranges though...

[Puzz3D]

Quite possibly SEGA will suck the remaining creativity out of Creative Assembly, and all that will be left is the dehydrated husk of the orange.

Let me give an example of what publishers do by recounting one of the contributions of Activision to MTW. Eat Cold Steel incorporated aging for every individual soldier in MTW. That means every soldier would eventually die from sickness or old age if he wasn't killed first. When Activision became aware of that, they made him disable the feature.

[Parallel Pain]

AWWW COME ON THAT WOULD BE SO COOL

At least let us choose whether or not to enable it. We already have retraining so who cares. Just enable a command somewhere that's like "retrain whenever possible" and the computer automatically retrain all your units for you whenever it can. Then it won't be a hassel.

[TosaInu]

That's the pity Parallel Pain.

Of course there are other concerns and limitations, but a game is made for a user. No user is the same as another, and I think it's even more true for a total war gamer.

The game should have a default setting, it would be good marketing to aim that at an 'imaginary' (???) average user to boost sales. But each user should be able to configure his/her game.

There's more to change in M2TW than in STW, but the game itself has more possibilities too. It feels a bit like it voids each other, one outrunning the other.

It might be over the head of several, but there are many that can pull it off, yet are not full modders.

Of course it's nice when there are dozens of textfiles, that can be edited to switch things on and off, but it would be nice to have a little GUI tool that presents tabs. Want 12 harvest a year? Set it. Want your king to live 200 years? Set it. Want every soldier to die of age/disease? Set it. Just want all your units to have a tiny bit more morale on the battlefield? Set it. Want a timer for battles, but it just needs to be twice as long/short? Set it. You want to use the whole battlemap and not just the part inside the red border? Set it.

When Rome was going to be released, there was a little discussion about restricting the maps or not (afaik also among the developers, there should be a topic here). Leave that decision to the player. Black Hawk Down from Novalogic has maps that are tens or even hundreds of miles in each direction. Of course I'm far away from the hotspot then, but when I want to take a hike, I do.

[magnum]

Have played them all to date and its a close tie between MTW and RTW. They both played/felt different but overall were enjoyable. STW is a great classic but have always felt that MTW was a great improvement. RTW they went to a new system which in many ways was great, but many of the game elements that I loved from STW and MTW disappeared. M2TW for some reason though never hooked me. Have played it as much as the others, but to date have never completed a campaign (the only one in the series that is teur for.) Not the length either as I've played full RTW campaigns no problem. Its just that no faction was able to keep me interested in continuing playing.

So toss up between RTW and MTW.

[Rolo]

:daisy: keep it civil in my Entrance Hall :beam:

[Mek Simmur al Ragaski]

Id have to say that i prefur M2TW to any other game, mostly because i only had RTW, the expansions for RTW were good, especially Barbarian Invasion, although i did find Alexander a bit poor, im not sure how you are supposed to fight the Persians when they outnumber and outclass you.

The newest features in M2TW have me hooked, diplomacy through assassinations and princesses, im not sure about this, but wasnt execution of captured soldiers introduced in M2TW and not RTW??? If im wrong then i might begin to play RTW again...

Also the fact that i only joined the org recently, during the start of this month, and many more factions are available, which appeals to me as in RTW, the original this is, you were stuck with Brutii, Scipii and Julii, (without modificiation this is, i started playing RTW around January) If i actually could change the Descr_strat files and actually save them, then i would probably begin to play RTW again.

Believe it or not, but when i was around 10, i saw shogun total war in the shops and it actually looked like a fairly decent game for the time. Although i did not actually buy it, which i sorely regret, it did look very good for the time it was out.

I have never seen MTW in the shops, ever

So personally i prefur M2TW, but if i could edit RTW, it would prove to be just as entertaining

[Gregoshi]

The newest features in M2TW have me hooked, diplomacy through assassinations and princesses, im not sure about this, but wasnt execution of captured soldiers introduced in M2TW and not RTW??? If im wrong then i might begin to play RTW again...

Insane, I'm not sure what you mean by diplomacy through assassination, but assassination of diplomats/emissaries, priests, faction leaders and generals has been around since STW. The original MTW introduced princesses and execution/ransom of captured soldiers.

[Parallel Pain]

RTW is worst of the 4. However it (according to me who doesn't have M2TW but has everything else but has not yet played MTW) has the best mod: EB.

Alexander is suppose to test your skill. And it's far from impossible to win.

Capturing the enemy and possibily executing them was first introduced in MTW.

So go download EB

And assasination were better in STW. What with the super cool scenes and all.

[Parallel Pain]

Say Yuuki, you know stats

Is it true that the morale effect of a unit stationed on the flanks/rear have been decreased in RTW and M2TW? Like how in STW just stationing a unit on the enemy flank could cause it to route for fear of being flanked.

Or is it just me?

[dark_disclosure]

i dont think just one is the best i still have fun playing the good old ones and the new ones alike but i seem to find myself strangly addicted to Rome Total War atm specially the Bare Bones Mod