just a question i think gameplay on rtw is better than mtw2, what do you think?
Printable View
just a question i think gameplay on rtw is better than mtw2, what do you think?
I would stick with RTW, but M2TW is the successor to Rome so something is bound to have improved.
I enjoy the overall gameplay and graphics of M2TW a lot more than RTW, the only part of RTW i like is the fact its set around the Romans...
Can not wait for R2TW!
Overall, I think I prefer Medieval 2's gameplay to Rome's. Although of course, I still prefer Shogun and MTW's gameplay over the other two. ~;p
Indeed, although I find the battle map in MTW unplayable. Seems like I still want decent graphics :laugh4:
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by peverpink
:whip: Young whippersnappers, always wanting these darned high falutin' fancy graphics and bells and whistles attached to everything....
*coming from an 18 year old...:sweatdrop:
I like some aspects of Medieval 2, but Rome is much more enjoyable to me because I'm more knowledgable on the period.
RTW just always seem better to me, plus I had to upgrade my computer for M2TW.
I like RTW better then M2TW. The screen on M2TW is fuzzy and you can not see the people too well. On RTW you can see the people clearly.
I have never played MTW2 so i'll stick with RTW. However i'm sure MTW2 is better than RTW in some ways.
I've gotta say RTW. But I do like the Building Feature in MTW2, like the castles and stuff, hardcore.:2thumbsup:
But Rome's more playable. And the mods for it make it the game you don't stop playing.
indeed, m2tw has its own unique quirks and better graphics, but RTW is an instant classic.
It defintely has a compelling argument to be among the top strategy games of all time (which i think includes Civ2, Starcraft, C&C red alert, warcratft2, and X-COM) and among the top 100 games of all time. i just don't think m2tw will reach what RTW did.:sunny:
Besides, i seem to enjoy and get more satisfaction commanding hoplites, berserkers , legionaires, chariots, and even war dogs and screechers to victory, (:smash:>>>>>>) over knights :knight:, crossbowmen, camel gunners, zweihanders, mamluks and raiders ( charging cavalry in vanilla m2tw makes me want to... :wall: and... :furious3:)
("WAR CRRRRY!" , oh and "creesshian artcherz" forever, baby :heart:, though elephant artillery just...:shocked2:)
i preferere rtw because the campaign map iis simpler but there are more tactics to be used on the battlfield
im new just seeing if my avatar is working...
anybody now how 2 get the custom avatar 2 work...
R:TW 2x2 at large units and low money (6.5k - 7k) is enjoyable. Otherwise, small units are ridiculous.
M:TW 4x4 at normal and everyone tone down their graphics is enjoyable.
I hate singleplayer mode :P
Annie
Hello Master-Chief,
Go to https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/profi...do=editprofile and choose an avatar here: http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pics/avatars/
IMO from what I've seen of M2TW so far: The battle AI and pacing of battles is a nice improvement over the 2 minute battles and chain routing of RTW.
RTW was always plagued by a virtually worthless battle map AI. There was no such thing as a long, epic battle. It was simply a matter of lowering the enemy's moral (via 900 different ways...all very easy in fact) and then flanking them and watching the ensuing chain route. Either that or doing absolutely nothing and just waiting for the AI general to run a suicide charge into your 3500 strong army.
Grinding at an elevated position, using cover, reforming after "round 1" ...absolutely none of this came into play with RTW. It was simply line up , and win within minutes. Just a cut to the chase version of total war..and by far the worst battles in the series.
You bought a total war game to solely play it online?Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyAnn
Wow...just wow.
Until recently I had taken a hiatus away from virtually all video games. I've returned to two of my old favorites, M:TW and Europa Universalis. If what you say about R:TW battles is true, I'm glad I never looked into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
If I can't play a hard-fought, nail-biting, turn-of-fate kind of battles lasting up to and including one hour... well, I just don't want to. (In a VI campaign last night, I took on 1600 enemy troops with 800 of my own, and they held the high ground. In the end, I had about 160 troops left, but won by the Light's own luck! That's what I'm talking about!)
I'm sure some would disagree with me vehemently...but if you look around, I would imagine my opinion on RTW would fall in line with the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim
M2TW isn't what MTW VI is in terms of battlefield AI, but it's a large improvement over Vanilla Rome.
Nothing is as epic as MTW:VI though.
M2TW has a lot of improvements in graphics and AI (except the seige part. where they're retared in seige assaults against multi layer castles) but the system req is just insane. it also done a significantly better job at historical accuratecy than RTW (which was very close to Rome Fantasy : Total War in it's vanilla form, of course, being set only 900 years from now instead of 2000+ helps)
Both have their merits, the M2TW engine is definately more refined though.
I find RTW easier to play. The MT2W is a bit complicated to me like MTW. However i didn't get that far in MT2W to go into battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
Of course.
Each time I have a TW game (I have all PC releases of the series), I played SP for a week or two then move on.
You may not understand when the MP bug bit you (and it bit me early at the innocent era of S:TW and further bit me at the civilized era of M:TW), SP isn't the same anymore. I used to enjoy S:TW and S:TW/MI SP until I got online.
Annie
I have a friend who is the same exact way.
Lady An must be one of the last of the original Total War multiplayer community playing the latest version of this game online. If you had been here in late 2000 and early 2001 you would have found a vibrant community of extremely talented online tactical gamers. In those days, the quality of the tactical battle engine and the stability of the online connectivity attracted a large number of such players. Although 4v4 battles with 7680 total men in the battle worked well, it was 1v1 battles that were the most popular which is a testament to the high quality of the tactical gameplay, and this was done with only 14 unit types which were common to all factions. You simply do not need 100 unit types and complicated special abilities to have very good tactical gameplay. You won by coordinating the movements of the units better than the other player not by buying better units than the other guy, and if you could only coordinate 15 and he could coordinate 16 you didn't win. Every player and every clan had a rating based on the last 30 battles they played calculated by the game and maintained on a website where you could see both the ratings and casualty results of every battle fought. The level of honor of player conduct in the forum and on the battlefield was very high, and there was none of the stupid BS such as, "Hey anyone want child porn.", that I saw just yesterday in the RTW foyer. What happened to this original vibrant community due to its treatment by CA is a travesty, and the company deserves nothing less than to go out of business for it's deceptive practices and arrogant treatment of its customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare