Printable View
Well I may as well spark some more controversy... We have been over RTW vs MTW/STW many times on this forum but this has not been covered (at least not in recent history anyway).
Just how did the sequel improve over the first game? Was MTW the first step towards the campaign map game oriented TW games of today? How was MTW worse than STW?
I have my own opinions, but I'd rather see some other peoples'.
:bow:
Very hard question master camelier; almost existential i'd say:laugh4:. MTW is to me the yang to STW's ying. Each game has its strengths and weaknesses. STW is the roster and so great gameplay, the atmosphere (environments, movies, sprites, design in general). MTW has equally good design in many areas (portraits, envoronments, campaign map sprites) but less in depth atmosphere. It has a better engine technically as it is STW made perfect (charges work for starters). It has a bloated roaster, but this is amendable by moding stats to be less divergent and in that case you are left with the benefit of feeling more the variety as intended that from an SP perspective is good.
It was however undoubtedly the first step towards the emphasis in the SP part of the game in TW that led to RTW. However this did not come at the price of downgrading the battles (or the campaign for that matter because unlike RTW MTW does not feel like doing a chore when you play) and as such it was acceptable from my point of view. Had future TW games been in the standard of MTW i would have been a much happier; however i do believe that a TW game combining the strengths of the two first games and taking out their weaknesses would turn me into a sort of pc gaming monastic :laugh4:
:bow:
PS forgot to mention the seasonal turns and the harvest based economy system that MTW lacked. It could have really worked well in a MTW camp. based around the Crusader Kingdoms or elsewhere...
Pretty much my sentiments also. Definitely the deeper atmosphere in STW helped, the throne room with the map showing how much territory each clan held was great too.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
:bow:
I can only speak about the SP game. STW had great atmosphere, but was mainly about the battles. I found the campaign level was a bit a of a grind, to be honest. Conquering Japan, province by province, turn by turn - it was total war, alright and more challenging than any TW campaign since. But overall I prefer a game where I can turtle, go for "glorious achievements", play diplomacy, crusade, nurture generals with their own traits etc. MTW provided that - it gave you more variety of settings and more strategic options on the campaign map. I think the growth of PBMs with MTW shows the possibility the game provided for a "role-playing" type experience.
I also found the STW campaign suffered from more obvious gameplay flaws - the suicidal leaders and the Hojo horde made several of my campaigns dull after a point. The MTW campaign had its own problems - early AI armies of peasants/ballistas and the "I win" strategy of a global trade network - but these loomed less large for me.
Suicide generals was still a problem in MTW IMHO - much less so but still there. It reappeared again in force in RTW. The "Hojo Horde" was more an STW v1.x problem, not in MI.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Strangely I see these as larger issues as they affect the challenge aspect of the game. I am one of those people that exits in disgust if the challenge disappears from the game, mid campaign. This was the biggest flaw of MTW campaigns; i.e. that once your faction was established, victory was a forgone conclusion and all that was left to do, was spam units and micromanage them to victory. The vast selection of 'junk units' further worsens this as the AI trains them in abundance. Once I had fought several battles against a rag tag of peasants etc, it was my own morale that was suffering. This is probably what inspired me to mod the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
:bow:
For me, the problem with suicide generals in STW was not so much at the tactical level - the generals charging off into spears, RTW style, although that was irritating. It was the consequences at the strategic level of such behaviour. Whole STW factions could easily go "rebel" due to a couple of their leaders dying in short succession. If I was not careful, it was not uncommon to find myself surrounded by a sea of rebel provinces, which was just boring. I have not encountered that in MTW or any subsequent TW game. Maybe the later games were more careful at finding alternate leaders to inherit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Added to this, the STW battles tended to be smaller and tighter fights where it was hard to resist killing the enemy leader to get an edge. With later titles, you could afford to be more magnanimous in battle.
I agree that STW was the more challenging game and of the two titles, for that reason, it's the one that I'd be more inclined to go back to it. If I am after the kind of experience that MTW offers, I'd be more likely to turn to a RTW mod or M2TW. Last time I loaded up MTW it was to compare the battle AI with M2TWs - I quickly came to the conclusion that memory did not lie and it was better, but that sadly I had also become seduced by the more modern engine's graphics and could not go back. STWs atmosphere and charm also comes into play here, sweeting the pill (a battle in Shinano is as cinematic to me as most battles with the later titles).
PS: I forgot another bugbear I have with STW's campaign - bridge battles, I hate them. MTW and later titles seem to have less chokepoints and again, perhaps less reason to use them. Our M2TW PBM players still manage to use them to neutralise large AI armies though, sigh.
STW has heirs that mature at set dates, unlike MTW which mostly generates random ones based on a list of forenames and surnames. The good thing about these set heirs however is that faction can and will reappear if wiped out.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The STW maps are actually around about the rights size for 1 vs 1 engagements using the default unit size. Yes they are a bit tight for multiplayer or single players battles where more than two factions join a battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
MTWs bridge battles are a little more difficult IIRC, though you do fight less of them and there are considerably more double bridges which are easily exploitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Two things that annoyed me greatly in STW that was improved in MTW is the tree-hugging and large battles.
In many battles, where was the enemy? Oh that forest, or that one, or that one. And while tactically sound, it reduced the tactical options. Cav in the woods? No, yari vs cav in woods can only end up badly. Archers? No. His will do better. So WM to clear the woods and uhm WM to clear more of the woods.
And the large battles with time running out and no control of deployment. Starting units: General +15 yari cav, vs WM and YS in the woods. Messy...
The real enjoyment from these games comes from the moments when your clan/kingdom/empire is at risk and the stakes are high. Often times this only lasts for 20 turns. After that you are rich and pumping out high quality troops.
Other stuff is fun, like getting a really high kill ratio, getting "skilled attacker" building up your economy, but it doesn't really compare to being outnumbered on offense and needing a decisive victory. It's what makes all the little decisions you make actually important.
In many ways, multiplayer was the ideal. It's a pity they couldn't come up with an mp campaign or a least a better AI.
I like both games, but medieval 1 is definitely deeper & Bigger, more units, more regions, more factions, more feuds, I generally find it slightly more interesting, but I also loved shogun too, Medieval was probably a step in the right direction, not backward :) (not to mention being more moddable)
I adore medieval history and am only loosely interested in samurai so it may come as a surprise that STW is my favourite. Always has been. The tighter focus and atmosphere make all the difference. Bear in mind that I speak of the base game; MI wasn't something I spent huge amounts of time with because I disliked the kensai and a few of the other introductions. I do count the Viking campaign to be a better product than the base medieval campaign, and that's because it had more in common with Shoggy.
MTW felt like bigger but not better.
The limited number of units in STW meant that all unit types were viable. Ashigaru had a use. MTW had a lot of units that were clearly inferior, and some which were useless. In addition to the good gameplay feel of this, it was easier for the AI to put together a decent army. Pretty much whatever it picked it could use. Conversely I seldom saw the AI field a good army in MTW, especially once past the initial turns.
The smaller campaign map, ah, the smaller map! I found the huge campaign map of MTW to be boring, and I find the huge sprawling maps of RTW and M2TW to be the same. I loved the focused, detailed map of Japan and of Britain in VI. Those maps feel more vital in that taking a single province feels like a good step on my path to victory whereas taking an entire country the size of France in a single move feels absurd. Then there's the victory condictions; conquering all of Japan or Britain is believable, conquering all of Europe is not. Also fewer provinces means less time spend on the tedious end game turns where victory is guaranteed, and all that remains is the mopping up.
You know, I liked the Hojo horde. I must be about the only person on the planet who did! :laugh4: It was good to have this big, scary mob of purple people waiting to meet me once I'd conquered half of Japan. It meant the challenge didn't drop away at that point. Sometimes the Hojo horde were the most difficult part of the campaign.
Aside from those three key virtues - and that famous atmosphere - I found a lot of what MTW added was a nice idea but a nuisance in execution. The entire naval aspect. Sea trade. Vices and virtues, or the wonky way in which they were implimented. The endless upgrade -> new unit -> upgrade chain which meant I always seemed to need to build or retrain yet more units to replace or upgrade the ones I already had. Rebellions. New agent types. The Pope - IMO they didn't get that right until M2TW.
I did like some of MTW's additions. The way there were several distinct 'types' for army composition (Catholic western, Byzantine, Muslim) and the way each had their strengths and weaknesses. The effects of extreme heat in battle as well as the extreme cold from STW. The wider selection of battle maps. The variety in terrain types. Sean Pertwee and the European and Viking battle music. Pavise arbalasts. Dismouting cavalry. Castles with doors that opened and closed.
I liked the bridge battles in STW and MTW. I do love my missile units and I used to manage absolutely hideous kill rates. Playing the attacking side was fun too; there was a very real danger that your units would become exhausted and demoralised before forcing a safe zone on the other side. That risk has been lacking in RTW and onwards.
I miss STW so much ... and the Viking campaign.
No you're not.Quote:
Originally posted by lady frogg
I must be about the only person on the planet who did!
One of the most epic campaigns i ever played in any TW game, was STWv1.12/Imagawa/ Expert. I went for Kyushu as i lost a crucial early battle in Shinano against the Uesugi (that is a narrative in itself as i split my forces in order to flank the Uesugi but the AI went straight for one of the two half teams while the other was at maximum distance) and in it the initial Imagawa Daimyo (Yoshimoto), so his successor and son Ujizane fled in Kyushu where i started taking out the Shimazu.
However the move took a while to complete and set up as all my infrastructure was placed northeast serving the plan to take out the northeastern clans (Takeda/Hojo/Uesugi) first. By the time i got to Kawachi the Hojo Horde had overrun my only province in the northeast (Mikawa) in an epic battle where the rain rendered my arquebuses useless, and was coming fast and hard.
I fought a number of epic defensive battles in Yamashiro and then in Kawachi (i retreated as the Horde captured the surrounding provinces and threatened to cut my main army off), and i would have surely been grinded down to nothingness, had i not (out of the blue) succeded in assasinating the heirles Hojo Daimyo with one of the Ninja waves i've thrown at him in desperation (4% chance, that sort of thing).
After that, i took my time in building up in order to take on the massive rebel armies the Hojo had left in the Kinki (central Japan) area that made for more epic battles with me on the offensive this time. In the end i've succeded, and Tokugawa Ieyasu was ordained "generalissimo for the subjugation of the eastern barbarians" also known as seii taishogun or simply Shogun, sometime in the 1570's i believe.
Trully epic and unforgetable campaign :2thumbsup:
:bow:
I suppose it depends on what you want out of the game? Personally I find that STW is a deeper game with more "feuds". Like chess, STW is pretty much what you make it and battles just feel more epic and interesting - certainly more balanced as well. MTW campaigns are often dead for the first several years while all factions send out emissaries and ally with each other. In STW the war was pretty much constant, so you really battle your way across the map instead of spending 20 turns on the campaign map moving units and agents about while frantically teching up the best avabailable uber unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury
On the subject of "bigger" with "more units", regions and factions. I don't see this as a positive thing at all. MTW was the first step by CA towards the "more, more, more" approach that has continued to this day. Lots of different and horribly balanced units, many of them equivalent, do not make for good battles. A solid roster of well balanced units that are fit for purpose is much more preferable. STW might have benefited from a few more factions, but in fact faction distribution, placement and coverage in STW was better than that in MTW. In that later game, western Europe had an even enough coverage of factions, but in the east the province layout is extremely poor and the number of factions very low. Connectivity between provinces is also inconsistent, shipping and trade hoplessly broken and the AI cannot take full advantage of 75% of the new campaign map features made available to the player. MTW also had one province factions such as the Danes, Novgorod and the Aragonese, who's sole purpose was to sit around going slowly bankrupt trying to support all of their heirs units. Then there were those other factions such as the HRE that had too many provinces to count and the English and Byzantines that were given extra provinces than those they would have held historically.
Instead of trying to be a balanced strategic game, MTW in fact clearly attempts the opposite. Major imbalances between units and factions are embraced and even touted as big game selling features. A half decent player can win pretty much any MTW campaign, even on expert, autoresolving every battle. This is because the campaign map game is so easily exploited by the player. The only thing that saved MTW, like the games that have come after it, is modding. Yes STW was not as moddable, but it also needed it less.
From MI onwards the stability of the main campaign map game engine also suffered. STW v1.12 is pretty much the most stable incarnation of the STW/MTW engine. MI 1.x is definitely not as snappy as STW 1.x and hangs on exiting the game on certain hardware. MTW 1.x/(VI)2.x has numerous issues with campaign map lag/choppiness (due to the FPS being worked out at half the refresh rate), CTDs and is generally sluggish even on new hardware. When it comes to MTW it is the real time battle engine where most of the best improvements are found.
To me MI was the downturn in quality in many ways. The first real TW 'fantasy units' were added, but fantasy units (within reason) don't phase me so long as they're balanced and have some historical relevance. Kensai and BF Ninja with their stats and odd units sizes were certainly not balanced and not needed. They were obviously novelty units, thrown into the mix purely for the hell of it. Some of the features/changes added to the campaign map are flakey and unnecessary at best. MI could have been so much better... How about some more factions? That's one more I would certainly have liked. More eras with the factions that were around in those eras being playable. That would not have been hard and would have made the expansion well worth the money.
The way I have always seen it, the Mongol units in MI were the direct descendents of the Vikings in VI and the Romans in RTW. CA's move towards imbalancing the game in favour of the faction that is historically percieved to have triumphed instead of creating a balanced campaign where the player relies on his own wits to bring his faction to the top of the tree.
:bow:
Unfortunately this is all very true from my point of view. As much as i enjoy MTW, its very easy as it has many exploitable features because the AI indeed does not "know" they are there. It was this approach that gave us RTW and all that came after it. It was seen as "depth" by reviewers and SP enthusiasts, but lots of it was just playtoys SPers needed to "enjoy" the game and nothing more imo, especially since the developer knew that the AI would never be able to use them.Quote:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
A half decent player can win pretty much any MTW campaign, even on expert, autoresolving every battle. This is because the campaign map game is so easily exploited by the player. The only thing that saved MTW, like the games that have come after it, is modding. Yes STW was not as moddable, but it also needed it less.
MTW lacks horribly in optimisation in the campaign mode and needs lots of modding to shine, and even then many of the hardcoded limitations take out of the raw challenge in terms of strategy.
Its true that STW has problems in the campaign mode (and the battle mode too of course), such as lack of long term planning from the AI, the ease with which the clans can be taken out by killing the Daimyos because the AI thinks they are just another general unit rather than the heart of their clan, and the lack of coordination between stretegy in the battlefield and strategy in the battlemap.
Some of these were solved later by indirect means, for example in the RTW/M2 engine "candidates" for adoption come to offer their services to your family if the ratio of regions held/family members is too high. However this does not solve the problem that AI faction leaders do not "build" on their achievements in terms of stats and v'n'vs. It was simply a workaround that postpones indefinitely the solution of the problem rather than take it head on.
Others, such as objective based long term AI planning and the AI coordinating his battlemap and campaign strategy were promised in the hyping up for Empire, and we all have seen the results... not only the AI is not capable for such extraordinary feats, but it cannot perform even much simpler ones that it could in the past.
In short, these problems in may ways became even more grave in successive TW games starting with MTW because the game became infinitely more complex and the AI sadly stayed far behind by all appearances.
Frankly its a joke that CA would not attempt to solve them in a game like Shogun, the simplicity and directness of which could aid them in making progress rather than in the overbloated Empire, the complexity of which would predictably prove an additional obstacle.
STW was the kind of game that was approaching a classic game design. All it needed was bug clearing, slight balancing (although it was almost there), an MP campaign, AI work and the right marketing and it could have eaten games like Starcraft for breakfast. It seems that CA as a whole never quite understood what it had in its hands, or that it consciously decided to alter it to broaden the appeal.
Either way the result is just sad.
Well I'm so used to playing modded versions of medieval 1 that I was talking about them, more than the original but I don't recall it being that bad...
Medieval did have the glorious achievement mode, unlike shogun, which was fun, even though certain factions got over overwhelmingly high points for conquering certain provinces or underwhelming low ones (I.e: spains home provinces were worth almost no points) however I enjoyed this style of playing a lot and gave a new purpose to playing, rather than to predictably control all provinces on the map.
The units may have been a little unbalanced, but I think the main issue was that the AI didn't build balanced the units, IMO the selection of units was good and there was an interesting mix, however AI rarely constructed a balanced army, if more units means a poorer AI then it isn't worth it (i remember france coming to the fields with a whole army of balisita crew), but if the AI could of still been intelligent then more units is better imo. But I strive for customization in anyway possible.
Shogun I didn't think was all that balanced unit wise once mongol invasion came out, naginita cavalrymen completely out class yari cavarly yet there cheaper. I also found that kensai was imbalanced as the unit stayed at one, regardless of whether you were on small or huge unit size, with gave it varying ability. To the player, if used wisely, the kensai was too good though.
Another point, while I enjoyed assassinations, the Geisha were way to overpowered, Assination should play a part, but it usually resulted in the elimination of several factions, when there's only a few in the first place.
I agree the AI are better on shogun though, I like the game engine and therefore like both campaign maps, yes shogun's map is cosy i guess and more realistic, but I like the big scale, having about 20 factions attacking each other viciously, even if predictably, (modding can change that though :smash: )
With a few tweaks epic battles between byzantines and turkey can be induced, where the winning faction really does change every time you play.
Finally, I liked shogun on 1530 as I like starting from scratch, which is why I enjoyed the small factions like the danes & aragonese in medieval, they may be useless as AI, but there a good challenge to play if you pick them yourself. :balloon2:
Shogun was my first Total War game, and although it is the most basic it's definitely the most well-balanced. For Total War, like any other game, more features meant more exploits, more that the AI couldn't handle. I'm still a big fan of MTW to this day, but Rome quickly lost me because of its horrible balance (Broken phalanxes? Britons with no archers OR cavalry?). Medieval II has kept my interest mostly because of the eye candy, and the experience of watching cities and trade lanes grow. But as far as strategy is concerned, I think I prefer Shogun. Every unit had a role, and every role had one unit.
Phalanxes worked too well as far as I remember anyway. They failed horribly in the hands of the AI however.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Hea
In general though RTW gives the player a huge number of exploits and yet more features that the AI cannot handle, both at the tactical level and on the campaign map.
Getting back on topic though it's obvious to me as to what STW has over MTW:
Pros:
1) Better unit balance
2) Purer and more simplistic camapign map design with less useless features
3) Better suited era, map, atmosphere and overall artistic 'feel'.
Cons:
1) Lack of camels
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
For me the wrongs of STW are:
-AI unable to handle guns (ditto in MTW)
-AI doesn't flank/counterflank as well as in MTW
-AI doesn't track his heirs and runs out of them unintentionally (ditto in MTW)
-AI treats daimyo unit as another general unit (ditto in MTW although harder to catch kill by virtue of the many hit points)
-Guns are way too freely available - it would have been better for them to be available from a single trading post and be more expensive to buy and/or maintain
-Gun factory is redundant - because its linked to the Citadel, altough it was meant to make muskets in the pre-Duth era ie be avialable in the first castle level or something.
-Clans are wiped out once they lose their heirs/daimyos in v1.0/v1.12. It would have been better if they've just lost some of their territories and one of their generals took over the clan; clan reapperances are way too much of a wild card for pure strategy and also hurt the AI clans because of the pillaging involved (ditto in MTW).
-Some maps provide way too hilly terrain that the player can exploit (ditto in MTW); as the game was hills should have been smoother in SP - human mpers would'nt agree in playing in those steep slopes the AI is asked to play anyway and he is not as capable at exploiting them defensively as the player.
-Income unbalance on the north/east end of the map. The provinces of the Uesugi (Dewa, Mutsu, Etchigo) as well as some of the Hojo ones (like Kozuke) are given way too much agricultural income. historically they were all backwaters. In game terms they provide a huge advantage to the Hojo/Uesugi and make the campaign with them too easy (ditto in MTW).
-The AI is not able to re-arrange the units that participate from multiple stacks in attacking a province into an attacking stack according to the composition of the defenders and the terrain. This results in him not being able to press his advantage in men and quality, because although the stack with the best general attacks it is not the one with the best troops. I think that VI took care of that for the AI, yet though giving the player the ability to do the same in defence.
Not having camels could be seen as an advantage for some of us that do not belong to the shadowy camel cult that casts its heavy shadow over the org. Now you all know who to blame if i happen to "accidentaly" dissapear...
:bow:
Meanwhile back at .org secret police headquarters...
*clicks the 'disappear' button*
:daisy:
On topic: Valid points gollum. I don't think there's any doubt that battle AI is superior in MTW v2.01 in every way (to that in every other TW). It's the implimentation that's all wrong.
:bow:
Indeed the battle AI is better in MTWv2.01 but not by much; afaik the AI can flank/counterflank better and can also take advantage of the engine feature of disengaging. In the STW engine once units engage cannot disengage (very seldom). In MTW it can be done very easily, and in some ways this helps the AI as he is good in matching his units.
This is as you say countered to a certain extent by the MTW rosters that are very unbalanced, VI campaign included.
Some of the faults i describe are sadly present in most TW games that followed.
:bow:
In my opinion, VI's balance was far worse than Shogun or vanilla Medieval, and may have even been a little worse than Rome roster-wise. Huscarles were just too good, only the Picts and Irish had decent missile troops, and everyone's cavalry was lousy. And life was just way too easy for the Vikings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
The average armor is much higher in MTW than in STW, but the bow weapon (except for longbow) is unchanged so the archers are much less effective. Guns are also much less effective, and the xbows take too long to reload. The result is less playbalance in the RPS system of MTW than in STW.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Hea
Guns were the only thing I really found disappointing, but I think in a way it's justified by the timeframe. If the game ran into the 16th century like Medieval II, then the lack of effective guns would be inexcusable, but by cutting it off at the fall of Constantinople they really end it just before guns became a major part of tactics (same can be said of pikes).Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Indeed, however what Puzz3D rightly says is that bow units are worthless more or less in MTW and all the more in the VI campaign that only the Picts get crossbows. This makes it very easy to win on the autocalc by simply overproducing high armor units like armored spears.
In effect, in MTW there is no stopping a melee oriented army. In STW on the other hand spears can suffer heavily from SAs, and although the AI is not very adept to use this, it makes a world of difference in playbalance, particularly in mp.
The VI campaign sounds like a good idea in terms of balance on paper but in actuality is very unbalanced as you say, perhaps indeed even slightly more unbalanced than RTW.