MTW folk RE: RTW

OK, this is RTW-related, but I mainly wanted to get input from the MTW gamers who have played both... I hope your mods don't mind...

I find myself a little... seduced... by the (admittedly impressive) graphics and fancy units of the newer game. I've read a little about the AI problems involved with RTW, but I'm wondering... is it really as grim as it sounds? If I go "retrograde" and purchase RTW, will I be seriously disappointed? I've been playing at Expert level on MTW for a couple of months now, if that is any consideration... How about Rome Total Realism? Does it rectify many of the issues involved?

My intention is not to "bash" RTW's programmers or players, but could some of you outline what I could expect if I (hypothetically) purchased the game? Are the problems limited to the AI?

I'll probably never completely tire of MTW but, as they say, variety is the spice of life...

Thanks in advance guys.

For me there realy isnt that much of a diffrence. When I play RTW the bugs are never as much as a problem as people make them out to be. Not to mention RTWs battles while being a bit fast a bit stupid (for the experniced MTW player) look and feel amazing. I have the RTR mod and its much better than vanilla. RTR also makes the battles a bit tougher to put it nearly on par with MTW. All in all the game IMO is worth it~:cheers:

My main problem is that the strategy map is even easier to exploit in R:TW. Yes, you can exploit the strategical weaknesses of the AI in S:TW and M:TW once you learn how, but the ease by which you can utterly crush enemies with almost no casualties in R:TW bothers me. I must say that BI was an improvement in this, since you actually risk losing troops and the smaller amount of cities means that it's a bit harder to divide and slay all enemies.

The inability to move armies long distances, the fact that anything can be crushed with cavalry (though, again, BI improved this) and that I'm simply not as interested in the era are the three major reasons why I prefer M:TW. Oh, and the "retrain your depleted army in one year and go conquer your next victim". In M:TW, casualties will be felt for more than one turn. I can act with much less strategic skills in R:TW without getting punished for it. That's a bad thing. ~;)

That said, with BI installed, R:TW is worth playing. I've gotten quite a few hours of entertainment from the campaigns, and it's a nice refreshment to see new troops. But is it a better game than M:TW? Most definately not.

We have a specific RTW Forum.

Moved to RTW-dojo.

I think theres only limited ways to compare the games as the engines are so totally different.

A.I. It may be just me but Ive found the AI lame in all TW games, I dont see RTW being THAT much worse - but the speed of the game makes the AI seem worse.

Speed - Im not sure if its realistic or unrealistic historically, but I get annoyed when I see historians talking about the Velites or Javelin infantry being out front of the main line. Its rediculously impossible to do that as by the time the enemy are in range of the javs - they dont get to throw one cos the enemy inf or usually the cav will charge and close the distance too fast.

Map terrain - Maps are worse in RTW. Each map is vacant and void or usuable hills - when there are hills, theyre usually on the attackers side and stupidly high..

All that being said I love RTW. The unit detail is fantastic ( BI unit detail is lame btw) especially those legionaires after the Marius Reforms. Even RTR spoiled the units. It may or may not be real but the Legions everyone knows and loves is when they wear the armour after the marius reforms - not the chainmail crap looking armour in BI, and the tan leggings...

Battles are Fantastic too :)

Its been 8 months since I played MTW - I miss it cos I was an online regular. But I wont be going back soon - I just cant get enough of RTW. Unlike the other guy I think B.I. Ruined RTW...

Hi everyone,
this is something I've been thinking about, I've not played RTW or BI add on. I'm waiting to get a new computer before I can have a go, but I've played MTW so much and have found that the XL mod has made the game even more fun and that bit harder. I'm just wondering has the BI expansion not improved all the previous problems? Also does the BI changes take affect on all the start periods (eg. better AI in early periods as well later ones) I must admit lots of people don't seem to impressed from what I've read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaldhore

Speed - Im not sure if its realistic or unrealistic historically, but I get annoyed when I see historians talking about the Velites or Javelin infantry being out front of the main line. Its rediculously impossible to do that as by the time the enemy are in range of the javs - they dont get to throw one cos the enemy inf or usually the cav will charge and close the distance too fast.

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Velites and javelins DID fight out in front and from the flanks. The problem is that the way the game engine works, skirmishers cannot really run up release and skedaddle, they get caught. In real life, it didn't work that way. It is a game engine problem. In real life skirmishers would engage for a long time before the battle lines actually met, trying to drive each other's skirmishers away, and disrupt deployment of the battle line. It wouldn't just be 10 or 15 seconds and a single missile volley hurled.

The bigger problem with the skirmish mode is that the AI does not have any concept of how to actually skirmish and conduct ranged attacks. Exchanging missiles and trying to disrupt the enemy line is something it should be striving for. Instead it wants to melee with its skirmishers or charge the line with a few infantry or cav. It skips the traditional first phase of battle with javelin skirmishing. It is particularly obvious when it has a substantial advantage in missile units, but not in melee, when it still pushes for early melee--playing to its weakness rather than its strength. What it tends to do is charge its skirmishers forward hoping your ranged units will skedaddle. If you turn of skirmish for your men, it will CHARGE into them rather than stopping to trade vollies, which is assinine since its men are unsupported, while your infantry will rip them a new one.

If the AI was programmed to actually treat part of the battle as a skirmish phase it would be a lot different. Instead the AI acts brain dead when it comes to skirmishing. Therefore, because the AI only seems to understand CHARRRRGGGGE! you are reaching the conclusion that armies could not skirmish.

This problem was apparent in the original RTW demo, despite the scripting that had been done to get the AI to deploy properly for the Romans.

Im talking about the game speed being and issue of RTW, and as I explained a good example of that is the velites not being able to fire out in the front before theyre charged. I agree its an engine issue - I was just pointing that out.

I feel that MTW was so far ahead of its time, but to be fair I think it is an extreme disservice to oneself to ignore RTW because of some rather minor criticisms. RTW (and BI) is an absolutely wonderful game that I still find addictive! Go for it Roark.

Audaces fortuna iuvat.

you may or may not know About how easily RTW agrivates me,

But it will eventualy grow on you given time,
I find my self playing a hour or so of the stratagy part of rtw every week or so now,
So it cant be all that bad,
However MTW still dominates my Single player game time,
And STW just takes almost all of my mp gaming time,

So although i dont like RTW, and Initialy hated it,
I do ocoasionaly find time to play a hour or so here and there,
The stratmap really is quite good,
The economics of the game is quite like MTW with taxes and stuff,
I personaly Aprove of the way You are deployed in a battle Depending on where you were on the strat map when you were engaged.

The Naval part is difrent to mtw, But not that much difrent (id say MTW was better with that part)

The Ai is prety sleepy in battles if you compare it to STW, if your comparing it to MTW, Its not that bad.

It may not be your fave game in your pile of games, But i doubt it will be your worse,

One word of warning though i think that the minimum display For battles is 1024x768 and min for Strat map is 2048x1536

Im prety shure thats the case But i may be wrong,
This causes a problem for me as iI use a tv set not a monitor,
So the writing is To small to read on the Stratagy map,
(kind of agrivates me a little 2)

If you find it for a reasonable price i dont see why any 1 would not buy it.

Hope this helps your decision

oh
P.s
Cavalry can bearly catch fleeing archers In RTW,
The things are broken or something

Thanks everyone for you input. I really appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

We have a specific RTW Forum.

Moved to RTW-dojo.

---

Did you even read my initial post?

We all appreciate the job you guys do, but crikey...

RTW is an improvement in everyway over MTW. The best changes are the AI and the battle interface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

RTW is an improvement in everyway over MTW. The best changes are the AI and the battle interface.

---

Most MTW vets will say the exact opposite of this 2nd sentence is a better representation of how it plays. I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.) The AI is so much weaker in RTW that it really pales next to MTW. There are many things that have potential and look great in RTW, like the strategic map. But the battlefield AI is one of the things pulling heavily into the negative category for RTW. A few things have been fixed in 1.3 but other things have been broken. The slow down made in movement speed for some units does help in 1.3 vs. 1.2/1.1/1.0.

The best indication of just how weak the RTW AI is: 1 vs. 1 match ups against identical opponents on the flat grassland map. You should win easily, even when trying to make it an even test. :no: With 1.3 1vs1 unit testing doesn't even work properly anymore. ~:rolleyes: The basic things the AI neglects, like its pila or warcry...or charging/running when it clearly should all weaken it considerably. Then at 40-50% casualties it tries to retreat 30 yards and gets slaughtered? WTF?

With ranged units the RTW AI is utterly hopeless. The MTW AI wasn't brilliant with them, but it wasn't brain dead, and at least could inflict some attrition.

MTW is more of a challenge on the battlefield, this carries over to the strategic map because army management is more challenging when you actually take some casaulties. MTW has more campaigns and distinct era's that actually have some meaning in decisive parts of the game.

The only thing I hated about MTW were the battles. Horrible interface. Bad controls, and the AI didn't help. I sucked at them so bad it hurt. I stoped battles all together after playing MTW for a day of two. I got better results (as in less casualties) with auto-calc.

Quote:

---

Horrible interface. Bad controls,

---

lars573, fyi in MTW you had more options on screen that allowed for faster gameplay. This was immensly important for mplay especially, but even made the single play more enjoyable. Hotkeys (I use shift 5/6 ALL the time!) are great but I loved those MTW formation buttons!

Quote:

---

I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.)

---

God do I miss the right click menu for skirmish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Most MTW vets will say the exact opposite of this 2nd sentence is a better representation of how it plays. I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.) The AI is so much weaker in RTW that it really pales next to MTW. There are many things that have potential and look great in RTW, like the strategic map. But the battlefield AI is one of the things pulling heavily into the negative category for RTW. A few things have been fixed in 1.3 but other things have been broken. The slow down made in movement speed for some units does help in 1.3 vs. 1.2/1.1/1.0.

The best indication of just how weak the RTW AI is: 1 vs. 1 match ups against identical opponents on the flat grassland map. You should win easily, even when trying to make it an even test. :no: With 1.3 1vs1 unit testing doesn't even work properly anymore. ~:rolleyes: The basic things the AI neglects, like its pila or warcry...or charging/running when it clearly should all weaken it considerably. Then at 40-50% casualties it tries to retreat 30 yards and gets slaughtered? WTF?

With ranged units the RTW AI is utterly hopeless. The MTW AI wasn't brilliant with them, but it wasn't brain dead, and at least could inflict some attrition.

MTW is more of a challenge on the battlefield, this carries over to the strategic map because army management is more challenging when you actually take some casaulties. MTW has more campaigns and distinct era's that actually have some meaning in decisive parts of the game.

---

Personally, STW bores me to tears. It's so limited.
MTW is a good game, but I still really don't understand why people rave about the AI in MTW/VI compared to RTW, remember jedi generals? How sick were they? Just because the battles are faster in RTW(low def ratings-easily modified)
I honestly think the AI in RTW is just as good, but lots of people like to wear rose tinted spectacles and bang on about how wonderful the AI was in STW and MTW when really it wasn't. Anyone remember chasing STW units all the way round the battlemap and having to corner them them before they would even fight you? Wonderful AI huh? Noones bitching about that now though are they?
Let's all wake up and smell the coffee, the AI is as adequate as the other TW games.

*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRALLODHRIB

lars573, fyi in MTW you had more options on screen that allowed for faster gameplay. This was immensly important for mplay especially, but even made the single play more enjoyable. Hotkeys (I use shift 5/6 ALL the time!) are great but I loved those MTW formation buttons!

---

Never once played multiplayer MTW or any TW or any RTS game period. So you can see how speed is not an issue. Ease of us is, and MTW interface was not that. There was so much sh*t on screen you could (and I did often) click the wrong button by mistake and have to stop fix what you did and then do what you intended to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRALLODHRIB

God do I miss the right click menu for skirmish!

---

Argh I hated that!

Me too.

Quote:

---

I did often) click the wrong button by mistake and have to stop fix what you did and then do what you intended to do.

---

Hmm. . .I never found it confusing. Maybe it's the mouse you used or perhaps there was a proc lag? It was that element-the onscreen controls-of accessibility that I found expressly convenient. :bow:

Suum cuique pulchrum est

I always found there was a load of useless shit on the screen in MTW... menus...submenus etc.
And now I have got used to it, I find the RTW control system so much more intuitive. Now whenever I play MTW (rarely), I find the control system archaich and unnatural. The AI is no better, you just get more annoyed by routing units coming back to piss you off. And once again, I'll mention the jedi generals. Dammit, the battles are unnattractive to look at because everyone is dressed in grey. I don't care how unrealistic it is, I like the colours assigned to different factions in RTW/BI because you can discriminate on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

I always found there was a load of useless shit on the screen in MTW... menus...submenus etc.
And now I have got used to it, I find the RTW control system so much more intuitive. Now whenever I play MTW (rarely), I find the control system archaich and unnatural. The AI is no better, you just get more annoyed by routing units coming back to piss you off. And once again, I'll mention the jedi generals. Dammit, the battles are unnattractive to look at because everyone is dressed in grey. I don't care how unrealistic it is, I like the colours assigned to different factions in RTW/BI because you can discriminate on the battlefield.

---

Agreed. But I never liked nor disliked the little sprite-men of STW and MTW. They served their purpose well enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

Personally, STW bores me to tears. It's so limited.
MTW is a good game, but I still really don't understand why people rave about the AI in MTW/VI compared to RTW, remember jedi generals? How sick were they? Just because the battles are faster in RTW(low def ratings-easily modified)

---

You can change some settings, but there is only so far you can go with it. Movement speeds can't be modded decently. 1.3 improves some of these issues. However, RTW requires MASSIVE amounts of modding to give the same quality of battle experience as MTW. Hence, my sig.

Quote:

---

I honestly think the AI in RTW is just as good, but lots of people like to wear rose tinted spectacles and bang on about how wonderful the AI was in STW and MTW when really it wasn't. Anyone remember chasing STW units all the way round the battlemap and having to corner them them before they would even fight you? Wonderful AI huh? Noones bitching about that now though are they?

---

That was a lot smarter of the AI than watching you flank it onto high ground and then kicking its butt, like RTW does. Sheesh. And actually it made some sense...since your fatigued men were in worse shape for the chase. Horse archers were a handful if you were not mindful.

The AI was never perfect, but it was far more of a challenge than RTW puts up.

Quote:

---

Let's all wake up and smell the coffee, the AI is as adequate as the other TW games.

---

Smelling salts might be in order rather than coffee if you believe that. In MTW I wasn't winning battles inflicting 1600 casualties while suffering 10 versus a superior quality force on the hardest settings...I am in RTW.

Quote:

---

*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.

---

The new strategic map would be great if the AI had a better idea of how to use it. That has improved from 1.0 to 1.2, and 1.3, but it still is not sufficient. In some ways the AI could pick its moves better in MTW, although it still fell into traps. The AI certainly managed its stacks better in MTW/STW than in RTW.

And in case you didn't know you *could* and did pick where you fought your battles in MTW to some degree. The adjoining borders were used to select the map types. Just like as in war, there were some uncertainties as to where you might actually make contact and take the field. It wasn't a bad solution at all for a Risk style map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

The only thing I hated about MTW were the battles. Horrible interface. Bad controls, and the AI didn't help. I sucked at them so bad it hurt. I stoped battles all together after playing MTW for a day of two. I got better results (as in less casualties) with auto-calc.

---

I think we've hit at the heart of the matter then. You didn't like the controls of MTW and found the battles too hard. Fair enough. However, if you only gave it a day or two, then it is really hard for me to accept that you know much about MTW's AI at all.

I'm trying to see how someone so unfamiliar with MTW's AI could come to the conclusion that RTW's AI as better? In fact, quite the opposite would appear to be true based on what you said. It appears you found the MTW battlefield AI harder than RTW.

I enjoy RTW+BI alot more then I did with MTW+VI.
Sure MTW was good for it's time but now no.
The AI is slightly better in RTW+BI.
The map is better and the battle-maps are better as well.
I especially enjoy how the campaign map and battle map are linked together.
The battles are far more exciting and spectacular then MTW were.
Sure they maybe over faster but they are still sexy.
I have tried going back to MTW but I just couldn't.
It was just impossible.
So RTW+BI all the way :charge:

"Better" = *cough*LOOKS better*cough*
Graphics, graphics, graphics...

Hellenes

Are you guys shure you own MTW?

I Dont think you know what your talking about if your saying the battle interface is better in rtw,
You cant even angle your camera up or down, with right click in rome,


And im sorry to say But you cant say the battle interface sucked in mtw becous you could only fight 2 battles Loose them,
Then Instantly start using auto calc so u can win,AND Then Have the nerve to say the interface better in rtw becous you can now win.
MTW interface was not the problem, Your lack of commitment Was the reason you sucked at mtw battles,

And Its not the Interface that makes RTW any better,
Its the Fact that the AI sux that makes you think your any good,

stw/Mtw controlls and interface are Much better than Rtw,
But When you "noobie-ize" a game
(make it so Real noob's can pic up and play with no probs)
The controlls are usualy the 1st to sufffer,

when i first bought STW, It took me about a month to win my 1st battle vs the ai,

MTW wasnt so bad, But were good battles,

But with RTW, Any one can pick it up and wipe out an AI army,
(its been made for newer players, and as a result real tw players suffer)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Are you guys shure you own MTW?

---

Both STW and MTW since the day they got out and I still say RTW is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

You cant even angle your camera up or down, with right click in rome,

---

Yes you can. Not by default but you can change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

stw/Mtw controlls and interface are Much better than Rtw,
But When you "noobie-ize" a game
(make it so Real noob's can pic up and play with no probs)
The controlls are usualy the 1st to sufffer,

---

Man, what an elitist you are.
The controls are far better now.
CA making them user-friendly isn't a bad thing you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

when i first bought STW, It took me about a month to win my 1st battle vs the ai,

---

~:joker:
When Shogun got out and I got the game I had no idea about strategy.
I did not know anything about flanking, high ground and all that and still I butchered the AI on my first battle on Hard level.

Quote:

---

*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.

---

I liked them both equally ( MTW / RTW strat map. ) even though Rome's was obviously very well done and a lot prettier than the MTW one.
The thing I liked of the mTW strat map, was that every province you invaded really hurt the enemy , and if you weren't carefull enough the enemy could just hit you back that same turn , in your now weak(ened) province.
And the Ai was good at this, the strat map was a simpler thing for the AI to handle in MTW than it is in RTW.
Which made for a more challenging game.

I have therefor always missed the lack of ''attrition'''you got when an enemy army marched into your lands in Rome.
Yes, you do get the black stuff , called destruction on the map... but the damage that did was manage able.
You should be able to decide immediatly what is to be done if the enemy marches into your lands.
In MTW this was needed, you'd either defend or retreat out/to of the province / castle.
In Rome, neutral wannabee enemy armies just sit in your lands, sometimes for in game years, and do nothing...
And you know that attacking them means an instant war, which you may just want to prevent.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

The AI is slightly better in RTW+BI.

---

So are you telling us you take higher casualties in RTW/BI than you did in comparable MTW battles? While I won most MTW battles, I win nearly ALL RTW battles, and so lopsidedly that the campaign is a yawn. I still cannot see how someone can say the AI opponent is better in RTW. Unless it is inflicting greater percentage casualties than in MTW and/or winning more battles, it is not better.

Quote:

---

The map is better and the battle-maps are better as well.

---

Huh? The strategic map looks great in RTW, but its battle maps have fewer features than MTW. Trees don't even figure into most battles (can't recall any RTW fights I've had for the treeline), weather effects don't mean much, and desert is no big deal in RTW. I've never had to go "hunting" for hidden enemy on the RTW battlefield. To say the battle maps are better in RTW you are in effect saying you like really bland maps.

Quote:

---

I especially enjoy how the campaign map and battle map are linked together.
The battles are far more exciting and spectacular then MTW were.

---

The battle maps were linked together before. ~:rolleyes: I guess if you consider knowing you are going to win as "exciting"...then RTW battles are more "exciting." Or maybe it is just the speed of battle that makes it more "exciting"?

I was going to write up a big response for this thread,but at this point I think I can simply agree with most of what Red Harvest and Dutch Guy have said already. Couple of things, though.

I think I got MTW fairly late... summer of 02, I believe. Don't know when it first came out. I quickly got VI after that, and fell in love with the game. Then I started reading that RTW was coming out, and couldn't wait for that... when it finally appeared, I grabbed a copy the first day and started playing. I think I went a few months with RTW, and then started playing MTW again. For months I didn't touch RTW, but I was reading about BI and getting excited for that... Despite not being a huge RTW fan I bought BI when it first came out. Now I haven't played MTW in a couple months.

In MTW battles the kill/movement speeds are slower (allowing for more maneuvers and tactics); the AI tries to flank you more consistently; the AI responds to your maneuvers in a more logical manner (ie moving to face your flank attack; moving to higher ground); the AI will skirmish more consistently; and the camera controls seem more effective than in RTW.

RTW has improved some of the battle interface IMO, by separating movement and selection orders onto different buttons of the mouse (how annoying was it in MTW when you'd have a unit of cav selected, then try to select another unit but miss, thus sending your cav over to that area instead? in the heat of battle when you don't pause this sort of thing is very frustrating), and by allowing you to "strafe" the camera with the arrow keys. I also like the < and > keys for quick rotation of units. Plus, I'd be lying if I said the graphics meant nothing to me -- RTW is a beautiful game. Not so gorgeous that I'll never go back to MTW or overlook RTW's problems, but there are some very cinematic moments in RTW battles as you fly over the heads of your charging cav -- all the more pity there's no campaign battle replay option!

Strategically, RTW hasn't ruined me for MTW either. The RTW naval system is better, I think. And I like the way you can move your armies around behind enemy lines, using your spies to scout out the positions of the big enemy stacks, and trying to draw off enemy incursions into your realm by besieging their own cities. You can do some of those things in MTW, but it's abstracted a bit more.

Anyway, I'm not a fanatic for either game, but I have to say that if you're used to the MTW battles it'll take you some time to get comfortable with RTW battles. The first few times you may find yourself hating the interface, slow mouse speed, and quirkiness of it all. But if you're into the historical period like I am, you'll find yourself enjoying it despite its faults.

CountMRVHS