Printable View
Like almost everyone i was excited by the release of RTW and then RTW BI, but i have not really found it a challenge anymore. I have recently been lured by the nostalgic feel of playing MTW VI again.What does RTW have better than MTW other than graphics? Does anyone think that it is better to play MTW than RTW?
for me, RTW had better management (chinless wonder wore thin VERY fast), better cavalry by far (cavalry charges were worthless in MTW), Rome's map is more strategic, trade was better (can trade with your own ports and no need of chain fleets), and diplomacy (which MTW just didn't have). but this is just me~:cheers:
My main complaint in Rtw, and I haven't played it extensively, mind, was that it's too easy. You require very little tactics especially on the battlefield. Cavalry were a very conditional force, in RTW you can confidently take a majority cav army into the field and wipe the enemy out, this just didn't happen. That saying I love cavalry in MTW, they just require more skill to use effectively.
The campaign map is very exploitable, there are things in MTW that you can gank the AI with, but with RTW it's almost impossible not to.
Neither are perfect though.
Interface and navigation in battles. RTW is way better here. The way you select and order your troops with the same mouse button is a real bad design decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikos
IMO, it has many improvements. The most important one is MUCH better diplomacy, more differences between factions, and little but important things like reports after end turn reports, summer and winter turn, notification before naval battles, choosing your heir, fact that your daughter, when married, can have children, scissors and the campaign map marking a locations of glorious battles. Also, I like system of cities in RTW (provinces in MTW) so you can now move your army across the alied territory without declaring war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikos
Despite everything I said, I still consider Medieval to be better game (much bigger battles, and I historically more like middle ages than antics) :medievalcheers: :medievalcheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikos
Yes, the graphics, diplomacy, and the battle navigation are all much better in RTW. However, just like Knight Templar, I prefer MTW. There's a number of issues with RTW, but RTR fixes most of them and makes it a really good game. Even with RTR the AI still feels too predictable (no carthaginians in England and other crazy things) and it doesn't handle strategy well at all. Also, I just prefer MTW's time setting, which I'm sure is a big reason for a lot of people.
I agree with you Microwavegerbil. The time setting is much better. Rome is all very well good in its own right but the barbarity and fuedalism of the Medieval era makes the game more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Microwavegerbil
Using the same mouse is much better, for me anyway, now that I'm used to it. The whole left click - right click thing in Rome was quite a painful experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
ichi:bow:
I've played RTW (v1, v1.1 and then v1.2) to death with most of the factions (including a modded-down Egypt ~D) since it was released. As others have said, it just becomes too predictable and a case of how much you can steamroller before you bore yourself senseless.
Actually found VH / M (strategy / battlefield difficulties) to be more challenging than VH / VH. Simply because the battles lasted longer, and the AI didn't route almost immediately. Also, I've never figured out why (after defeat - if any survive ~D) enemy armies somehow manage to rout / withdraw back to their own or an allied province. Countless times they've done this, just seems completely unrealistic for them to pull this off, especially if it was their armies who launched the attack (having moved prior to the assault).
Haven't played Medieval or VI so can't compare them to RTW or BI. I've got a brand new copy of the Battle Collection on the shelves - just a question of time ~;p Unlike most here (I'm guessing ~D), I actually started my total war collection with RTW. Then played a bit of BI, completed a Roxolani campaign which was a good test on VH / VH. At least VH battle difficulty is now Very Hard ~D
I've recently bought Shogun: Warlord's Edition and am now playing that. The battles are completely different - at last the AI actually has a chance of getting one over on you! Shogun's graphics aren't the best tbh, but who cares, the gameplay is top-notch ~:thumb: Also, the length and - as many others have mentioned in other posts - the atmosphere of battles in Shogun are what really makes it superior IMO to RTW, but it depends on how you look at a game. Whether you prefer one which is historically accurate, or has superior tactics and planning involved, or you just simply prefer slaughter and carnage on the battlefield.
CA have given the player a good choice in how they want to play RTW, such as the auto town managers, auto-resolve battles etc.
Ahem, :focus: :bow:
Recently like you i have decided to play MTW again
I installed 3 copys to diferent places,
1 is MTW,
the second is NTW, (curently playing that) "quite good fun"
Although a bit easy
and i may mod the 3rd my self,
The things RTW do better Are,
battelfeild deployment,
And Trading with own provinces.
Aslo diplomacy But that dont work to well in rtw
All the total war games have these options,Quote:
CA have given the player a good choice in how they want to play RTW, such as the auto town managers, auto-resolve battles etc.
P.s
if you like RTW and STW,
Then you should probably get MTW,
Its kind of STW with More RTW management,
it has a much better strat map than stw,
With micro management on taxes.
STW only allows you to manage the tax for all of your provinces as a whole.
If you do decide to get MTW, You may want to get VI, It has more units and stuff,
Also a new ere of play And A bunch of mods you can download.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Already got it ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seasoned Alcoholic
Yeah this is annoying, especially when one province has say 200% population loyalty, and another has 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Yep these features are great, diplomacy could do with a bit of tweaking.
I miss some really cool features MTW/VI when i play RTW, like princesses and buildings to improve agents like brothels(~D ). Also i have to say the special histroical events in RTW/BI really suck. There's no point to them. With MTW events could improve Influence of Monarchs (the Golden Bull for the HRE) and the Magna Carta (i think) or make a population unhappy and many other things.
I think the simplest solution is to have MTW with a RTW engine, an interactive map and an improved diplomacy.
Very much improvements RTW made after MTW are more than welcome. The strategic map is extraordinary; the influence of religion is different but rocks. All the good new traits for generals rock da house. I still miss them when using a barbarian leader, because traits are very, very rare then. The naval system is far better than the old, thin line of nasty ships that allowed armies in one tick to land in Egypt and in the very next tick you use this army against Novgorod! The naval trading system in RTW is also much more useful and had always been a pain in MTW. In conclusion RTW is a great improvement of the older, still good system we used in MTW or STW.
The only real advance of MTW is the climax of technical improvements that shows how wrong the popular views about the Middle Ages are. It was a time of big advancements, most in techniques and also in the spread of civilizations. You can see it with absolutely different forces you can recruit, even before the invention of gunpowder.
Compared to ancient times it only lacked the social mobility: Ruler by birth, because of feudalism. Then the impressive mobile warfare. Compare the rise of Rome for example with any wars and territorial changes in the Middle Ages that used a lot of time. Next point is the nearly static religious movements with endless wars between Christians and Islamic empires.
I still prefer RTW, but may try a round of MTW again later on.
Yes, I wonder why this is? I suspect it is that the AI has a harder time with the more free-form campaign map in RTW. With the Risk-style MTW/STW maps, there are less options so it is easier to programme a good strategic AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majikos
But there are things you can do to make the game more challenging. I found Rome Total Realism made the game a bit harder - it restricts recruitment in newly occupied towns. Some self-imposed house rules restricting the proportion of cavalry, archers and uber units in your armies goes a long way too.
As a player, I much prefer the RTW campaign map. It feels more authentic and there is less of a problem of the AI telepathically anticpating my moves (such cheating in STW was a little extreme in particular).Quote:
I have recently been lured by the nostalgic feel of playing MTW VI again.What does RTW have better than MTW other than graphics?
I really liked the direction and reward provided by the Senate. Also the Roman pre-battle speeches were fun.
Strangely, I find RTW more historical in feel than MTW - at least if you play RTR. MTW just did not feel quite right with its bogus sword and spear units, armoured Saracen infantry, sword armed Byz infantry and obsolete cats, etc etc. With RTR, you get a lot more flavour of different fighting styles - Roman, phalanx, barbarian, horse archer etc. They are more diverse and more historical than the distinctions between MTW armies IMO.
Better mods, IMO. No disrespect to the MTW modders, but there seem to be no modding teams of the size and professionalism of RTR and, I hope, EB.
Brevity is another RTW virtue - the MTW and STW "conquer the world" campaigns just become an enormous and exhausting pain after a certain point. Endless massive battles. Plus there is a tipping point where it becomes too one-sided, especially due to the economic advantage a naval trade network can give you over the inept AI inability to trade. I find finishing a RTW campaign a more realistic proposition from a personal point of view, whereas I always burnt out in MTW/STW. The civil war twist for the Romans was an excellent way to make RTW still fun and challenging in the end game.
Could be. I have not really gone back to MTW. But if I had to vote, it would get the nod. (Although BI and the 1.3 patch corrects some of the stuff I did not like about RTW - especially the uber missiles and cavalry, which are odd in an era famed for its heavy infantry).Quote:
Does anyone think that it is better to play MTW than RTW?