So what DID you like about RTW ?

Since we currently have a thread about why MTW is better than RTW (according to some members) I thought it would be interesting to hear what improvements my fellow Orgahs feel RTW brought to the series.

For me I'm afraid it isn't that much :oops: , but some things I'd definitely like to see again/expanded are

Battlefield:

-Graphics, duh
-pre-battle speeches, yes they are corny but I love 'em
-(slightly) faster battles *ahem* This is a double edged sword of course, while MTWs battles were huge tactical affairs, they could also sometimes drag on and become tedious, who didn't auto calc from time to time when you had to fight 3 or more multiple army battles in a single turn ? I think they went overboard in RTW with the ultra fast run/kill speed in Rome, but I feel there should be some middle ground somewhere...

Campaign:

-the map was one step forwards and two steps back imho, but overall the concept is good, it just needs decent AI and some tweaks. Civ games prove an AI can be made that can handle this kind of strategical game. I'd like to see agents removed on the map, I'd rather just pay a fee to establish an embassy, or order an assassination, or employ a spy. I find the agents to fiddly on the new map.

Nice thread, doc. I agree with your inputs, except for the increase in speed. As you mention, its a 'double edged sword', but I would go even further than that. Yes, MTW's battles could become a drag, but only because you would sometimes spend an hour looking for that last enemy soldier hiding in the woods or chase a routed cavalry unit while all you had left was infantry. Facing multiple stacks in a single battle wasn't a problem IMO as MTW had a true SPEED BAR!

Some additional improvements brought by RTW:
- more sophisticated units: we probably all got used to it by now, but the first time I saw my hastati's throw their pilas before charging... !
- fire arrows!
- how the campaign map determines the type of battlefield.
- mmmmh, let's see, what else is there (I am honestly trying!).... :inquisitive:

Animated 3d soldiers are nice to look at, but since they need to be edited for me to be enjoyable (speed), with a tool that does not work 100% I would rather have kept the 2d sprites. When zoomed out I practically only see sprites anyway.

The right-click to move/shoot/charge was a good improvement.

At first I liked the diversity of battlemaps and how you could see the same features that were present on the strategic map. But after a while the emptieness really started to bother me. Custom made maps are better IMO as it an artist is far better at recreating the beauty of nature than a computer generating something based on algorithms and randomizers.

The large area around the playable battlefield as background scenery was an excellent improvement.

The scripts and other text files which were quite flexible resulting in code being used for things they were never intented to do.

Above all I liked R:TW because it allowed me to create an atmosphere on the battlefield which I couldn't achieve with M:TW (although lighting and weather leaves alot to be desired):

https://img165.imageshack.us/img165/...njpine3ih7.jpg

https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/63...ingame2ts7.jpg

The new controls in battle. The fact that you can click and drag even when your mouse is over another unit is good.

The increased complexity of units is another two edged sword - I love the principal, but the AI obviously doesn't agree.

The campaign map is a great system, with lots of interesting features. Again the AI spoilt it a bit.

Pre-battle speeches :thumbsup:

Ancilliaries are good

The fact that the battlemaps are generated by the campaign map is a good thing. Like DJ said the emptyness was a problem, and some wierd features turned up far too often (IMO the generations looks way better in M2TW.

I liked the ageing portraits.

Being able to put men on walls, and cities in general (again the AI was a problem, but the principal is great)

RTW reminds me a lot of Neverwinter Nights. The official campaign - vanilla RTW - is disappointing largely because of repetitiveness and a lack of challenge, but it is capable of sustaining a large number of breath-taking mods.

So what is good about RTW relative to MTW and STW? Four big things:

1. The mods: no disrespect to MTW modders, but I think RTW has attracted vastly more modding work than MTW. In hours of work, I’d hazard the ratio to be at least 100:1, probably even 1000:1 or higher. That’s the inputs. The contrast in outputs is also striking. Mods such as RTR Platinum or Goth’s All Factions mod for BI make RTW a much better single player historical wargame than MTW or STW, or any other commercial computer game IMO.

2. The visuals. Let’s compare:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.a...Guined825b.jpg

with:

https://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5316/goth3xt2.jpg

The latter is with Goth mod. When the SP gameplay is as good as MTW (as it is with Goth mod or indeed RTR or EB), it’s no surprise which game I prefer to play.

3. The campaign map. Yes, the Risk-map gives more of an AI challenge but I suspect that will change (the strategic AI of RTW improved from 1.2 to 1.3 and from RTW.exe 1.5 to BI.exe). The RTW campaign map just feels more realistic and less gamey. Just as the TW battlefield scored by combining a good combat model with making you feel you're there, so the RTW campaign map is starting to make you feel you really are commanding armies on the march.

4. Sieges. These are getting rather good now. Storming onto the walls or repelling an AI assault is rather fun.

In terms of the official campaigns, two big things stand out:

1. Historical armies: Armies feel more historical and differentiated. You have the Roman, the phalanx, the horse archer, the barbarian, the (cough) Egyptian, the hybrid. By and large, these play out in fairly historical ways (the AI struggles with the phalanx). By contrast, in MTW, the early period armies tended to be much of a muchness, with only the ahistorical Byzantines standing out. Even the Muslims could fight with a shieldwall; indeed a more armoured one than the Catholics. I would argue a vanilla RTW battle looks more authentic than a typical MTW one, although I concede it usually does not play as well.
2. The expansion: BI is a very substantial expansion; it could almost be a RTW2. The WRE are probably my favourite faction to play in all of the TW series (especially in Goth mod).

And some smaller things:
1. I liked the Senate missions. The balance of carrot and stick was nice
2. The traits and ancillaries open up a lot of possibilities, especially with the scripting. Playing with Marcus Camillus’s Roman leadership mod, it is great fun to try to climb the greasy pole from Tribune to Consul. Even the vanilla game has some very fun things - e.g. being disgraced on losing an eagle; or just getting Frankie Howerd as an ancillary (titter you not).
3. Horse archers: came into their own with fire on the move and decent AI usage. No longer are they simply fodder for foot archers.
4. Powerful cavalry: While they are overpowered, I do like the way cavalry behave in RTW. Using them in a mod like RTR Platinum is very satisfying: to get off a charge, you usually need to be (a) formed; (b) facing the target; (c) at rest; (d) beyond the minimum distance. This is pretty subtle stuff and it is very rewarding to see your men lower their lances, signifying a devastating charge is about to be pulled off. The fact that you often botch it and jump straight into a messy melee adds to the fun.
5. Avoiding earlier mistakes: RTW avoids some of the things that arguably “broke” the STW and MTW SP games: no peasant hordes a la MTW early period; no overpowering sea trade networks a la MTW; no Hojo horde; no uber geishas.
6. Civil war: this was a very nice climax to the Roman campaigns, largely solving the problem of making the end game fun.

The battlefield controls were better in RTW. I cant say how many times I've sworn over a spear unit moving incorrectly and inappropriately in previous versions.

RTW has nuch better handling of reinforcements (ie more than one opponent possible on the battlefield. Although very few in total number, almost all of the interesting/challenging battles I've fought in RTW have involved facing multiple armies coming from different directions. Amazingly, I actually had to have a tactical plan!

econ21, it's not really fair to compare a R:TW mod with vanilla M:TW. Just compare the Hellinic: Total War mod for M:TW with vanilla R:TW. I don't know about visuals now. Those H:TW cavalry certainly look better IMO.
http://max45.250free.com/HTW_Cunaxa3.jpg
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/527/rtwmo8.jpg

The new 3D battle map, all new graphical content :2thumbsup: . The fact that the terrain on the campaign map shows up in the battle map, though some extra road design and AI flags wouldn't hurt. The campaign map in all its glory and content, though armies take more turns to get from settlement to settlement than before, clashes are more realistic. The historical feel, though I liked that in STW and MTW too. The diversity of armies, how they suceeded in giving a distinct feel to each of the 8 playable factions. Music and sound are also wonderful, especially during battle which I also heard during Time Commanders. Love those tunes. The new character traits system, though some traits were never triggered and others too often or illogical.

On the surface a beautiful game, rich in content, which lacks tweaking and thus destroyed its own lastability. Few people I know still play it, while many have bought it. Whereas almost everybody I know who has MTW still plays it (the ones who don't typically play RTW).

I would be satisfied with MTW2 if they would just increase its lastability (campaign and battlemap AI, multiplayer balance).

1. The strategy map. My big favorite.

2. Hordes in BI. Not to play them, but to fight.

3.

Quote:

---

Horse archers: came into their own with fire on the move and decent AI usage. No longer are they simply fodder for foot archers.

---

the older TW series games campaign maps just felt tacked on to the game, not really a part of it. I really like R:TW has spent a large amount of time making that part also strategic...though some of the micro-management can be a bit much. Towards the end game I lose focus on the battles and tend to be managing my cities more, which i don't really like...it takes the focus off the focus of the game..the battles.

So, yes, i really enjoy the new campaign map...a LOT more than either of the previous two titles.

I like the various army compositions, the distint feel of the very different factions.

fantasy fiction is one of my favorite genres for reading...but sometimes i get burned out on the medieval setting since it is portrayed so much in so many different mediums. Rome, really save HBO recently and the history channel, doesn't get a whole lot of attention from any media. It feels fresh and interesting...while to me, Medieval feels old and done to death.

I love and hate the traits...they are a great addition to the game.

To mimic plenty of others, I love the pre-battle speech's...

1. Left click to select, right click to move. However, group move using right click doesn't always work properly, and your formation is often changed into a line if your units aren't grouped.

2. Battlemap generated from the position on the strategy map with the 8 adjacent maps visible. However, the playable area became smaller, and campaign replays were discarded.

3. Men on walls and scaling of those walls. However, unmanned walls still mysteriously shoot and at a rapid rate.

4. A new reinforcement system that doesn't stretch the battles out into extremely long affairs. However, the AI doesn't coordinate the reinforcement army with the one already on the field.

5. More effective ranged units. However, LOS and range considerations for individual men has been discarded.

6. Terrain affects movement speeds. However, the basic running speeds are not to scale and the walk/run speed ratios are noticably unrealsitic.

7. Fire projectiles. However, their effect is extremely overdone and they work in rain.

8. Movable artillery. However, some types are incorrectly being used as anti-personnel weapons, and these large types would not be movable during a tactical engagement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

1. Left click to select, right click to move. However, group move using right click doesn't always work properly, and your formation is often changed into a line if your units aren't grouped.

---

Then group your units. MTW was no better with this. It's irritating when you want them all to have the same depth (impossible), as you always get the same width, unless they're moved as static group.

Quote:

---

3. Men on walls and scaling of those walls. However, unmanned walls still mysteriously shoot and at a rapid rate.

---

No, not walls, towers within those walls shoot at you (and rightly so). Move into the tower to stop the shooting, and start shooting at them if they come close.

Quote:

---

5. More effective ranged units. However, LOS and range considerations for individual men has been discarded.

---

Range considerations i can live with, it's a game after all. Though it would be nice to have LOS penalties when deploying archers 5 rows deep instead of 2. Now there is none (not good).

Quote:

---

7. Fire projectiles. However, their effect is extremely overdone and they work in rain.

---

How are they overdone? They look nice to me, but perhaps you should be able to turn the "unrealistic" effects off under graphics options.

Quote:

---

8. Movable artillery. However, some types are incorrectly being used as anti-personnel weapons, and these large types would not be movable during a tactical engagement.

---

I don't see the problem. Artillery is slow, and poor in hand to hand. Being able to use your artillery throughout a battle instead of just at the beginning (if you're lucky like in MTW) is a good thing. They shouldn't make it too fast though...

Graphics, of course.

The campaign map is a definite step forward, regardless of the AIs inability to cope with the vast array of options now presented.

Sieges. Again, there were problems and bugs with the implementation, but a step in the right direction.

Battle map controls.

A little more character development with ancillaries.

Special unit formations. Bugged again, but a good addition.

Moddability. Seemed easier for a beginner "mod" to alter things in the game, which was fortunate considering the bugs. Kept player1 entertained for months! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Then group your units. MTW was no better with this. It's irritating when you want them all to have the same depth (impossible), as you always get the same width, unless they're moved as static group.

---

If you group your units you cant have groups within groups so you have to ungroup them continiously...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

No, not walls, towers within those walls shoot at you (and rightly so). Move into the tower to stop the shooting, and start shooting at them if they come close.

---

Ghosts living in towers dont make much sense, espesially when I can win with the Greek Cities in 29 turns just by using this "rightly so" feature on the clueless "PO" (thats gets decimated) with just 1 unit of Militia Hoplites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

Range considerations i can live with, it's a game after all. Though it would be nice to have LOS penalties when deploying archers 5 rows deep instead of 2. Now there is none (not good).

---

If we bow to the notion of "its a game after all" then this game:
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bi...l?q=big%20rigs complies with all the "fun" aspects to battle the "boring" realism.
Having Archers deployed in 3 rows width and the men 50 meters behind shooting same as the ones in front doesnt sound that "fun" to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

How are they overdone? They look nice to me, but perhaps you should be able to turn the "unrealistic" effects off under graphics options.

---

Napalm chemichals have nothing to do in a ancient battlefield, I would also enjoy the scythians with ak47s riding T80 tanks they would look nice too...dont you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

I don't see the problem. Artillery is slow, and poor in hand to hand. Being able to use your artillery throughout a battle instead of just at the beginning (if you're lucky like in MTW) is a good thing. They shouldn't make it too fast though...

---

The onagers if the napalm missiles are turned off are too accurate and too lethal...its not strange that they have been banned from all MP field battles?
Plus they are exremely lethal defending bridges an "army" of 15 onagers and couple of pikemen can stop ANY opossition that doesnt have artillery...

I would add those points.

The family tree, especially that sons of the rulers can have children (unlike MTW, where only the king would produce heirs).

Appearance of armies on the battlefield according to their positions on the strat map, it's nice to be able to get some troops in the enemies back or flank right from the start.

Swimming units (BI), I never liked rivers to be absolute barriers.

h

Quote:

---

The family tree, especially that sons of the rulers can have children (unlike MTW, where only the king would produce heirs).

Appearance of armies on the battlefield according to their positions on the strat map, it's nice to be able to get some troops in the enemies back or flank right from the start.

---

Two very good points

Diplomacy.

*hides*

OK, so the AI is quite unable to maintain a consistent policy, at this point that's a well-proven fact. But the reason I was drawn to RTW at all was the expanded diplomatic/agent model and campaign map options. The war is not "total" unless one has valid and useful peace-time options as well. Yay for getting a few into the game.

MTW had horribly un-realistic range damage. RTW does a h@ll of a lot better.

quote
7. Fire projectiles. However, their effect is extremely overdone and they work in rain.


1). Their effect is not overdone. Burning pitch, tar, and oil was heated so hot that it would set any clothe on the persons body aflame, and some times even skin.
2). With the exceptions of the Romans (who some times used cloth dipped in olive oil wrapped around their shafts ) most people used pitch and tar which burned in pouring rain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

1). Their effect is not overdone. Burning pitch, tar, and oil was heated so hot that it would set any clothe on the persons body aflame, and some times even skin.

---

Seriously? Men when struck with a flaming arrow would burst, head to foot, into flames and colapse in a blacken heap?

Why in the world did we ever start using firearms???

Seriously I don't have a problem with the in the rain thing, but small explosion and immediate buring to a blackened husk of the target is a little overdone...

Now personally I really like and still actively play RTW and BI especially with the latest patches. After a bit of introspection I even gave up using the mods (other than Player1's bug fixer) and returned to the vanilla game after I figured out I was not really having more fn with the mods, just a slightly different experience...

For me the difference between MTW and RTW is two folder (and a little obvious). It is the visuals on the battlefield and the campaign game. The visuals are great especially once you patch up and it actually draws details in the outlying tiles.

The campaign game, there is just some much "more" that I find it a little boring in the MTW campaign. More management, more manouvering, more (if somewhat illogical) deplomacy...

I do think MTW had a little more character, and despite the variety of units in RTW there was more distinct experience in playing the different factions in MTW. Hard to quantify that one, just a feeling really...

I tried some MTW recently, but I found myself simply wanted to play BI instead...

And just to let you know, I was nut about MTW when it came out and palyed it and VI incesently...

One of things I miss most about RTW when I go back to MTW is the streamlined tech tree. Teching in MTW was an absolute chore, not only because of the seveal buildings required for some of the units, but because it took soooo many turns to build said buildings. It was even worse when relatively unspectacular units required a lot of buildings, like the Polish retainer guys.

When I first played RTW and realized that spies and assassins were part of the trade buildings and that missile units and siege equipment shared the same buildings, I was ecstatic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

econ21, it's not really fair to compare a R:TW mod with vanilla M:TW. Just compare the Hellinic: Total War mod for M:TW with vanilla R:TW. I don't know about visuals now. Those H:TW cavalry certainly look better IMO.
[IM]http://max45.250free.com/HTW_Cunaxa3.jpg [/IMG]
[IMGhttps://img178.imageshack.us/img178/527/rtwmo8.jpg [/IMG

---

Your RTW screenshot is blurry, or your graphics at set at low, I guess you knew that. Either way thats blatantly not what I see when I look at Seleucid phalanxmen.

[EDIT by econ21: One of the images did not work because of hotlinking, so here's one I prepared earlier (I like it because it shows the power of the phalanx - levies squash Praetorians):

https://img113.imageshack.us/img113/...eucia204be.jpg

http://www.counterfrag.com/screensho...invasion/1.jpg

Quickly grabbed some screens for a fairer comparison off Google. Both non mods, to make it fair.

I didn't really like MTW's campaign because I bought it after Rome and couldn't get to grips with the Risk style campaign map, the 3D living map, with its mountain passes, seas that armies can't just walk across, the ability to strategically defend bridges, etc etc. It just makes for more strategic thought. Of course, it'd be nice if the AI could cope with it, but that just leaves hope for M2TW. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Your RTW screenshot is blurry, or your graphics at set at low, I guess you knew that. Either way thats blatantly not what I see when I look at Seleucid phalanxmen.

---

in RTW I hardly recognise units when zoomed out. In MTW it's a lot easier.

generally, RTW doesn't look much better then MTW when you play it from a normal camera point, and not one inch from the ground.

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to start R:TW again (if it still works properly). So I took an image from the net. You know I had to browse lots of images since practically all of them are made from a low angle. The one I uploaded was chosen because it IMO clearly shows how R:TW units aren't looking that spectular once you start to zoom out. Of course M:TW doesn't look as nice when zoomed right in, but when zoomed out (which is what you do when controlling your units) M:TW units look just as good.

And as Adherbal says, units are alot less recognizeable from a distance than in M:TW since the latter uses higher resolution sprites.

Things I liked about Rome (most things are repeated already, but what the heck):

1.) Graphics--particularly for the soldiers and the cities. Even here, however, I have some exceptions, most notably the battle maps. For me, Medieval's battle maps look better overall--they're darker and drearier, and fit the tone of the game much better. It's true that Rome obviously renders trees, grass, and other vegetation much better than MTW, but the RTW's bright and colorful battle maps always made me feel like I should be going to the circus instead of engaging in the grisly task of war.

2.) Better battle controls. Not that Medieval's are awful, but Rome's combat interface is admittedly more more intuitive and easy to use.

3.) Pre-battle speeches. Yes, they get a little old after a while, but they're still a very nice touch. Definitely one of the "little things" that can add so much to a game. In my opinion, the speeches were one of the few things that lent Rome some real atmosphere.

4.) Family tree. I'm not going to claim it's perfect, but I do like the overall setup and mechanics for how they worked in Rome. I wouldn't have minded seeing such a system in MTW.

5.) 3D map & army/navy movement. I consider these three things to essentially be one overall feature. For the most part, I liked how this was done, as it's more realistic. It's a pity the AI couldn't deal with it at all, but at least in terms of potential, it's theoretically superior to Medieval's map and army/navy movement system.

6.) Music and soundtrack. Fortunately, this is one area in which all the Total War games have done well. I personally still feel Shogun has the best music overall, but right now we're only comparing Rome and Medieval. That said, I have to say that Rome's soundtrack was truly excellent, whereas Medieval's was simply "good".

3d graphics.
beautiful terrain.
speaches.
music. absolutely love it.
speaches.
special abilites. phalanx. phalanx. phalanx.
MTW AI was wayyyyy better though....

There is nothing in RTW I liked better than MTW. Okay, maybe one thing - zooming right in to see individual soldiers fighting it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Spartan

3d graphics.
beautiful terrain.
speaches.
music. absolutely love it.
speaches.
special abilites. phalanx. phalanx. phalanx.
MTW AI was wayyyyy better though....

---

'Scuse my pedantry, but there's no letter "a" in the word "speech"!

Better graphics- Always nice
Fighting was more interesting to look at
Chariots and Elephant-So much fun seeing those ravage the enemies lines :2thumbsup:
Family tree- So much better then in MTW and you can name your heir
3D map
Horse archers are actually useful and can fire on the move
Seiges were alot better
Sound, music and pre-battle speeches

Overall better game then MTW(after the patches)

jeez i keep mis typing letters by mistakingly typing the lerrer next to it....

I agree with most of the stuff here....
(EXEPT with the dude that says MTW zoom out looks better than RTW)
...so I will mention the one's I like that have not been mentioned

-SOUNDS:
To hear the pounding of the infantry on the floor (powerful stuff)
-War Cry!
-Shield Wall
-AMBUSH (although hard to set up and rare)

-Much better job with Spears(phalanx & non-phalanx) beating Cavalry.

-Much better diversity in FIGHTING STYLES of different factions. With their strenght and weakneses (although Barbarians were too generic, Greek-Cities of 420BC instead of 270BC, Egypt (WTF?), Romans were a bit overpowered in the Late Game

-The amount of time a Besieged Settlement can stay besieged is not determined by the # of troops rather the TYPES of walls. (hated in MTW that sieged castle lasted 2 turns because it was Packed with troops, OR was forced to take it when the castle had 12 guys)

-And finally NO JEDY GENERALS who can single handendly rout a full unit of Men-At-Arm.