Shogun was the best TW game. It had the best battles, concept, art, timeframe, atmosphere and soundtrack. Medieval had the best game engine and AI. I voted for Shogun but for me they're joint first with Shogun only just having a slight edge.
:bow:
Printable View
Shogun was the best TW game. It had the best battles, concept, art, timeframe, atmosphere and soundtrack. Medieval had the best game engine and AI. I voted for Shogun but for me they're joint first with Shogun only just having a slight edge.
:bow:
STW got the most right for me. It had atmosphere, charm, and above all focus. The smaller map and limited unit selection made it feel more intimate and balanced. My yari ashigaru against their yari ashigaru, and may the best tactician win. The focus on campaign and battlemap meant the AI had an easier time coping with the game. Plus it had that hilarious cutscene with a geisha smashing someone's head in with a shamisan.
MTW took the winning formula and bloated it. Too many units. The AI couldn't cope with it; how many peasant and catapult armies did we see? Thousands. Ships and the naval aspect? I always found them to be a time and resource sink instead of a fun gameplay tool. Diplomacy? It was expanded and the AI driving it went noticably more insane as a result. Larger map? I found it a touch dull to be honest; I like detailed maps where, for example, Wales is 6-10 provinces, not 1. I did love the Viking campaign from the expansion pack.
RTW ... least said, soonest mended. The low point of the series for me. It made a few very good changes, introduced some neat ideas - and smashed up way too many critical areas. BI fixed the game up a little; it couldn't be the major overhaul which the game needed.
M2TW took RTW's engine and beat it with a hammer. It fixed a lot of the problems, and still couldn't fully pin down my major upset: the AI. Improved as it was, it still was lacking in some key areas. It might build a decent army most of the time but it couldn't work out when to declare war or peace, or build up its economy properly. Kingdoms added more detailed campaigns. M2TW is the second best game IMO. It's quite close between this and STW, and if the AI had received some more work, or if M2TW had managed to collect a handful more bonus points for areas like music and atmosphere, then it would have won.
One thing the first two games have in common is an awesome soundtrack. I have the battle tracks in my 'my music' folder and listen to them now and then. I didn't like Rome's much, and I struggle to remember M2TW's.
My first choice..... ROME!!!!
--> Absolutely funny, although packed with historical errors, the reason to get the Vanilla ROME for vote is just three thing that better than most TW games...... EB (best mod forever), ALEXANDER (best ai, although still noob), and PHALANXES (M2TW pikemen is great, but I still prefer Hellenic phalanxes anyway)!
If I got a second chance, I will fill in M2TW, but it has sooo many bugs, even in kingdoms, with ridiculously unbalanced unit stats (lancers charge less than 2 handed axemen?) but they had the best graphics and gemeplay depth (in vanilla, save the best depth for EB)...
Is it just me, or does it seem that usually the first TW game a person plays (for an extended period of time) is their favourite? I was introduced to TW series via Rome. I should really do a poll that somehow measures and researches that. It would be most interesting and enlightening.
As of now, I understand that MTW was the better game, and yet I find myself unable to play it because of rather simple campaign map mechanics and slightly because of the lower battle graphics. But mainly because of the campaign map, which I prefer over the battles themselves.
Now, preferences for certain periods have a certain effect, and my love of antiquity was a factor in my attachment to RTW.
Overall, M2TW was my most hated game. It frustrates me to no end. A few small things have led me to loathe the game. Among those small things was the inability to capture towers as well as the engine's general handling of cavalry. Mainly it was the gargantuan amount of casualties cavalry charges inflicted. I have had the most elite swordsmen in the game decimated 95% by a single charge from the weakest knights in the game. Not ton the difficultly of puling out the mounted troops after the charge. Just in general, everything in RTW seemed smooth, precise, and predictabl (in a good way), whereas MiNO was, well, gah!
First of all, the first one I played was MTW, and Rome is still my fav. :P 2nd of all, cavalry was MUCH better in M2 than Rome. In Rome they were just fast tanks. In M2TW their charge gave them their power. You may not like it, but in RL cavalry WAS much better than infantry. There was a reason that nobles would uses horses. I suggest to you that you play more wisely and use spearmen more often. ~;) A good player keeps cavalry away from his swordsmen, then when the enemy cav is fighting spearmen, sends his swordsmen in from the side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Shogun and mongol was the best for MP because there weren't 147 units you had to learn to fight. In the same regard, whats why I liked barbarian invasion so much.
MTW2 for campaign, after mods. Stainless Steel, submodded with real recruiting and grim reality, really take the game to another level for those of us who are experts at fighting the AI in combat. Vanilla is just too easy, and the earlier/mid years of the campaign with more strategy and careful city mocromanagement and smaller battles is whats the most fun for me, not the massive steamroll with 40 stacks that comes around turn 25-75 no matter what faction I play. If I try to dumb myself down or do something stupid to give the AI empires more of a chance, I'm always let down(like giving away 6 provinces to an ally, then 2 turns later they attack me, the most powerful, instead of taking the rebel settlements or tiny nations that surround them) I once played VH as Scotland, became a vassal to England and razed all my cities but one, loaded everyone but a single general onto a herd of boats and took Jeruselum bu turn 11. By turn 25 I was in first place in every stat. With the mod, alliances last, the AI takes rebels out first and even expands to islands very quickly, lords can be appointed, money is tight and spamming elite units is out of the question, seiges are harder as rams and towers burn easier, and the siege AI is brutal
So I voted shogun because MP is what started me on this game, but the MTW2 modding community will always have a special place in my heart for taking a mediocre game and making it better, they should be hired by the devs.
That's a good point Aemelius makes about the campaigns - the campaign map is a lot more interesting in RTW/M2TW than it was in MTW/STW, and I think there is where the majority of players spend most of their time on. For me battles were just a little break for the campaign.
Perhaps that is the disconnect between the old guard and the new, at least with regard to SP. STW was mostly about the battles. It was a tactical game with strategic flavour. The campaign was important in that it gave meaning to the battles. With RTW, there was a major shift in that the strategy became the bigger part of the game. Combat was a hurry-up-get-it-over-with afterthought. Too bad for us old guard. ~:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Beefdom: Total War.
Hands down.
Shogun - Wow, what a first impression. Finally, someone gave me what I was looking for; an empire building game with tactical battles that feel and play like actual battles instead of RTS zergfests! Great atmosphere to boot.
Medieval - Shogun sucked me in but the original Medieval soaked up most of my time. It is simply the most challenging and best executed TW game to date. I liked it so much I spent a ton of time modding the unit stats & AI build priorities and adding new units to the game. I daresay modding could do more to improve the AI's chances on the campaign map than with any other TW game. Tragically all Medieval needed was a wee bit of tweaking to the strategic and tactical AI to make it far more formidable but what did CA do? Next to nothing.
Rome - I went bananas over the move to 3D and the time period but wow, was I disappointed in the execution! Lousy AI ruined it for me, Rome was totally incompetent on both the strategic and tactical level! Just when I thought I was in store for a brutal battle the AI would go into full blown schizophrenic down syndrome mode and flush its chances down the proverbial toilet. As many have already stated, even the best mods couldn't save Rome from itself. Rome's AI needed a major intervention but CA simply left it to rot in an alley.
Medieval 2 - Better executed than Rome but whatever advances were implemented they were offset by wacky design decisions which adversely affected the AI's chances (i.e. that loathsome city/castle region development feature). It took a full year for MTW2's AI to be improved in the Kingdoms expansion and even then it still wasn't enough. Modders made the most of MTW2 but the AI still has traces of that Rome stench about it which totally turns me off.
Empire - I'm not even considering it until legions of TW fans have taken the plunge and given it a thorough going over. I probably won't give it a serious look until the first expansion arrives and is patched & modded.
So Medieval FTW!
RTW was one of the only TW games I play at the moment, M2TW is a disappointment for me .
The RTW map was generally a disappointment, its size, not what it looked like.
MTW - My favorite. The atmosphere and time period are great. It was a game I had always imagined in my head, with both the strategic and tactical aspects, and I fell in love the first time I played it.
STW - Never played it, but probably would like it. Simpler, but more balanced and more cerebral.
M2TW - Meh. I probably need to download a mod next time I play. The campaign map is inferior to the Risk-style map of STW/MTW. Didn't get the expansion due to SecuRom.
RTW - The only redeeming aspect of Rome was that it got me to sign up to the Org. I didn't have any true knowledge of the time period (although discussions here about the historical inaccuracies educated me somewhat). The battles were too fast, too many bugs, and the AI's handling of the strategic map was completely inept. Finished one campaign and uninstalled. Didn't even buy the expansion.
MTW - Was my first TW game and I played it all night long. I miss being able to give titles and other bonus positions as rewards to my best generals. I liked that the rulers first born son become the heir, and not the next best family member.
MTW2 -Just didn't reel me in like the previous version. I like the improved diplomacy interaction, but the AI just didn't make sense from a strategic or tactical point of view.
RTW - I liked the 3D campaign map, but I don't think I ever finished a long game. Too boring with the same battles time and time again.
As a SP player I always find the major problems comes down to the AI. The complexity of the games has shot through the roof since STW. More units, more decisions, more tools, more overall to bear in mind. The AI hasn't been upgraded nearly enough to handle it. That applies to both campaign and battle AI; RTW's battles would have been less blergh if the AI had a bit of sense thumped into it. STW's battle AI understood Sun Tzu and applied the principles. RTW's barely understood more than the principles of 'run forward!' and 'run away!'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
In theory I love the more complex campaigns; it gives me more material to work with, adds features I enjoy in other games, and puts yet more meaning into the individual battles. In practice I sit here with a face like :blankg: as I watch the AI try to work out what to do.
RTW's AI was especially conflicted about what to do. "I'll just walk this army over there to guard this city - no, wait, I forgot my house keys so let's turn around and go back where I came from. Oh, on second thoughts I liked it better over there because it had pretty trees. D'oh! I left my lunch, back we go! Ooops, the city I speculated about protecting is under seige now! I'll just go stand next to the attacking army and hope for the best. Standing here is boring; I could just stand over to the west and pretend everything is ok. Yes, I like that option! Oh, my city got captured. Now I'm angry enough to attack the invader; pity it's too late to achieve anything. Charge! My mighty peasants will make short work of the player's praetorians!" Repeat that attitude across everything, from unit selection to province development, from diplomacy to battle tactics.
There were times when I wondered if it were a masterplan. "Hey guys, let's pretend we are so dumb the human gets bored and goes away. Then we win by default!" I could practically hear it thinking "Lolz!!1!!1! I teh winz!!1!" as it pulled off a particularly dumb move.
:yes: In my case more a select few than a legion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
Not to mention:
"Ok men here's the plan: Three legions will advance on the city. Of the generals; one will follow alone, while the other two will wander aimlessly around the countryside..."
And:
"hold the siege towers, rams and ladders... I've got all day and I want to ballista this door into submission!"
My other main annoyance is the Egyptian diplomat that arrives to sue for peace while 6000 of his countrymen are outside your walls doing some carpentry...
:inquisitive:
That actually makes sense.Quote:
My other main annoyance is the Egyptian diplomat that arrives to sue for peace while 6000 of his countrymen are outside your walls doing some carpentry...
"We will lift the siege of X-opolis if you agree to our demands..."
Ah maybe I wasn't clear. I am referring to when the diplomatic AI is offering ceasefire after ceasefire, while the battle AI repeatedly begins a siege. The problem with RTW (and with M2TW) is that both of these elements are separate and do not communicate with each other. This is why you get loops like this turn after turn .e.g:
The following factions are now at war: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions have declared a ceasefire: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions are now at war: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions have declared a ceasefire: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions are now at war: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions have declared a ceasefire: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions are now at war: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions have declared a ceasefire: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions are now at war: Britannia, Gaul
The following factions have declared a ceasefire: Britannia, Gaul
This is because a diplomat is stuck in a loop of of constantly offering a ceasefire, but the army have their own ideas and simply keep restoring the same siege...
That's the patched AI. The release version of most TW games had different AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
"Ok men, here's the plan: The general will charge at full speed into the open gates and kill all 3,000 of the enemy alone. Three legions will stand around getting shot by arrows from the towers and otherwise do nothing to ensure they cannot steal the generals' glory!" :one minute later: "The general is dead and his bodyguard unit is reduced to horseburgers! Quick, send in the 11 soldiers who survived the arrow bombardment!"
IIRC M2TW is the only one which did not start with suicidal generals. Every other game had to have it patched out. It was forgivable in STW. It was disgusting that the same issue reappeared in MTW. When I saw it again in RTW I was speechless.
Yes MTW either had the general that hung back, or retreated at the start of the battle, or the one that stood around being shot to pieces... quite shocking to see the thousands of peasants and camels instantly routing on the death of the Egyptian general.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
In reality TW development has see-sawed from the start. Certain things have improved and other aspects have gotten worse. What has yet to be achieved is something that combines the best of all of the games.
I think the strategic AI in STW and MTW is by far superior to RTW and onwards. Reason being it was more simple for the AI. If i concentrated more troops to my province bordering an enemy province. AI worked to balance that out by moving more units there or building new ones. In RTW and onward, AI wonders aimlesly around as when it starts moving its forces to certain direction, before it reaches its target, the conditions change and it turns to another direction. Quickly its armies wonder just around , without doing anything significant, while the human player creates local superiorities in numbers and captures the AI settlements.
In battles, in matter of fact i think the set up is unfair to the AI to begin with. Human player has eagle eye perspective and can instantly move any unit within the army without any delay, which is rather contrary of the reality of earlier warfare.
Friction or hindrance is everywhere in warfare. The sub commanders do things differently then the main commander has meant in his orders. Orders wont reach units. units get wrong orders. disinformation of the situation is frequent, Etc. Without the friction of war everything goes smoothly and AI is no match for human intelligence in any scenario.
RTW because I've gotten the most play time out of it.
M2 comes second because of Broken Crescent.
A close call between STW and MTW for me - in the end I chose STW based on the great atmosphere during battles and on the map (and because the campaign did not become too cumbersome towards the end)
I bought both RTW and M2TW - when RTW was published I was hoping for less battles - I remember that CA actually stated that there would be (substantially) fewer battles than in MTW, giving battles an actual meaning.
So, there was me hoping for grand decisive pitched battles that would really turn the tide of a war - in the end I had the feeling there were even more and less meaningful battles - especially the endless series of sieges made me stop a lot of campaigns...
Unfortunately M2TW did not improve a bit along that dimension - considering that I am a rather casual (= not very skilled) player that irked me more than the not so great AI.
I still start a new RTW or M2TW campaign from time to time, especially after e.g. reading about great historic battles - just to realize again that the battles in RTW and M2TW started to feel more like a job (Monday 8:30am: the Gauls are besieging my city again, repelled just in time to go home at 5pm ... but they will be back on Tuesday morning with a new army ... repeat until Friday in the hope that they give me a break for the weekend...)
I think the love slowly fades away ... perhaps the naval battles of ETW can ignite it again :laugh4:
I voted Rome because the game had me hooked longer than Medieval II did (I own only those two), and it introduced me to the wonderous world of Total War.
Shogun, hands down for me. It has the perfect balance of simplicity vs. complexity and strategy vs. tactics (if not unit balance in 1.02, heh). Weather, terrain, sound effects, music and the Japanese language created a wonderfully immersing atmosphere. The simple inclusion of short, high-quality mini-videos added a lot, and were sorely missed by me in MTW and VI. A nice variety of campaigns provided for a lot of replay. The AI was exceptional for it's time. Ultimately it was the battles, both in SP and MP, that made Shogun the ultimate game for me.
MTW and VI added details and complexity which some consider depth, some of which I liked, but I think perhaps it was too much. Campaign management became tedious unless you used governors, which I don't like to do being quite the control freak. So many different unit types and yet there wasn't that much difference between many of them. It just didn't have the elegant simplicity that Shogun had. But I still enjoyed it enough to spend many, many hours playing it, both SP and online. In MP, unit imbalances resulted in only particular units being effective, which rendered many units useless for MP.
After trying the demos and observing Youtube videos and the community's reactions over quite a long period of time, I couldn't bring myself to buy Rome or M2TW.
This may not make much sense, but: While MTW is my *favorite* game, I consider Shogun to be the *best* game.
Of the two, Shogun has the better balance, atmosphere, and AI (although MTW is a close second in the latter two categories). However, I've actually played Medieval more than Shogun (around 4000 hours with MTW and probably half that for STW), primarily because I have a greater fascination & interest with the former game's time period.
I'll echo Froggy in stating that the less said about Rome, the better. I liked the music/soundtrack, but otherwise....
Medieval 2 was....okay. Not bad, but not great. It didn't frustrate/anger me like Rome did, but neither did it come anywhere near the experience(s) I've had with the two older games.
Regardless of how Empire turns out, Shogun and Medieval will always hold a special place in my heart (with MTW having a slight edge). :smitten:
Best overall TW game was definitely Shogun. I spend a good number of very, very, VERY late nights playing that back in college. In my own personal "pantheon" of great games, it has it's place up there with immortal classics like Doom, Deus Ex, Baldur's Gate and the like.
Individually, I'd say the following:
Shogun - The first, the best. This is where it all started. Have a lot of fond (and not so fond) memories of this game. The AI constantly stomped me into oblivion. Game mechanics were relatively simple and unpretentious. The sounds and music were breathtakingly beautiful. I'm not a big multiplayer person, but I distinctly remember the MP community that grew up around this game to be one of the more mature and honorable groups that I've ever played with. I remember reading the Org when it was brand new back in '00 and the forums every so often looking for strategy tips. Lotta good memories here.
MTW - This was another good one, but in the 4-man lineup so far I'd have to rank it 3rd. It was original and fun, and in many ways improved on the original Shogun engine with a new great setting, but at the time I just wasn't that interested and had found other games to be playing. Still enjoyed it though.
Rome - At the risk of major flaming, I put this squarely in 2nd place. Yes, the AI stunk, there were/are tons of bugs, and we lost a LOT of functionality in terms of what we could mod and change... But man did I love this. Absolutely loved it. The classical period is one of my favorite historical eras, and this game did nothing but fuel that by leaps and bounds. The new 3d map with set pieces was absolutely wonderful in my view. As others pointed out, it did change the game in a number of ways, and the AI was less than spectacular in coping with the move from the old Risk-style maps, but I still loved every second of it. This game got some SERIOUS playtime from me over the past years, and I even whipped up my own personal vanilla mega-mod using the EB map and M2TW textures, etc. Shogun was definitely the first and best, but Rome did ultimately get more playtime and attention out of me.
M2TW - The stinker of the bunch. I did/do not like what CA did with this game nor where I believe they are taking this franchise in attempt to "reach a broader audience". All of the (in my view) smaller problems and flaws that came in with the Rome engine reared their ugly heads quite visibly. The overall gameplay and mechanics were decidely worse. Unit cohesion was nonexistant, the bugs dealing with unit placement and pathing were mindnumbingly painful. It shipped with a draconian customer-insulting DRM platform. Excessive lip service was paid to modding while actual modding abilities were very limited, much more so than what was available to us in the S/MTW engine. For cripe's sake they not only used a proprietary method to "secure" the datafiles with a special tool needed to unzip them, but they provided absolute minimal to nonexistant support to the very modding community that was attempting to support them and the game. This is one of the few games that I can immediately recall that I regret buying on release. It was and is a $20 budget game.
My how the times change. As for Empire, not only do I find that particular period of time exceedingly boring (boo to gunpowder!), given CA's track record and apparent future direction I have no interest in the game whatsoever. The reasons I stick around here are for the old games and the mods and information, but mainly for the many awesome Orgahs that I've had the honor of coming to know the years.
:balloon2:
Maybe in few years Yoyoma.. Or if Noble sons II is a success like the last one :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
Rome is the favorite for me. As I never bothered to buy Shougun or Med as I assumed Rome is pretty buggy and cavalry is ridiculously over powered, the army of Greek cavarly is enough to take down the entire world, so shougun and Med is even worse. But I seem to be wrong.
I got Med II but my laptop can't handle it. So I never even got to play it..
I think i'll stick with EB for a while until EB II is out.
medieval 1
Come on people, RTW is still winning... this is simply unacceptable. Even if it did have more people who played i thus giving it more chance to win, and it was much more moddable and more in depth single player...
But the battles! they suck!
I can live with MTW winning but RTW ?! (insert loads of crying smilies here) it doesn't deserve it!
STW FTW!
MTW FTSP! (For The Second Place)
RTW FTL!
For me the best Total War game is RTW. How could you not love it when it gave us Europa Barbarorum! ~;)