all of you are way too negative about RTW! it's still a goodish game ~;) lighten up guys, you're puttin me off the game
Printable View
all of you are way too negative about RTW! it's still a goodish game ~;) lighten up guys, you're puttin me off the game
Battles are WAY WAY WAY WAY longer in MTW. I remember a battle where there were two elite armies, mine and my enemy's slugging it out until both were exhausted. I won (but that was my smallest win ever.)
i've never seen a battle on MTW so I can't comment but I've had a great 40 minute battle on RTW. Two Faction Leader Armies against each other. The Parthian Faction Leader held out for most of the battle but eventually he fell on the charge of a desert cavalry. It was a very close victory.
You used to have 2 hour battles in MTW.
the battles in MTW aren't very interactive though? so wouldn't it get boring?
I had a battle in MTW that lasted about 1 hour and 45 mins. It never got boring. A Massive pope army against my small Turkish army. They kept coming, but we threw them back again and again, until they were broken and being run down by turcoman HAs. Good times had by all, except the pope. ~:cheers:
Fighting the mongols is so much fun. The MTW battles also took a lot more tactical thinking.
Well, holding off 10000 Mongols from crossing a bridge (while the other one was free) with one unit of JHI doesn't require that much tactical thinking. And I have much less slaughters a la royal knights vs thousands of peasants. Guess who always fielded the peasants. In RTW, the AI actually manages to build decent armies from time to time. That's maybe because it actually developes its cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by katank
I must say I don't find the battlefield AI worse in RTW. In a way it just has more options to blunder (and it uses them greatly). I don't think I ever saw a decent flanking maneuver in MTW. In RTW the AI actually tries some tricks (and messes them up because of the lack of coordination).
In principle RTW is the better game because it has so much more features, but it can be quite frustrating because so many of these features are broken/bugged.
Really? I always found the MTW AI eager to flank me when it had superior cavalry. It would even try flanking both sides at once some times. It was much more proficient at flanking than RTW. I agree that RTW does try, but it is more disjointed.
Developing cites? MTW's AI developed its provinces. Its build tree was set up to typically max out a branch per region (rather than a wider unit selection.) If memory serves it would try to build whatever unit that got a bonus in the region when applicable, but wouldn't build structures for other units after that. I often found that the AI had higher level castles than I did on expert. In RTW it is all population growth. And net income in RTW is inversely proportional to population (tax rate per capita declines rapidly, while garrison requirements ramp up.) When the MTW AI had trouble was from province swapping, and from running out of money.
MTW did have its share of low tech armies, but so does RTW. And RTW handicaps itself in the same way by building junk units early. Only in RTW the result is even worse, because then the city can never be upgraded as its population is near minimum. So you have to kill off the junk units in battle so that the AI can start building decent armies from its high growth population centers.
Semi-off topic, I know, but still haven't played MTW, so...
RTW (vanilla) is a vast improvement over vanilla Shogun. Shogun simply wasn't all that interesting. The strategic mode was extremely lacking, and the tactical mode suffered from interface problems. After a few weeks I went back to Jagged Alliance 2 for my strategy fix.
RTW, for all its problems, is a far better game than STW was. Been playing it for a few months now, won't be stopping soon.
IMO, they both have their good/bad points, ive redescovered MTW & have been playing it solid for the last 2 weeks, VI that is, current campaign (picts) but just cant bring myself to play rome at the mo, not until rtr 6 is out, which seems to be taking forever ~:handball:
Well, that's a tough call. I miss aspects of the MTW game when playing RTW, but I'm still hooked on RTW and will continue enjoying it for a long time to come. I think I'll go with a 'same same but different' argument, if that makes sense to anyone.
10,000 mongols? You lucky bastard... I had to beat 50,000 of them with 10,000 troops when I decided that I'd actually fortify that province they appear in in preparation for their invasion.
I won by the way... I had a full janissary army by then and they just didn't have a prayer against my JHI and janissary infantry. Took like 3 hours straight though. REALLY boring. I had deployed in a half square against the out of bounds line, so they couldn't outflank me, they didn't have anything that could break JHI and even if a unit did start to waver Janissary infantry can hold it's own as a relief troop. So it was just a matter of watching them prance around in front of my ranks until they broke, or ocassionally flinging themselves into the meat grinder of my JHI line.
Not terribly interesting.
Musashi--
The best I could tell the size of the horde was dependent on the size of your army in the province. I learned not to upgrade the provinces where the horde typically appeared, and to leave them with small (but well equipped) garrisons. My better armies were in neighboring provinces...
Not yet.Quote:
Is R:TW better then Medieval?
In MTW the AI usually tried to attack with its whole army from a profitable direction. It usually was enough to turn my defense line to stop the plan. Then the AI often moved aimlessly under crossbow fire. I have never seen a decent coordination of different divisions in MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I don't know about expert. I played mostly hard and the AI usually never reached the highest level for its provinces. In all of my campaigns, it didn't take long to be the most developed and richest faction. And I play defensive. In RTW on hard, AI factions have cities on highest level and can even manage a decent economy (not all factions though).Quote:
Developing cites? MTW's AI developed its provinces. Its build tree was set up to typically max out a branch per region (rather than a wider unit selection.) If memory serves it would try to build whatever unit that got a bonus in the region when applicable, but wouldn't build structures for other units after that. I often found that the AI had higher level castles than I did on expert. In RTW it is all population growth. And net income in RTW is inversely proportional to population (tax rate per capita declines rapidly, while garrison requirements ramp up.) When the MTW AI had trouble was from province swapping, and from running out of money.
True, the AI mismanages some of its cities entirely. But it usually has homelands that are well developed and able to build quality units. That was not always the case in MTW.Quote:
MTW did have its share of low tech armies, but so does RTW. And RTW handicaps itself in the same way by building junk units early. Only in RTW the result is even worse, because then the city can never be upgraded as its population is near minimum. So you have to kill off the junk units in battle so that the AI can start building decent armies from its high growth population centers.
Some battles in MTW were quite close but usually not as hard as Rome (especially with SPQR mod).
Although the closest battles remain online. I remeber winning a huge 4v4 battle with just about 50 men ~:eek: and the rest of my team had about the same number of survivors :duel:
I was foolish enough to land on Fortress Scipii in Sicily with one army. They had about 7 stacks there (and they owned the three settlements).
I immediately had Messana besieged. When I pressed end-turn, I was attack four consecutive times. The first two I crushed. The third I retreated due to losses from the first two battles. The fourth I was destroyed since I couldn't retreat any longer.
MTW battles were so much easier. There's no difference between the MTW AI and RTW AI as well. In MTW I just pelt the cavalry with arrows while they sashayed in front of my spears.
The mechanics have been changed yes, but that's hardly AI. For example in RTW, you can move back and forth and not receive any penalties, but then again, there was no need for a feint attack in MTW.
RTW battles are more dynamic. Only swipe that they are shorter due the extremely high kill rate. I mean, how do you counter elephants and heavy chariots without pigs and using a mix of medium troops of pre-marian leftovers and light marian units along with a bit of merceneries? ~:)
Just one point:
All other thigns aside, so far most people claim they camped on the edge of the map in MTW, and now say the battles were easy. Have you tried taking on the horde *without* camping at the map's edge in a semi-circle, that is without the artifical border exploit?
I'm glad they removed this for RTW, but even without it fighting is still way easier in RTW. Almost ridiculously so. It doesn't matter what the AI might (possibly) be capable of when the enemy army routs on contact (yes, even after I've modded all of it quite a bit).
Rome is great, I'd recommend you buy it.
I love it, except the A.I. needs some tweaking (they are utterly retarded when it comes to besieging cities with stone walls) and the battles would be better if they were longer. Roman units also completely steamroll all competition. At least in Medieval a decent sized enemy army (even if made primarily of, oh say, urban militia) could manage to give my armies enough of a bloody nose that I'd need to keep them well reinforced. In Rome, the major drain on my manpower when campaigning? Garrisons.
Without the dread system or masses of peasants and other low quality units, quashing rebellion has also lost a lot of fun to the point where I just let them be when they pop up.
Also, battles are shorter, which I rather dislike. Everybody dies and routes too quickly, they seem to end as soon as a unit or two routs. They tend to feel like one side simply crushes the other instead of hard-fought battles where you have to constantly recall you're routing men to throw back into the fray, winning (or losing) by the skin of your teeth.
On the other hand, the campaign map adds a lot more to the game, and makes positioning your armies as important in the campaign map as it is to properly position your men on the battlefield. I also like the new siege battles better (I'm a fan of bloody, bitter slogs, even if a lot of my men die...I can replace them after all), with the street fighting and the fighting from ramparts. There's also a lot more of those "oh crap" moments in Rome (those aren't pikemen forming a phalanx across that street is it?) that make the game unpredictable.
If I had to take on 7 stacks consecutively in MTW I would be doomed as well. I don't see your point? And I've seen the AI stand there in RTW and take missile fire repeatedly. In RTW the missile fire is more deadly. The solution in RTW? The AI makes a suicidal disjointed headlong charge with its general/captain and cavalry. That's weaker than MTW.
In MTW when the AI had a good army it could sometimes sweep right over me on expert because of the way bonuses were set up. However, pre 1.2 when the RTW AI got a +7 attack bonus it still didn't have a chance in similar situations.
I like RTW alot better :stupid:
But it didn't reached the 7th stack. I was destroyed at the third stack. This wouldn't happen in MTW. That was my best general as well. The mighty Oppius the Great!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
How many missiles do you use in RTW? I use 2-3 per army. In MTW I've used about 3-4 per army. The Cavalry is too strong. If you bring too many Archers, they will break your flanks. That's why I lost the third battle myself. In MTW the general does the same thing with the suicidal generals. No difference at all.Quote:
In RTW the missile fire is more deadly. The solution in RTW? The AI makes a suicidal disjointed headlong charge with its general/captain and cavalry. That's weaker than MTW.
In RTW you can't camp because it is harder. It not that it is not available in RTW. You are still free to camp, But is not feasible any longer, making the game harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvojej
In MTW it is much easier to camp because of the uber spears, making the game extremely easy. Even without camping, you just lineup the spears upfront and archers at back, medium and light shocktroops(FMAA, Militia Sergeants, Urban Militia and Woodsmen) and 1-2 steppe cavalry on the side, the AI has zip chance.
My point was: don't camp at the edge regardless. Then tell me how many of your troops have you lost before the enemy turned tail in RTW vs. MTW?
I thought so.
And in RTW it's not feasible to camp because of a different map border of the battle maps (no longer artificially elevated), not because of anything else. If you continually used this exploit, a statement that MTW battles were easier doesn't really hold water. Easier to use this exploit, yes, but not easier overall.
Yes, it would. When I have had to actively fight multiple repetitively without retraining I was often worn down after only two or three in MTW. The reason was simple: attrition. Much more attrition in MTW than RTW. If I fought a well matched battle on expert in MTW, I took some heavy casualties. In RTW I lose very few men in a typical battle vs. a large stack. At that rate I can fight a lot of battles before I need to significantly reinfore my army. In RTW I'll park a half stack of Carthaginians in Sardinia and fight off 5 or 6 armies that are much larger before I have to ship a few units over to replace the losses (since I can't train anything there except town militia/peasants.) These aren't seige defenses. I march out to meet them on the open ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
??? I use 2 to 3 in RTW and more in MTW (4 or 5 arbalesters for a full stack army--very few archers since they have trouble vs. armour, and no crossbows as they shoot very slowly and have short range.) Why the difference in numbers? Because archery is overdone in RTW, proving my point. If I only have one in RTW the stupid AI still charges it. In MTW the AI would charge with its LINE first with the general charging at a "perceived" gap/vulnerability somewhere.Quote:
How many missiles do you use in RTW? I use 2-3 per army. In MTW I've used about 3-4 per army. The Cavalry is too strong. If you bring too many Archers, they will break your flanks. That's why I lost the third battle myself. In MTW the general does the same thing with the suicidal generals. No difference at all.
In RTW I don't camp because I don't need to! It is so much easier in RTW that I just march up past the AI and turn its flank, then kill it. Plus in RTW there is not an inherent advantage to defense like there was in MTW. The large charge bonuses and lack of spear defense bonuses are quite apparent.Quote:
In RTW you can't camp because it is harder. It not that it is not available in RTW. You are still free to camp, But is not feasible any longer, making the game harder.
You have to camp in MTW, you have to protect 4 archers with very short range and low very low kill rate.Quote:
My point was: don't camp at the edge regardless. Then tell me how many of your troops have you lost before the enemy turned tail in RTW vs. MTW?[
In Shogun, I have my armies stretched because the archers have better range and effectiveness, no camping is necessary. I even divide them in many different ways, no need for camping.
I rarely lose in MTW in the field even with the kind of troops I'm deploying. You can't really lose in MTW so long as you have many medium spears. In a stack vs. stack, with equal generals and troop quality, a LOT.
In MTW, even with the AI fielding much better troop quality, it doesn't matter because your spears will hold. All you really needs is one winner at the flank that that will liberate other units with one flank.
Well, MTW is full of flat maps. As a defender you are even often relegated to lower plane as opposed to a higher plane. I don't camp in RTW because the archers have the range. Also, who needs elevation? you don't need elevation to camp.Quote:
And in RTW it's not feasible to camp because of a different map border of the battle maps (no longer artificially elevated), not because of anything else. If you continually used this exploit, a statement that MTW battles were easier doesn't really hold water. Easier to use this exploit, yes, but not easier overall.
Camping in RTW is no longer necessary, useful or doable, plain as it is. Also give me an example of your army composition in MTW. Also how many armies do you use, your average faction treasury after reaching 2/3 provinces and how developed are you lands (for Early campaign).
I don't use arbalest since they are overpowered. Vanilla archers are my buddies, attacking or defending. I've used two arbalest once and in a defense they killed about 400 each in flat map, I've never touched them again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Edit: Red, here's the old screenshot.
http://i147.exs.cx/img147/851/byzarbs1gl.th.jpg
Because in MTW I spread my archers when attacking or defending. One spear can protect them just right, so I normally have one in the left, one in the right, one or two in the center. In RTW, I have no choice but to centeralize my archers (layers of three) since the spears are pushovers. Im MTW I simply move my archers, when the enemy attacks, I block them with spears quickly, then flank, that's all there is to it. If they don't attack, then I'll decimate them enough and charge them with spears. If they don't break with that charge, then flanking will.Quote:
Why the difference in numbers? Because archery is overdone in RTW, proving my point. If I only have one in RTW the stupid AI still charges it. In MTW the AI would charge with its LINE first with the general charging at a "perceived" gap/vulnerability somewhere.
I always deploy dead center in RTW since the range of the archers is an advantage. Maybe because I'm an infantry guy, I rarely deploy more than 3 cavalries including the general, unless the enemies have a bunch and you have no choice but to counter those.Quote:
In RTW I don't camp because I don't need to! It is so much easier in RTW that I just march up past the AI and turn its flank, then kill it. Plus in RTW there is not an inherent advantage to defense like there was in MTW. The large charge bonuses and lack of spear defense bonuses are quite apparent.
But I did lose in MTW, and even after many many campaigns. Unlike RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Most of your other points I just don't quite get, but nevertheless lemme try to address them...
When I do camp, I camp precisely when I have long-range archers, not the other way around. Ineffective missiles on my side mean that there is little point in delaying melee.
If my spears held, so did his. Hence the much higher casualty ratio of MTW, and much tenser/closer battles. I've never won MTW battles with such ridiculously lopsided casualty ratios as I did in RTW. And at least a simple cavalry charge wasn't all you needed to achieve those victories either.
Map specifics and elevations wasn't really what I was talking about with respect to camping. Artificial map boundary which protects your rear (or even both flanks as well) was. And it's less attractive in RTW - a good thing, but you don't have to use it in MTW either and if you don't the battles get much harder, especially the massive ones. However, RTW battles aren't hard even without any camping - and consequently there is no need to peruse the (diminished) benefits of the boundary at all. In MTW I was realistically afraid that I might lose, so I huddled the map edge to gain all the benefits I could. In RTW, I just send everybody (or even just the cavalry) forward. I cannot put it more plainly.
My armies depended on how many borders I had to defend, my average faction tresury was lower than it is in RTW since there was no within-faction trading to fall back on when the total war broke out, my lands were mostly specialized for troop types and highly developed, and I didn't play on early much cause I didn't like all the peasant look-alikes that constituted early armies. Which is all beside the point. The point being that before I heavily modified RTW, I could advance when defending, plow my cavalry into a phalanx frontally, and still win with a 15:1 casualty ratio. Which also equals to no real fun for me.
Quietus,
That screenshot is a good illustration of the difference in MTW and RTW. I rarely lose 300 men in a fight in RTW. That would qualify as a very tight battle in RTW. More typical for me in RTW is losing 30 to 100 if the AI has a larger or better army. If the AI has an equal or lesser army I often lose a dozen (and about half of those are friendly fire from javs/pila/slingers/archers.) Most of these casualties are typically cav since the cav are the real shock troups. Archers are there to soften up any problem units, infantry are there mostly as a decoy/meat shield for the general and cover for my ranged units. I might lose a unit of archers/slingers in the front.
Nearly all infantry battles are tougher, true. (They were in MTW as well, tougher actually since I didn't dare face equal infantry on equal terms on expert.) However this is because spears don't work properly, and RTW supports the massive disorganized snowball charge.
The difficulty of the AI certainly has dependency on play style. If you play primarily with sword infantry vs. sword infantry you will have similar casualites in MTW and RTW (both on medium.) But the RTW AI can't use phalangites properly at all. And when I have the phalangite heavy armies the AI can't deal with them either--other than sometimes using heavy cav to smash them frontally or snowball the slow phalanx. If the AI gets lucky and the phalanx gets penetrated with its snowball charge, then it can be tough to contain.
The AI doesn't match the play/kill speed of the RTW combat engine. MTW was better matched to its own combat engine. It looks like CA shot themselves in the foot with the high kill rate.
Arbs are a killer for sure. They are certainly not any stronger than vanilla archers in RTW though. They were a necessity for desert fighting...because they were needed to deal with the masses of cav/camels and desert archers. Melee infantry and spears didn't last long in the desert if they had to fight more than one or two times.
My big problem with MTW is that sword infantry is utterly useless. Good spears, and in particular armor piercing troops like urban militia or halberds were way overpowered. No cavalry unit could ever break them. They were stronger than the armored hoplite phalanxes or pikemen in Rome by an order of magnitude. Even when I didn't camp at the map edge I could afford to form a FULL SQUARE, because the spears were just that strong.
There's no way you could do that in Rome. One unit of heavy cavalry would ruin your day if you deployed your infantry less than 3 or 4 ranks deep. It'd be a total rout.
Plus you absolutely have to bring close combat infantry now, because they turn spears into dog food in a way that absolutely was not the case in Medieval.
Game better, hands down.