Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinus
I hated the films and throne room. They where a waste of time and switched it off most of the time.
i dislike STW cuz i played it after i played MTW, its like newcomes dont know why we complaint that RTW is bad cuz they never played MTW or STW, even if they did play it after they played rome they find it annoying cuz they cant get used to 'MTW's rough edges.
i cant play STW for its battles, theyre so primitive, ugly, and not userfriendly.
you cant even turn the friggin camera. i think MTW is the best but i cant play it anymore cuz i fell inlove with RTW's graphics, lame i know.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldfish
about STW....it will be many disscusions about liking and disliking....because STW is a game about japanese history....a history far from our lands...i think that`s one of the cause....because the majority users on this forum are from Europe and North America
...and absurd.
Historical Accuracy had no meaning in STW.
It was even more absurd then RTW Egypt IMO.
Stupid movies, stupid geisha, only 8 factions, no complex diplomacy, unreallistic units, and it goes on.
I'm not saying it was a bad game, but it had nothing to do with actual Japanese hisotory.
It's like vanilla RTW.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
I've played MTW for some time, but I definitely prefer RTW above MTW.
Especially the strategic gameplay on the new strategic map is something I absolutely love. It adds another dimension to the tactical battles. In MTW you chose your terrain once the tactical map had loaded, in RTW you have to pick your terrain on the strategic map.
For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Cool name!!
I was playing as Seleucids one time and my wife asked, "What is he saying??? Strappy Wash!?!??"
~D
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
You thought it was easier?! i haven't played MTW much but..."way easier "then RTW?! Can you win in the first 10 turns are something? ~D
Ok, way easier was exaggerating, but it was easier, no doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbaps
To be honest if youve only played medieval for a couple of days then youve not really played it, if you play it long enough you'll realise that the AI is acutally a challenge.
The battles are more difficult, yes, but I have yet to find ot whether that is because of a good AI or just that the controls appears new for me, or the fact that the controls, the camera and navigation sucks. Perhaps a combination of all.
I`ve returned back to MTW now and will try to complete the campaign.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Viking what difficulty are you playing?
The battles on hard are much harder than RTW.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Didn't some one make a STW mod for MTW?
MTW/VI v2.01 has the most highly developed battle engine, and the largest maps. The left click for both unit movement and selection is the main disadvantage. The unit balance and the pacing of the battles in MTW/VI is not as good as it was in STW. With the STW mod for MTW/VI, you have the best of both games combined. The unit balance is improved over what it was in STW which widens the variety of effective army types. Cav archers are used in Samurai Wars at their present cost, and are effective from what I can see. The pacing of a typical battle in multiplayer averages 15 to 20 minutes, and is evenly divided between shooting and melee phases. The weather in temperate or lush climate usually has intermittent rain which stops guns from shooting and adds to the tactical gameplay. The units are clearly visible against the ground textures which is not the case in RTW. You have the -ian command which allows you to view replays from unlimited camera height and any vertical angle. Even in the unfinished state, the SP campaign in STWmod is the hardest Total War campaign I ever played, and there are no suicide generals.
RTW has a host of gameplay issues steming from battle engine problems, unit balance, pacing of the battles and even non-standard strategy game design (i.e. load/save). The battle pacing isn't even suited to the AI which is strange because Creative Assembly made the AI and decided on the pacing.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Viking what difficulty are you playing?
The battles on hard are much harder than RTW.
Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
I found MTW to be just as bad, balance wise, as RTW. It surprises me still that some have forgotten the problems that MTW had and still has. The Spear units may as well have been scrapped when patch v1.1 was released. From that point on, MTW was a dead duck
.......Orda
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.
no only on expert does the AI get extra morale bonuses, just like the human gets them on easy.
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strappy Horse
I've played MTW for some time, but I definitely prefer RTW above MTW.
Especially the strategic gameplay on the new strategic map is something I absolutely love. It adds another dimension to the tactical battles. In MTW you chose your terrain once the tactical map had loaded, in RTW you have to pick your terrain on the strategic map.
For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.
The same is so for MTW.
The difference between MTW and RTW, in the respect you mention, is that on RTW's map terrain can be easily determined simply by looking at the map.
While for STW/MTW, it takes experience to know the terrain of each province. Of course, its easier to know on Shogun's much smaller Strat Map, but once you've played a campaign or two, memory serves and an experienced player knows PRECISELY what the terrain will be in STW and to a similar extent in MTW.
Now, given what I've just said MTW has great difference over STW and RTW as well. Precisely, as you state, in RTW a player can determine terrain, prior to a battle and make appropriate adjustments to gain advantage or minimize disadvantage.
It may be a matter of taste or style, but for maximum challenge the less you know beforehand the better.
In MTW, a player could *choose* NOT to know.
For example, I made it a habit to play only Catholic factions in MTW, and most specifically I limited myself, generally, to the Danes and the Scilians. In this way, I caused myself to be basically unfamiliar with the Islamic factions, in addition to the Orthodox factions, though to a somewhat lesser degree; and, the Spanish, Catholic though they were, it was ALWAYS a shock coming upon them in battle. I can still recall the time I had dealing with the Jinettes!!
Also, entering Islamic territory was always challenging, as by the time I got that far south, the Islamics had VERY fomidiable armies; which many of their unit types I was (deliberately) unfamilir with or unused to dealing with. This along with the Terrain challenge of the Desert, again terrain I'd be (deliberately) unfamiliar with or unsed to, poised me for a 'first encounter' defeat, or a slim victory (leaving me open to counter-attack).
[I would also attempt to make myself as deliberately ignorant of unit stats as possible. Of course, this effort was mostly a failure. Though I never chose a unit because of its unit stats, but rather my experience in using that unit.
Needless to say, my kill ratio would significantly drop the farther I moved south/southeast.
This was very challenging and entertaining.
My whole point is this, its easier and less challenging to prepare for a known circumstance than it is to be poped into an unknown circumstance without *specific* preparation, and be forced to think fast and innovate.
Simply put, isn't it better to have no (battle) expectation?
One last thing, again, imo, the reasons you cite above, I think tend to highlight the fact that RTW's Strategy Map is less about Strategy and more about a kind of Grand *Tactics*.
Quote:
For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.
This is not *strategic* thinking. They are TACTICAL choices. The obvious question is why are *tactical* decisions being made on the STRATEGY map? I put the question to the forum, is RTW's campaign map, a true Strategy Map? No (similar) tactical decisions can be made on either STW or MTW's campaign maps.
Something to ponder....
Re: It's back to MTW for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.
While there were some who were stuck negatively on the cheating AI syndrome, the majority of the SP community, from my recollection, agreed that VH/VH is the most challenging.
In my experience, it is. A human player has a HUGE inherent advantage over the AI. There are endless threads detailing this. Consequently, a "cheating AI" should bear NO consequence to a skilled player.
Quote:
no only on expert does the AI get extra morale bonuses, just like the human gets them on easy.
That's the correct way to look at things!
Don'tcha just hate a *cheating human AI*? ;))
