What made M:TW superior to R:TW?

The battles, although the control is better in RTW (no longer accidentaly ordering a unit to move when what you tried to do was select another unit) MTW battles did often be slightly more interesting and difficult (though at one battle I had the ai over and over again retreated so when the battle started the enemy army was so disheartened by the constant retreating that they broke almost immediately).

Campaign-wise the MTW campaign I find boring, no diplomacy to speak of. RTW doesn't have any diplomacy to speak of either, but the map as is better, as well as actual gameplay in the campaign.

With regards to immersion, only STW have really had it. MTW might have had it hadn't it been for the poor map (Denmark doesn't have Skåne, the overly large Lithuania province and so on and so forth) and some other things such as greatly incorrect religions for some provinces (Lithaunia Christian, Kiev Pagan to make an example) as well as no real diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

MTW made me feel like I was in medieval times. Rome did not have the immersion factor like MTW did.

---

immersion indeed. M:TW was compelling, somehow R:TW was not.

It's just that, when all my troops are engaged, I want to zoom in on the action. But to really enjoy it, you need to zoom up close, whereas you didn't have that with MTW. And if you zoom up close, not only do you lose the overview but it's all over so quickly as well. Enjoying (for more than 1 minute!) while maintaining the overview is what made MTW superior to RTW on the battlemap. Just from a gamplay point of view, never mind the AI. Though Rome provides more different beautiful models per army per faction, the game effect of those troops can be simply classified as cav & non-cav. The subtleties that are there just don't seem to show up (due to bonuses being too small in the combat engine, morale being too low, etc.).

On the campaign map, MTW was superior to RTW due to the speed with which you could play. Simply drag and drop --> decisive battle. If the battle was not decisive, the AI usually retreated.


Rome is rich in content, like flesh, but lacking in AI, tweaking, and other quality time that should have been spent with it on a rainy sunday morning by programmers who make the game out of love. Not to impress, not to get those 100 new ideas in, but simply to play her.

They didn't need Quality Control and god what have you else for managers, marketeers and other ****. Video games were not designed like that for ages, and the only reason they're changing this is the money in the (now serious) industry.

Due to this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

MTW had soul, RTW had flesh. And in the video game industry, soul matters. And I'm sure that CA knows what to do in MTW 2.

---

too true. A lot of new ideas were implemented, but their actual effects on gameplay have not been thought through enough, much like breast implants.

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

Multiplayer:

There is no era selection in rome or did they fixed the problem in a patch? I love the early, high and late era in MTW 1. That makes the battles more different. I love the number of and size of the MTW 1 maps. I hate the rome maps. The performance of MTW 1 is great. 4vs4 with huge units is theoretical no problem. You can see the exhaustion fast. The cav movement is much better in MTW 1 than in Rome. Only the anti cav units are too weak in MTW 1. They are very difficult to use. But all other is nearly perfect concerning the battles on the battlefield.

There are many other points, but these are definite killed the game fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

---

You know, I never quite figured out why they didn't add that feature in Rome.

:balloon2:

I've been thinking about this question for a while and I think my opinion can be summed up this way.

The battles in MTW were not much more challenging than those in RTW (for different reasons) but they were generally much less annoying. If I wanted to play an RTS I'd play RoN or AoE or whatever Warcraft is around now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

---

Yes. That is true.

I had a hard drive crash on my old computer. There were some battles in M:TW that were so good, I wish I'd burned them onto a CD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

You know, I never quite figured out why they didn't add that feature in Rome.

---

That makes at least two of us. I vaguely recall someone from CA talking about how they'd had difficulties trying to get them to work for Rome, but it still seems inexplicible that they were left out. I've saved a number of MTW battles over the years, and find it to be an attractive feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

There were some battles in M:TW that were so good, I wish I'd burned them onto a CD.

---

Yeah, I wish I'd remembered to do the same before I installed XP on my PC last year. [sigh] Oh well, c'est la vie....

In general, MTW was a simpler game and the AI was better able to play it. RTW introduced LOTS more complexities andthe AI didn't improve anywhere near as much, which is why it played so much worse than MTW.

MTW had better battlefields, with more varied and interesting terrain, especially in the distribution of hills. RTW's battlefields are extremely bland and rarely had more than 1 significant terrain feature.

MTW had far less micro-management, especially regarding the happiness of the provinces. I bought the game to build big armies and fight battles, not babysit whiney citizens.

MTW had less-realistic but also less-demanding naval system. I don't care about naval warfare, so again, this was a plus for me.

MTW had a better battlefield interface. You had more control over your units and the battle in MTW than in RTW.

MTW's system of granting titles was WAY better than RTW's system of general/governors. You could train units and appoint the best governors to be governors all the time. This freed up your family units to command your armies.

MTW's map was simpler. You were either in a zone and could affect everything in it, or you weren't in that zone. This meant far less micromanagement of spies, assassins, etc. as well as significantly reducing the need for the AI to make tough pathing decisions.

MTW's units were usually tougher in defense, or weaker in offense. Either way, MTW's units stuck around a while longer than those in RTW. RTW's units also broke too easily and moved too fast. Infantry sprinted as fast as cavalry, which is rediculous.

In MTW, you didn't pay for a queued unit or structure until it was actually being built.

MTW's generals had fewer V&Vs, which means that each V or V meant more. RTW had too many, which reduced the relative importance of them.

MTW's generals were immortal, so you were able to reap the benefits of training a unit up throughout the game. RTW generals (and their auxilliaries?) died.

MTW has Glorious Achievements.

MTW had battlefield penalties for being surrounded and for being packed too tightly. Friendly fire wasn't nearly as big a problem in MTW. Height gave an advantage to range (and maybe damage) for missile troops. The unit cards provided more useful information in a clearer way.

There's so much, but it can really be summed up in two points:
a) MTW was simpler, so the AI generally put up a better fight, and
b) MTW was simpler, so there was less micromanagement.

Off the top of my head:

MTW's Egyptians weren't completely anachronistic.

Battlemap AI.

Stratmap AI.

'Crushed together' combat penalties.

MTW's campaign map was notably more different and exciting each time than Rome's, ie the AIs were generally more coherently aggressive towards one another (Danes excepted).

MTW had eras.

MTW actually allowed for hammer-and-anvil tactics. BI made strides in the right direction, but MTW was better.

MTW had weather (apparently not invented until just before the Vikings invaded Britain).

MTW had faction re-emergences and factions waiting in the wings to emerge (BI, again, made moves in the right direction, but MTW was better).

In MTW, agents felt useful (I brought several neighbouring Catholic factions crashing down many times with the use of assassins and inquisitors - factions I wouldn't have been able to strike at directly, thanks to the Pope).

MTW was more immersive!

MTW didn't have hints and tips coming from irritating voice-actors (especially Victoria! Ugh! Australian also seemed an odd choice of accent to me.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midnight

MTW didn't have hints and tips coming from irritating voice-actors (especially Victoria! Ugh! Australian also seemed an odd choice of accent to me.).

---

Hey, she still didn't bug me as nearly much as Roman Centurions being voiced by American Marines. ~:rolleyes:

Another way in which I feel MTW is superior is the provinces' information scrolls. It told you at a glance everything you needed to know about a province: Its happiness/loyalty rating, what percentage of the population was which religion, any trade goods it possessed, any special resources it had (gold, iron, salt, etc.), and any bonuses it bestowed upon units/agents that were trained there. In Rome, I had to hunt for information on my provinces/cities, and rarely was it all located in one convenient spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Hey, she still didn't bug me as nearly much as Roman Centurions being voiced by American Marines. ~:rolleyes:

Another way in which I feel MTW is superior is the provinces' information scrolls. It told you at a glance everything you needed to know about a province: Its happiness/loyalty rating, what percentage of the population was which religion, any trade goods it possessed, any special resources it had (gold, iron, salt, etc.), and any bonuses it bestowed upon units/agents that were trained there. In Rome, I had to hunt for information on my provinces/cities, and rarely was it all located in one convenient spot.

---

thats an excellent point and one that i couldnt put my finger on til just now

i loved how easy it was in MTW to scroll through your cities to check loyalties, and also the way you could hold down certain keys (control-v or summit) to see where you had trade routes and loyalty ratings by province color

I liked the feel of control you had over your general with the granting or removing of titles. Your could groom a general with a couple of battles, then reward him with a governor title. A few more and grant him special position title. Really reward him by marrying your princess (that is about to go to the nunnery anyway) and bind him to your family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Godfrey

I liked the feel of control you had over your general with the granting or removing of titles. Your could groom a general with a couple of battles, then reward him with a governor title. A few more and grant him special position title. Really reward him by marrying your princess (that is about to go to the nunnery anyway) and bind him to your family.

---

Thanks Lord Godfrey; I meant to mention that in my last post as well. :bow:

Im new but im going to post anyway...

Rome has a personal touch, with what you just said about the generals, governors and adoptions...medieval didnt, but medieval had great variety in its battles...i played it at uni on a home network with friends for two years and we never got bored... However those great battles for me were lacking that personal touch...i had to use a lot of imagination.....which strangely is something i have a lot of......hmm....

anyway, you can imagine the dissapoitment when i found rome's battles to be a little samey...whatever the scenario....so for me the best is still shogun...although not perfect it got close....as close as it needs to before the arrival of medi2

ah its been so long since I've even thought about this game.
Rome had so much expectations and then ....
well its a bit bloody stupid isn't it.
I even eventually got given BI and its only been played twice.

Some good summaries given,
but basically MTW was playable and had memorable battles but was played to death and RTW didn't give a new challenge.

- Tactical & Strategic AI - Medieval is a much more challenging game than Rome because of its AI.

Provided you didn't straddle your army against the back map edge MTW's tactical AI could be a huge headache as its medium & heavy cavalry would consistently maneuver to hit you in your flanks and rear. It would also better manage its missile troops and its overall army cohesion was superior.

Strategically speaking because of stronger AI a single MTW campaign produces far more nail biting situations than all the RTW campaigns I've played put together. When modded the disparity between the two games only gets worse. Once the AI build routines are modded in MTW so as to give the AI more realistic armies (i.e. the elimination of Peasants in anything but rebellions & uprisings) the nail biting factor increases dramatically. Regarding RTW only Darth's formations mod seems to help RTW's tactical AI but it still cannot address its core weaknesses and does nothing to improve the strategic AI.

Sure, MTW's AI was prone to some incredibly boneheaded moves on and off the battlefield but on the whole it did more things right than RTW's AI which seemed to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

- Glorious Achievements Campaign - Many people were royally ticked when this did not appear in RTW and for good reason; the GA campaign game gives both the player and the AI the means to achieve victory without relying exclusively on the accumulation of new territories.

- Re-emerging factions - Ok, sometimes the how and where these factions re-emerged in MTW defied all logic (I once saw the French re-emerge on the shores of the Black Sea :inquisitive: ) but these events were fun and didn't feel unrealistic or 'gamey'.

- Battle Speeds - MTW's battles 'felt' more realistic than RTW's which saw units running, galloping and killing at superhuman speeds.

- Less suicidal generals - MTW also suffered from the banzai alpha male cavalry charge but when patched it was not nearly as bad as in RTW.

- Execution and Ransoming of POWs. Nice way to grab some cash and also keep a faction you might have some use for later on as a buffer state or whatnot.

- Weather effects on the battlefield (nothing like seeing a massive enemy army emerge from the fog... so cool)

- More attractive battlefields - Although I hated the fact that MTW had a finite number of battlefields they did look more realistic than RTW's which have a tendency to look really bland.

- Skirmisher units - MTW's skirmisher units were far more effective thanks to their ability to fire and retreat in less time than their RTW counterparts. RTW's skirmisher units are a much bigger pain in the ass to manage, especially since they're much more likely to poke holes in the backs of friendly units and commit suicide by engaging in melee instead of running like hell.