I too want to know.
Printable View
I too want to know.
i have all except Alexander, so ill vote RTW
must admit i love Mtw/Vi :thumbsup:
1. No variety. All factions have the exact same troop lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
2. Geishas. Once I figured out how to win using only Geishas, the game no longer became fun.
3. The setting. Feudal Japan isn't my cup of tea.
4. Inferior in all ways to MTW.
5. Was lured in by the screenshots on the back of the box that subtly promised it would be a recreation of the board game of the same name (also called Samurai Swords).
Not necessarily a bad thing. Shogun was balanced, and covered a smaller area and period - this is precisely why it's so good. MTW tried to cover too much at once, all subsequent TW games have made the same error of going for the "world conquest" thing. MTW had too few provinces for such a large area, and some very generic units, many of which were redundant. CA would have done better covering smaller areas such as Iberian Peninsula (Moors and Spanish), Byzantines vs Turks, 100 Years War, Crusades etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
The same could be said for Grand Inquisitor or Jihad spamming in MTW or massed Huscarle bumrushes, or fully upgraded Syrian Assassin spamming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
It wasn't mine either, but to be honest that didn't stop me from enjoying the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I disagree. Shogun was superior in atmosphere and in gameplay balance. The MTW campaign had more bells and whistles, such as generals with real stats, vices and virtues, titles and fleets. The interface was also better designed and easier to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I've never taken much notice of the back of game boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
:bow:
Alexander - A waste of CA`s time and ours.
Feudal Japan was actually the ideal setting for a TW game. A land with lots of provinces divided between many minor warring factions, worked better than any attempt to represent the politics, geographics and warfare of Medieval Europe or the Ancient world on an European scale (basically the engine is better suited to clans, or factions than it is to kingdoms, nations or countries). The whole map showed what was basically a civil war in progress. Instead of opening a campaign and looking at a large map of Europe with a number of factions in predefined positions, you were presented with a map on a smaller territory showing the progress of this war. The aggressiveness of the AI, battle engine and simple diplomacy was much more suited to this kind of scenario than a world scale one.
Even in MTW "factions" were still unwittingly playing the "sengoku jidai" launching daring invasions and breaking alliances at the drop of a hat. The battles far from being large battles deciding the fate of Constantinople or epic crusades were still in reality those same small engagements between rival clans in feudal Japan. The problem still being though, that in a single battle of a few men an entire kingdom, principality, dukedom, etc could be lost in a turn. Acceptable for an STW province but not on a map on the MTW scale.
The STW engine worked for STW but not so much for MTW. It would have worked better had smaller areas been used such as those I had detailed in my previous post. The STW battlefields had that atmosphere and fog, which I expect was removed from MTW temperate or lush battles to give the latter a larger and more general feel (very "camelot"). It may have also been because the fog in STW really brought those battles down to earth somehow. It made them seem like smaller skirmishes by a few men on a frosty morning, not the classic open and epic (some might say mythical) battles of the age of chivalry that MTW tries to represent (and still does so rather well IMHO).
Areas such as the ancient Roman Empire, don't work so well in my opinion as those lend themselves better to a real empire building game - which is what CA tried to make of RTW.
As of now it's Alexander, haven't played much of RTW Anthology, but I'm not too impressed of Alexander, most of the time in that era actually has been playing Europa Barbarorum.
Haven't played Shogun, want to buy it (with the expansion), no shops I've called have it, so might get it online from amazon.co.uk, hope it will work, as I know people have problems getting it to work/properly.
I'm not going to buy Kingdoms (unless the Securom is taken off)
My first TW game was MTW Gold, which includes VI
bought it a few months ago, and I enjoyed it so much, decided to get the M2TW demo, which worked (on low settings), joined this forum to ask if full version would work the same way, and about the 1.2 patch, quickly after I bought it, and a week later, bought RTW Anthology, mainly from being impressed looking at info on the EB mod.
:laugh4: :laugh4: Curse is, I voted Rome as worthless game! lol, I was thinking WTH alexander doing as best tw game:grin: , now I'd like to vote alex of course.:smug2:
Yes Rome isn't superb too, but only in vanilla, and time setting is perfect.
Voted Kingdoms, because of the Securom deal and the sickening CPU requirements.
Rome and its expansions just need some community polish in the AI department. And they most likely have already got this, with all these mods here - I haven't had the chance to test them yet, I haven't had the games for long. And there's quite a lot of atmosphere in those games.
Shogun is challenging, quite atmospheric and fun, but once I realised that I'd have to fight pretty much the same opponents over and over and over again, it quickly became the least played game of the STW/MTW/RTW series for me. Variety, even somewhat superficial, matters to me.
So Medieval 1 is probably my favourite ATM. Though I really dislike the 'one move - one province' feature of this game and Shogun, feels like I'm in my living room trying to conquer my kitchen. It's a pity it's not really possible to fix this. Fortunately RTW maintains a proper sense of distance.
Its good to see Alexander being at the.. top where it belongs - heh.
STW is predictably being punished by the "MTW and after" & "i can't stand with 10 unit types" crowd - heh - quantity not quality! CA always knew better..
Good old RTW is being dragged in the mud too - heh even if its in the paper it brings a sense of divine justice for all the ecstatic reviews and the gaming industry in general.
Well done orgahs!
Well I think you'll find that polls/petitions on forums are not taken into account by CA. How convenient eh? CA views those people making the votes as "autogenerated" or as multiple signatures made by the same individual. So this pretty much proves that CA regard those that still play the old games as a kind of sad movement of penniless nay saying spoilsports that are trying to somehow undermine the progress of the newer games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
For example this poll has probably been targeted by these nay sayers, whom of which have conspired to flood it in order to get their point across. The nay sayers are probably also more likely to be here wasting their time moaning on about such trivialities as AI, tactics and gameplay - whereas the happy and contented players are probably engrossed in one of CA's great new games and don't have the time.
Oh well, I can't waste my time here, I've got to go and log into my other twenty accounts and get voting. :yes: :2thumbsup:
Hail mighty Cambyses,
i thought they were "autogenerated" - why you have to log on again? :laugh4:
You mean some kind of backward, pessimistic nothings that feel significant complaining about such abstract things as good gameplay and atmosphere eh? :laugh4:Quote:
...this pretty much proves that CA regard those that still play the old games as a kind of sad movement of penniless nay saying spoilsports that are trying to somehow undermine the progress of the newer games.
Where is Stig to calculate how much money CA will not make by listening to the fanbase that posts? :laugh4:
They are autogenerated, but unfortunately their AI is as bad as CA's. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
recently bought Shogun GOLD (with MI) and I'm really enjoying it, great game
Alexander was definitely the worst for me. It's just not my style of playing, rushing. I prefer building up a strong economic base first.
So for me Alexander: :thumbsdown:
Sadly, on a more serious note, vanilla vBulletin does allow moderators to edit the amount of votes for each option. I doubt any of our resident mods would be corrupt enough to do so, but I understand the CA's viewpoint to a certain extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Shogun simply because they're all good and it's the oldest. So it has the worst graphics.
They're all so good I can't decide any other way...
The atmosphere of Shogun has never been matched, it was unique
.......Orda
p.s. I didn't vote
Rome is great to people with little or no knoweledge of history.
CA's statements on this issue were referring not to polls but to "petitions", where individual members post "signatures" in a particular thread to show their support. There is usually no poll in such threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
CA have proven adverse to such petitions, not because of any doubts as to their reliability but because they usually conflict with CA's current market strategy. This then turns into a "we don't like the direction CA are taking thread" which is then quickly closed down at the slightest excuse, such as an irresponsible post by an immature poster, before it can develop into anything at all.
Luckily for CA they have a group of faithful at the .com that will turn up to regurgitate the old "it's CA's forum and you're lucky it's running at all, they could close it down, blah blah..." etc, etc, etc, line.
It would be great in my job if I had a group of faithful customers that could call my complaining customers and tell them to stop complaining as they're lucky to be even allowed to complain at all. :dizzy2:
This is not CA bashing, but is based on simple observation.
:bow:
.
Voted M2, among M, VI, R, BI and M2. Can't comment on S, MI, A or K.
I hope E won't replace M2 on this throne. :no:
.
.
Just for the record, a particular CA representative (whose alias not to be mentioned) did accuse forum posters of faking polls/petitions. I remember him receiving his well deserved response in the appropriately mature ORG manner. (He wasn't one of the devs, who have always been kind at least here at the ORG.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
.
Voted Alexander. Reasons why I did vote for that and not for any of the other will now follow.
Shogun was the first and because of nostalgia and because it can be fun even now. Don't have its expansion nor knows much about it so can't say anything about it.
Medieval has many improvements over Shogun and is fun, and Viking invasion added some more fun stuff.
Rome has some weaknesses, and don't quite live up to its potential, but it is still a good game, and I prefer the RTW-style map over STW-style map, and I really like BI, however Alexander seems simply not interesting enough to even buy (even though I have seen it in store for a very low price). One faction in the campaign (and even if modded to play the most interesting faction, Persia, the campaign still don't seem interesting enough)
Medieval II I just recently got and it is fun this far, and as far as Kingdoms go, the only real problem I can see is the SecuRom thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
~:yes:
yep agreed about Shogun's Atmosphere, was the best IMO
Alexander, together with Hannibal and Napoleon are considered among the best and most celebrated generals in history.Quote:
Originally posted by Laman
however Alexander seems simply not interesting enough to even buy (even though I have seen it in store for a very low price). One faction in the campaign (and even if modded to play the most interesting faction, Persia, the campaign still don't seem interesting enough)
Alexander's period should have been chopped into more pieces space and time wise to be trully enjoyable and do justice to the feat of conquering so much in so little time.
For example, the unification of Greece, was a major campaign, but in the game the Greek peninsula and various important City states of the time that often were driven to mutiny from Macedonian rule (Corinth, Sparta, Athens, Thebes) are represented by a single settlement.
In addition Alexander is considered a cultural and politismic Ambassador; one of the first of its kind that litterally "married" the eastern philosophical perception (represented by the Persians, Egyptians and Indians) with the classical Hellenic one, considered generally the cradle of western ideals.
The game includes none of all this - and with the unit "balance" in the game it gives little insight into Alexander's tactical achievements and features on the field.
BI at least had a well crafted campaign game, atmosphere and an attempt to provide for unit balance on the field - Alexander was just a rushed by-product IMO; it certainly deserved better.
i've only played MTW, VI and Rome.
And i didn't like RTW that much
I voted shogon and alexander, mainly because alexander is a rush game, and in shogon all factions had the same units, but mongol invasion was good because you had the chalenge of fighting a very different enemy
in STW, it kept it fun. It was more harder, and you didn't need to memorize all these untis and such, and bulidings produce them for just one country,etc....
I just can t get on with RTW at all. I don t know why-it really irks me. But I ve got it, so if anyone knows a mod that makes me forget short skirted guys wandering round the campaign map, I d like to know.
The MTW chess/risk style is much more decisive and powerful. in my opinion.