What Total War do you think is the best and why?

Ive only played RTW MTW and MTW2 but of those I liked MTW best. Mostly I suppose because of the gameplay and the options afforded to the player. Also I found the battles in MTW to be more *epic* in nature than MTW2 ..seems that the AI dosent put up much struggle even on VH conditions, and there is never enuf carnage to go around ... I havent had a battle in MTW2 come even close to the scale that I would on MTW typically involving many thousands of troops on either side...(ie .. against the moors and egyptians 2k/5k was quite normal... hours and hours of battletime. Also the faction control itself required more maintenance and perhaps imagination with the first MTW title.

In the first MTW title, the factions behaved historically... even with the Moors and their attempts to take over Iberia. And the factions were more fractured and easily turned to rebellion. I enjoyed splitting factions or choosing my own side.

On the other hand.. with MTW2 at least naval and siege battles seem to work properly and theres the New World and all those nice graphics..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

I was not going to reply but them question marks were just staring at me. I understand that you are not going to reply so I will try not be controversial.

---

I wasn't going to reply either, but yet again you've dropped another clanger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

The later TW titles have been described as having a fluid campaign map where characters can move exactly where they want to.

---

No, characters can only move on the flat land and the roads. They cannot move into the mountains or forest, this is far from free movement. Perhaps it is unwise to move one's armies through the mountains and high passes, but it should be allowed. If I can deploy my army to the middle of a scorching desert and leave them there for a few years then surely I can deploy them to the centre of a forest or high in the mountains? Army stacks in RTW move along the roads from one province to the next and nothing more. This gives predictably flat and boring battle maps with little variation. This is pretty much how every other strategy title works and is nothing new. It's not any more "advanced".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

I class this as better gameplay as it is an improved version of the chess board style. To do this they had to improve the graphics of the TW series and completely revolutionise the game data. This fluid campaign map is better than the chess board campaign map.

---

It is not a major improvement over the "chess map", as you call it, in itself. The RTW map is a simple tiled map with relief and 3D buildings on top. The "freedom" of movement" allows enemies into your provinces unchecked turning 99% of all battles into siege battles. I'm not saying that such a map doesn't have potential as an improvement over the risk map, it certainly does, but first it needs a lot of tweaking and improvement to make a decent and usable campaign out of it. The first step to improvement is to give total freedom of movement to all pieces on the map, with extended movement for agents, and reinstate provinces as viable areas of control That is to say that it should not be necessary to have your army inside the city to maintain order, simply having them within the borders of the province itself should be enough. This would allow you to position those men on the frontiers, perhaps in forts or defending bridges and other strategic positions, while still maintaining public order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

I do not agree with your satement of 'AI and diplomacy are a joke' this is untrue, yes they have their flaws but they are not so bad as to be labeled a joke, yes they need a higher dificulty to impove but how exactly is making a game slightly easier a bad thing? Obviously CA saw reason to make the AI less challenging.

---

I said "a joke" because AI and diplomacy in RTW are substandard. Battle AI, campaign map AI and campaign map diplomacy are all problematic. Diplomacy is especially bad and CA have acknowledged that the diplomacy in RTW and M2TW was a problem due to the fact that the military AI was detached from the diplomatic AI. That is to say that an emissary can arrive to offer a ceasefire (perhaps even the classic: "please do not attack" - "accept or we will attack") and directly afterwards that emissary's faction will besiege one of your settlements! This is why I gave up looking at the diplomatic info shown at the end of every turn. The diplomacy is also extremely simplistic and entirely random. If you make an offer and it is refused trying again will force the "bandying empty words" refusal. Large cash bribes are the only sure way to have a good chance of getting the AI to accept your proposal, and at times the AI will offer you a ceasefire which if you counter with a "give me settlement X" in addition, they will often accept it for no apparent reason and hand you over a prime settlement (which they will usually besiege again the following turn!). There are many more examples of poor diplomacy, but in short the diplomatic AI is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

Yes Roman Units are superior but they happened to forge a rather large empire.

---

Ahh... thank you for sharing that one with us. And there was me thinking it was down to Roman military organisation, culture and logistics that were the key factors in expanding the empire. So it was RTW style super storm trooper legions all along? You learn something new every day... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

Yes horses do not like to stick on the end of spears, look at your points there again and just think how stupid they were.

---

Yes, how stupid of me and how clever of you. Let's ignore the fact that the phalanxes in RTW are just as effective against infantry, overpowered and so severely bugged that a few realism mods have taken the phalanx formation out altogether as they are unable to balance it. I have won battles in RTW with 4 or 5 units of armoured hoplites, two units of peltasts and the general defending the square of a city from quite literally thousands of the dumbest enemies known to man. Is this your "slightly easier" AI? The enemy throw themselves at the spearpoints like lemmings, and watching the enemy general's cavalry come in at full kilter and the chariots fall to bits on contact is a good laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom0

This is what a cavalry charge can do to Roman Legions, think what they can do to Gauls.

---

Once again you make a flawed statement when allude to the inferiority of Gaulish war bands. In terms of military organisation yes, but in terms of martial skill in single combat most certainly not. This effectively means that the outcome of an RTW campaign should be down to the skill of the player and influences, skills and ability of your generals and not the imbalances of unit types and in particular the imbalance in favour of the Roman factions. Also the cavalry charge really didn't come into it's own during the period as the stirrup had not come into widespread use in Europe at that time. In Europe the period was mainly one of infantry warfare with cavalry warfare being more dominant in the east.

Give it up, Tom0. You lost the debate as far back as the (frankly ludicrous) claim that "better graphics = better gameplay" and it's just been getting worse ever since. Time to rout off the battlefield.....

To be honest, I love them all - regardless of graphics, gameplay bugs (er "features" :D) and whether I can talk my brother into letting me beat him repeatedly around the head with an army or two!

Overall though, right at this moment, RTW is proving my first love. That whole time period, a time of HUGE change for the world as it was then is just amazing and to be able to field armies at a time when tactics were becoming more refined is good fun too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

So, it's not the same game with better graphics. It's an inferior game with better graphics

---

nb easier does not mean inferior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spongie

Give it up, Tom0. You lost the debate as far back as the (frankly ludicrous) claim that "better graphics = better gameplay" and it's just been getting worse ever since. Time to rout off the battlefield.....

---

I still stick to my point of better graphics equaling better gameplay.

Might I suggest we clam down and discuss this in a rational manner. If you have any issues with the actions of other members, feel free to use the report post button (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...ons/report.gif) to notify the relevant staff of the issue.

Thanks :bow:

Medieval, my first Total War, takes army innovations to a new level. For example the number of ranks that spearmen, infantry, and archers are most effective at.

The game is extremely balanced, this requires less uniqueness in factions I guess, but means more tactics are involved. So, battles can be very long, and new decisions will have to be made. Thankfully for Froggy's EXTREMELY good MTW guide, I finally won some quick battles.

Even now, sometimes the AI defeats me, and I always beat M2 armies on VH battles. (Full stack/whatever)

I kinda prefer M2 in campaign, however it's just sad how broken the AI is; I hope the new patch to be released, makes M2 into the game, I guess, that it was supposed to be.

BTW the best multiplayer experience I had was in MTW, I assume it's just as good in STW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

Whenever I play a stint of RTW battles I go back to MTW a worse player. Basically I get my arse handed to me on a plate by the AI.

---

Oh my, that happened to me as well. Simply put, if you haven't played MTW or STW you are not a TW veteran.

The first TW game I played was MTW-VI (bought on a lark my first summer away from home.). My assesments (I only play single player)

STW/MI...brutal is an understatement. If you make a single mistake against the AI your screwed, even on the lower difficulty settings. Faction selection is a bit small, but your victory conditions are more flexiable. Unit selection is also small, and mixed forces are better. Graphics crude (even for a game made in 2000-2001). Atmosphere is wonderful.
Overall grade (out of 5) 4.0

MTW/VI...Actually easier than STW. Civil Wars and disloyal generals make you watch your back. Cavalry not as good as they should be for the time frame. Shines best in XL mod (for time-period) and ATW mod (sheer variety). Most stable modability. Atmosphere not as good. Map a little bit smaller than prefered Graphics slightly better than STW.
Overall grade 4.1(gets more points because of mods)

RTW...despite stupid AI is still fun. Really shines in RTR, Roma Surrectum, and EB mods. vanilla map is a huge drawback, making eastern factions effectivly unplayable. Big unit selection for major factions a plus. Each faction brings a differant flavor to the party. Cavalry slightly over-powered, but considering that the Romans never beat the Parthians in a fair fight this is understandable. Not as well-researched as previous games. ahistorical units a minus. Graphics are very good.
Overall grade 3.5 (loses points for silly AI, but gains a lot from mods, most of which correct ahistoricality and too-small map)

RTWBI...I count BI as a seperate game because of the differant features and overall differant flavor. Roman Rebels make things interesting. Religion adds difficulty to campaign. Doesn't fix AI issues. small vanilla map actually gives advantage to Sassinsids, as they don't have an Eastern border to defend. Wierd siege tower bug a huge problem. Hording is a great feature which should have been in RTW itself. Like RTW, works best with mods, with Rio's and IB being the big winners. IBFD especially opens up a whole new dimension by adding bigger map and Hephalites, which keeps the Sassinsids honest.
Overall grade 3.6 (loses points for smaller faction selection, but gains big for mods)

M2TW...graphics are too sophisticated. For a game that is played mostly by casual gamers and history buffs, extremely advanced graphics were a mistake. Map is bigger, but I really can't evualate this one because of the fact I can't play it in full.
Overall grade none

M2TWKingdoms...as with M2TW
Overall grade none

My verdict. MTW/VI is best TW game, but STW is tied for second with RTW and RTWBI, but each is good game in its own right.

RTW by far.
But specifically, I like vanilla over BI.

Shogun. Simply because back in '00 I was completely thunderstruck. I had never imagined a game like this could possibly have existed, I liked the combat, the History, and the Vids. MTWs gameplay may have been less linear and more in depth, but STW just had the first time thing... Rome and M2:TW are way to easy, and despite the better graphics add nothing meaty to the gameplay (and in fact take away a lot). I didn't get that anxious feeling whenever I was parted with either title. But when I had to go to bed or school, and be parted from my STW, I just about went nuts.

I've played all Total Wars except Kingdoms,but I have to go with Rome on this one. It's not because of the graphics,but simply because I'm far more familiar with the period than I am with medieval Europe and feudal Japan.

To me it is Rome Total War...
It was the first TW game I had and I think it is far better than the other TW game I have (M2TW) ..
I like the periode and the battles are much more enjoyable ..
:2thumbsup:

Japanese History was a zero-interest topic for me (aside from WW2). STW changed all that. Not only were the battles great, but the immersion factor sucked me right into an very heightened interest in Japan and its history.

RTW was the exact opposite - I had a very high interest in Rome and the time period, but the game play failed for me. RTW had lots of features that looked good on paper but turned out weak in inplementation. For example, you can move anywhere on the map, but I eventually realized that 95% of my battles were fought on flat maps with a road running throught it...oh, yeah, and a rock. The battle speed has been mentioned a few times already.

MTW seemed to be a pretty good game but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, I didn't play it as much as I should have. I didn't get M2TW, so I can't comment on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Japanese History was a zero-interest topic for me (aside from WW2). STW changed all that. Not only were the battles great, but the immersion factor sucked me right into an very heightened interest in Japan and its history.

---

Same here. I couldn't have possibly cared less about the history of fedual Japan....until Shogun came along. After that, I couldn't get enough of samurai & Sun Tzu. :yes:

I've always liked the Feudal Japan era - mainly the ninjas. Plus I haven't played STW. So what does that mean, if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC? :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raz

I've always liked the Feudal Japan era - mainly the ninjas. Plus I haven't played STW. So what does that mean, if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC? :thinking:

---

That's how it happened with me and R:TW / BI. :whip:

Medieval II is excellent but Rome is the better game in many ways, never played Shougon.

I have to put MTW:VI top, with STW a very close second.

What really struck me when I first tried MTW was that for the first time ever in a stretegy game, I had to actually use REAL tactics, like controlling terrain features, flanking, formations etc, and consider morale, weather, valour and other factors. Just clicking faster wasn't an option.

I did try RTW and BI, but after a couple of months I got seriously bored with them. Initially I had the "ooh pretty" reaction, but by the time I learnt the game, there was no real tactical depth to it. I characterise the typical RTW battle as half an hour of marching, 5 seconds of confused melee, then half an hour of running away / chasing depending on the result. Every battle seemed the same after a couple of campaigns. It wasn't long before I was getting MTW withdrawal and went back to that and STW again (which means a change of graphics drivers, making RTW unplayable now). In light of this I haven't even considered M2TW and probably won't touch Empires either. I do want to give EB a try, though, that's about the only positive thing in RTW's favour for me.

STW really wins on its atmosphere - nothing else matches it. Marching your samurai off into the dense fog, not knowing where the enemy might be hiding makes the battles a lot more tense, and as Tosa said the four seasons and a single harvest adds more challenges because it makes forward planning a lot more unpredictable - you wait all year, depserate for more troops, and then have a terrible harvest! It can really force you to adapt or die. And like Gregoshi and Martok, I found my general interest in Japanese history suddenly leapt up :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raz

if I go and get hold of STW, and play a campaign, will I go crazy with it and spend weeks on end glued to my PC?

---

:yes: :yes: :yes:

The best TW game? A hard question. I havn´t played STW or MTW (:embarassed:) so I can´t really speak about them. I´d say that I´ve had more fun with RTW, and that is what counts, is it not? MTW2 is a great game too, just that it and RTW pales in comparison to EB.
MTW2 might be the best TW game I´ve played so far, but RTW is the one I´ve enjoyed the most, so I´ll go with RTW.

I'm seeing alot more nostalgia than anything in this thread. Everybody has their own preference though, and I think MTW is the best campaign and BI was the most fun I have had playing multiplayer. M2TW is a disaster in both campaign and multiplayer, and I have only been playing it for a few weeks now. I agree with the notion that the experience for multiplayer has been on the decline, but that is perhaps because the game is taking on more than it can handle. Using unit/faction diversity while adding new unit types certainly makes it more difficult to balance the game, but at the same time is more appealing from a marketing standpoint. Is it safe to say that more people play the game now than they did in Shogun era? If so, that may allow more resources into the development of the game so that they don't botch it up like they did with M2TW and Kingdoms. Somehow return to the old but with the eyecandy that is so regretfully delicious.

I have played Shogun.

Uh... I would place myself in the "martok + Caravel + Macsen Rufus" generation. I played RTW and MTW and enjoyed both, but in terms of the battles themselves... No doubt, MTW.. I just recently had those repeated battles against the glden horde in Kiev "easy bridge battles". Except during the third battle with your experienced but thinner troops, in the third wave of assaillants, when the fresh mongol cavalry just decides to rush to the other bridge, where you have only a few guys left....

Oh, about nostalgia, I don't really get why speaking of nostalgia. You try "game_name V2" and find it less interesting than "game_name V1". Why stick to V2?

I think that a difference stands between multiplayer players and campaign players, for in multiplayer only the battle itself is important... So Cool units and Eye candy tends to have a better impact?

As far as strictly CA production, the original MTW is the best. Very, very difficult game to master, good trait system, challenging battles, so forth. The only drawback was the graphics on the battlemap. But, I would have to throw my weight(for whatever it's worth), behind RTW for one simple reason: Europa Barbarorum. This is an incredible mod that completely owns anything Creative Assembly has ever put out for sheer depth and complexity. It's unparalleled. I try not to be too hard on CA because they did after all give us this game system in the first place, but they've slipped over the years. Dowload EB and give it a try. It's incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodotos I

But, I would have to throw my weight(for whatever it's worth), behind RTW for one simple reason: Europa Barbarorum.

---

I might try it, but there are serious problems with RTW that Europa Barbarorum can't fix. For instance:

1. the strategic AI doesn't know how to play on the campaign map.
2. there is a bias in the strategic AI that makes it underestimate the strength of a player's army causing the AI to attack when it shouldn't.
3. there is no way to stop the over effectiveness of blobbing units in battle.
4. the battle AI doesn't protect the flanks of its army.
5. the battle AI frontally charges superior enemy units with inferior units.
6. the battle AI doesn't know its men have shields.
7. the battle AI won't move a unit that's under fire out of range.
8. the battle AI doesn't coordinate multiple armies.
9. the battle AI runs its units to exhaustion.
10. the battle AI throws pila after a unit is engaged in melee.
11. the battle AI doesn't use the secondary weapon.
12. the phalanx has the butt spike bug which kills cavalry hitting it from behind.
13. the differential between walk and run speed is incorrect unless EB made new animation skeletons.
14. the calculation for the effect of armor and shield protection is screwed up.
15. the AI doesn't protect its artillery from melee attack (this is a problem in MTW as well).
16. the combat model is not robust leading to too high unpredictability of combat results.

I would have expected RTW to be the best title (either with or without BI) probably because the era evokes so much interest and also because of the pre release hype (TV etc). CA made a series of errors and M2TW is still suffering the same fate, plus it is a rehash of an old title.
I've never been too impressed with the campaign AI, in any of the titles.
The toughest realtime battle would be STW but even there, the AI did stupid things.
Since STW, MP has declined to the point where I quit playing. I didn't buy Kingdoms and I won't be buying ETW.

Saying that, the EB team did a tremendous job with RTW, maybe if CA hired these guys their games would be worth buying

......Orda

I think your preferance seems to be dictated by which TW game you played first. The A.I's problem is not that it's stupid, its that its too clever and tries what appears on the field to be the easy way, which in battle is not always the best way. Most mods do thier best to fix some of the more glaring issues, however. I've noticed in RTR, IBFD, Rio's, and RS that the A.I seems 'smarter' on a certain level, especially about unit selection and general tactics.

I'd say a tie between RTW and MTW.

Both have excellent mods. I found RTW the most appealing original campaign. I never found interest in Roman history and vaguely studied into that area of history just after. Mods such as NTW and FATW entrance me. I find original camapgins (*awful*) compared to the Mod produced these days. Bloody marvellous.

For MTW I found the original campaign okay whe I first tried it ('03 or '04) but now I don't like it. I can't get used to the campaign graphics and lack of things mentioned in RTW and M2TW. I do like the battle's though and find them much more atractvie then RTW, M2TW or by the looks STW. Mods for MTW are also good. Unfortunely they never attained the piece's of art which RTW proudly hosts (And M2TW is coming better now) But cegoroch's Pike and Musket mod and The Lordz Napoleonic mod provide the greatest interest (Just surf over to the Chapter House forums; and you'll find a Interactive History called Religious Wars; my favourtie in history)

But all up Empires is looking (and sounding) to be the best. Things such as destructibe environment, ship battles, isfiring weapons, wounded men and such smoke of battle (And the added favour 1400 to 2000 are my absolutefavourtie eras) I eagerly anticpate it.

I unfortunely never tried STW; and don't want to. The graphics are a step back (Graphics are important to me unless gameplay is overpowering, sadly the case lost in most games. But games such as EUIII, HoI and even MTW a siginifcant examples) and factions very shallow (Repetitive)

I haven't tried Kingdoms ever but hope to attain it by this June, I look forward most of all to the America's Campaigns which I am assured is bloody brilliant (As is the Brittania campaign by the sounds)

If CA stays true to their word I hope to see all the stuff they mentioned plus wildife, better graphics, hundreds of tiny things which make all the diffrence in the world (Admit it; when everything is in a good game but it lacks a tiny thing your slightly disappointed) ETW will be a inspiring and jaw breaking (And PC breaking:clown: ) game.

That's my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baby Boomer

I unfortunely never tried STW; and don't want to. The graphics are a step back and factions very shallow (Repetitive)

---

How can you say the factions are "shallow" and repetitive if you've never actually played the game? Also the graphics are not a "step back" as this is actually an older game.