Printable View
Even evolution means varying things. I haven´t played Shogun, but from what I´ve read there are considerable differences between Shogun and Medieval, but correct me if I´m wrong. I suppose, wait and see is the best we can do, and that´s precisely what I´m going to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
yeah many things changed with shogun to medI... and i liked MTW better...i think shogun [moderator edit]: was not good...but i think its becuz i cant play that game
Moderator comment: language; and let's not bite the hand that feeds us (ie CA).
This might be off-topic, but where can I get a demo of KoH? I've looked everywhere but can't even find screenshots of that game...Quote:
Originally Posted by voigtkampf
http://www.knights-of-honor.net/jump.php?go=en|5|downloads%2Fdemo.php
just use Google...
Edit: entire content removed because with half of it removed it didn't make sense
i prefer the rtw style just because in mtw you had to take the provinces around you to expand, which was good but there was minimal interaction with allied ai, no military access or anything of that sort. That made coming to the aid of an ally very difficult. Also, If you wanted to go on a crusade you had to fight across the byzantine empire, sometimes all of europe depending on who you were playing as. Also it made for inconsistent travel rates. To move an army from scotland to normandy would take many turns, while traveling from turkey to israel took only a few. On the other hand, the ai was better.
Either way, i dont think that CA will go back to a system that didnt look as good, they are more about eye candy because that's what sells. Maybe they'll get the ai right this time though...
It's OK, put the pipe down and back away from it........................:2thumbsup:Quote:
I prefer the MTW style system. It allowed larger battles than the maneuvering of the RTW system.
haha kidding
No backsteps, no more MTW1, just its best parts(diplomacy, prisoners, princesses, etc.)
diBorgia
Apologies for the thread necromancy here, resurrecting an old thread. It's probably too late, but I've added a poll. I hope voigtkampf does not mind.
I want to vote, but having only played MTW I can't really compare it to the other options. I'm a fan of both Risk and the risk-style map, but if done well, I'm sure the other option could be just as good, so I'll abstain.
Ajax
Choosing your battlefield was quite important in the middle ages, so I voted for the RTW map.
Hopefully, the AI will be able to cope with it and choose a battlefield that would be to their advantage most of the time too.
I voted for 'Risk' style as I liked the simplicity of it for the strategic side of the game. Keep all the complex and glittsy stuff for the tactical battlefields.
A good compromise would be perhaps to split the provinces up even more into 'counties' but which only come into play when choosing a place to attack or defend.
I have only played MTW but I rather like the Risk-style map. There are a lot of great ideas on here like the ZOC and implementing a "Scorched Earth" tactic with disease, living off the land, etc. but I see a huge flaw in each of these ideas - the AI. I don't think the AI would be able to handle and cleverly use these tactics, especially the "supply-lines" idea. It would be great in an all-human game but I think it would be death to the AI because it would have absolutely no clue on how to use it properly and human players could just easily manipulate the AI.
MTW map, but where you place your army corresponds roughly to the terrain in that area, not just the province in general. Also, limited movement so you can't invade Finland from Egypt.:sweatdrop:
I'm pretty sure they're using the rtw sea transport system so that's not an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by alman7272
Wow, this is a very interesting thing. I loved MTW's ability to provide large battles with more than one faction, about three times or more a turn. However, I like the strategy in place in the RTW system, but it seemed slow and only provided small skirmishes and few epic battles from what I experienced.
An improved RTW system would be the best in my opinion, as long as it provides 1v1v1 or more combat on a regular basis.
The RTW travel system was a bit slow. On land and sea. It took a year to get from one end of Italy to the other...:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
huhuh they could speed that up :) waaaaay more
Because of that 4 turn per year would be much betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
it still didnt took an army a half year 2 cross italy.
I prefer the old STW/MTW strategy map.
They will most likely make that particular feature the same way as in Rome, which by my opinion is far better than the old "risk" style provinces.
Another vote for the RTW style map. The old MTW style was good, but I always hated those huge multi-stack battles that used to eventually happen; because of the reinforcements system. More often than not I'd just auto-resolve those.
Well, if the AI isn't a million times better than it was in RTW (where it was frankly terrible) then I would say give us back the province system, because at least the AI could handle that. I don't want them to muck this one up like RTW.
Does any1 know wat the mtw2 map campaign map will be like? I loved the map in mtw and stw but absoutly HATED the rtw map, so much that i have rtw and bi lying under my bed used once -.-
Since its MTW 2 i thought it might be like the MTW campaign map (obvious i thought) but ive heard some people saying thats its a rewrite of rtw, any1 know?
I don't think they'll go back to the province based map that MTW and STW had, I think they're going to stay with the fluid map they introduced with Rome total war and hopefully make it better and better with each new game they produce.
There was a thread a while back which raised the question how you would like to see the map built, I'll dig up the link for you.
Moderator's edit: well spotted, Dutch Guy. Threads merged.
MTW!! FTW!!
I find MTW alot more fun, instead of "How long will it take to go around the forest?" (as in RTW) its more "Can i take on the 5000 men with my 5000 men?"
I find that RTW was more confusing than fun, it was more focued on the economy (Trade routes, Upgrading cities) than the fighting (Which is the main part of Total WAR), instead of "Im going to destroy the French because I can!" as it is in MTW, its more ":O Nice trade roads, prepare yourself Roman Scum!".
+ Bacteria cells are smarter than the AI in RTW! :)
+ RTW was way too easy, and the way you unlocked factions was just bad (Although they did fix this in the BI expansion pack)
All in all, MTW was focused on battles as the Total WAR series should be!
(Note: This is just the Campaign map, i never play the Battle maps so i wuldn't know about them)
(Also Note: MTW: VI was the best expansion pack ever!!!)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it'll almost certainly not be risk-style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total War Merc
And, having played both MTW and RTW, I think RTW is a lot better (though the AI couldn't be accused of that) in general.
I chose MTW. It was much cleaner. RTW's strategic map is just a mess.
If the strategic AI is fixed, RTW's map might be okay, but I wasn't really that impressed with it, and I much preferred MTW's 'total-ownership-or-no-ownership' of a province.
As far as RTW's linkage of the strategic to the tactical maps, I think the idea was good, and still is, but RTW's tactical maps were awful.
I've played both RTW and MTW, and I have to say I prefer the MTW map a whole lot more. I personally think the RTW map wasn't done well, and you could exploit the AI a hell of a lot more easily in RTW's system than in MTW. The RTW AI was just clueless with its army stacks. I also like the "total ownership or no ownership" of a province, the bigger battles, and how it didn't take 30 turns for your emissary/diplomat to meet with a distant faction. If they vastly improve the AI (and I mean a HUGE leap) then I might like the RTW style better, but as of now I would love to have the old style back. But alas, this will not be so.:wall: :gah2: :shame:
MTW maps are out..............sack em.
RTW is ok
As with this new game I'd like to see an improvement on past games from CA. I am not nostalgic, because things in the past are now obselete. So get over this obsession with older games and look to the future and for things to be different/better. OK!
diBorgia