Printable View
EB is the end all be all of RTW mods IMO.
I am somewhat surprised that so many people voted that vanilla rome is worse than vanilla M2:TW. Vanilla Rome held my interest for nearly a year, whereas vanilla M2:TW was played for two weeks, and now won't be touched again until some proper FCM's are introduced, which is likely a year off at least. I find the game rather boring, albeit the graphics and sound are a big improvement over R:TW.
Well put. The STW/MTW style campaign map was also almost individual to the TW series, whereas the later campaign map is very generic and can be found in a wide range of games. It's nothing new, cumbersome and very "gamey". If you like these micromangement games then it may be your thing. If on the other hand you came onboard back in the STW/MTW era for the strategic battles and got quite used to using the very "decisive" old style map, then maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Furze
A possible explanation to this is that a proportion of those that voted RTW as the worst, stopped at RTW and did not move on to M2TW - possibly seeing this as "more of the same thing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
:bow:
Medieval 2 without a doubt. It could not hold my attention for more than a couple of hours. I still haven't even played half a campaign.
Without a doubt I prefer the 'chess board' style of campaign map in Shogun / MI & MTW / VI
also becuase I find it very confusing from RTW onwards to see exactly where my borders are (even when I highlight the map), just is one huge piece of land to me, with people all around, but in STW / MTW, I knew exactly where I was, etc
.
I have no problem with the new map, though I like the previous one as much. I'm not also in stitches with micromanagement; just the contrary!
My concerns are about shallowness, inconsistency, disturbing level of pseudo-historicalness, stupid AI, arcadiness... already being debated over at the Citadel in my rant thread.
.
You mean this one? (for the convenience of others who might be interested).
I agree, M2:TW is a disappointment overall. It feels very gamey. The unit variety is mundane in a "been there, done that" sort of way. The victory conditions are complete poop.
I'm almost turned off of the TW series at this point. If it wasn't for FCM's I would likely say goodbye for good, and it's doubtful I would buy empire based on magazine or website reviews (which held M2:TW up rather high), because both place too much emphasis on graphics. Just because a game is pretty, it doesn't necessarily merit an 80% rating.
A perfect case-in-point is Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II. The graphics were gorgeous, but the single-player campaign was utter crap. The story-line felt like an afterthought and the movie cut-scenes were about 10 seconds long. Talk about a lack of immersion....
M2:TW suffers from the same problems....It's basically M:TW on the R:TW engine. That sounds like a good idea on paper, but they failed to give that same sort of immersive feeling that M:TW gave so many years ago...
Another problem may be that we're all just sort of used to these games by now....back in the M:TW days, they were so fresh. I know I was enthralled. After playing for a few years, it isn't as fresh anymore, and it takes a little more to impress me. I think many veterans of the series feel the same way...
Second time i hear this within the last 10 days - i am sure CA was aware of that as were many people even before M2 came out. They are working on the naval battles now mainly to give this something new i am sure.Quote:
Originally posted by Bootsiuv
Another problem may be that we're all just sort of used to these games by now....back in the M:TW days, they were so fresh. I know I was enthralled. After playing for a few years, it isn't as fresh anymore, and it takes a little more to impress me. I think many veterans of the series feel the same way...
In my view, the SP campaign game focuses on the military dimension too much while other dimensions are neglected.
If you play MP you might find that battles are a whole world there on their own account - tactics and strategies in team games can be absorbing and complicated and in my view they take long time to trully master together with army control.
In the SP game though at least as far as i am concerned its the fact that the military aspect eats all others - it is rather standing on its own, has too much micromanagement and also lacks depth in say including logistics or sociopolitical factors affecting army recruitment/training/scope. CA seems at least conceptually to want to adress all this.
We are playing an ever mutating Sengoku Jidai through MTW to RTW to M2 and that has begun to rub off badly yes.
The game needs not be complex beyond "fun" to be interesting - its just needs to be complex so that it becomes fun again IMHO. Recruit massive stacks, besiege, exterminate repeat, can get boring. There are no true financial decisions to be made, since outperforming the AI financially is too easy in vanilla and moderately easy even in mods like EB. There is no true impact from politics or from social conditions. Some such mechanisms are there but are underused or are there just for show.
.
While I agree in the rest of your points, I don't in this one. I'm back to MTW after years, enthralled, and mind you, it's 0% unmodded 2.01. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
(That thread, yes. :yes:)
.
Hi Guys ,, I have recently returned to wargaming after an absence of almost a year ,, I didn't go much on BI or Rome so I have recently returned to MTW-VI along with some mods ,, I will one day buy Shogun & MI as from what Ive read here it most definately is better than what has followed on from Alexander .. So my vote goes to RTW .
Mouzafphaerre .. What Pirate game along with any mod or patches do you recomend ? I havn't sailed any seas since my days on the Commodore 64 .. long long time ago .
Welcome back dimitrios the samian,Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios the samian
So it seems that, based on the orgahs that have voted so far, RTW and it's expansions are the worst TW games overall. As I've said before this may be based on those that stopped at RTW and never bothered to buy any more TW games. I wasn't overly impressed with Rome and find BI uninspiring. I do play Rome now and again, and have a Julii campaign on the go at the moment, but it usually doesn't hold my interest for more than about 2 weeks maximum before I return to MTW/VI. This is despite the fact that the era in history that Rome covers interests me more than the Medieval era. The way I see it is that if the game is fundamentally flawed, fancy graphics and a preferred historical setting won't save it.
I could live with the RTW style map, especially if significantly improved as regards AI, diplomacy, and the movement/handling of agents, but battles are the main issue. A return to the tactic battles of the STW/MTW engine would be most desirable.
:bow:
.Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios the samian
Sea Dogs with Hosehead's Add-On Installer v.1.11, which practically includes everything that you can select from. Don't forget to apply the 1.06 patch!
Pirates of the Caribbean and Age of Pirates were intended as sequels. The first sucked without mods (you may find plenty at piratesahoy.com), the second I've never ever played... Both have excessively better graphics though.
Port Royal, the original title by Ascaron, is a trading sim set in the pirates' era Caribbean. It has spinoffs (Tortuga) and sequels but I like the original best, in which you can have fleet to fleet battles.
Tropico II Pirate Cove is an entertaining city building/management/piracy blend.
There are more but these are the first ones I recollect at first thought. ~:)
Hth! :bow:
.
I do not find the TW games comparable. The 3D campaign map R:TW introduced changed alot; and the settings are; apart from M:TW and M2:TW, very different.
Thanks Mouza & Cambyses ..
The BI campaign was much better designed than the RTW one i find, in terms of gameplay, historical accuracy and atmosphere feel. I had quite a few fun campaigns as the Saxons, the Franks, the Goths and both Roman Empires.Quote:
Originally posted by Mighty Cambyses
I wasn't overly impressed with Rome and find BI uninspiring.
The WRE has for example large cities that lack even the basic farms and trade facilities and also abunds generally with corrupt and unloyal family members. It is also religiously divided between paganism and early christianity. All this reflects quite well the conditions of the WRE that suffered from centralisation and abandoned countryside as well as unloyal and overambitious politicians. It takes about 30 - 50 game years to keep the population away from the verge of rebelling and more than 100 (almost the whole campaign) to decentralise the troop production centers (as opposed from keeping them all in Italy and the German frontier).
With the "Hording" mechanic the German tribes were quite well represented - even if you had beaten them back you would think at least twice about eliminating them; in fact you would be much better off to just contain them (and pray they don't all together migrate) rather than take them out, that was what the Romans were doing essentially from the time of Julious Ceasar. I believe that such a representaion of the German tribes could benefit the RTW vanilla campaign game too.
Try Gaul on RTW vanilla - or Pontus; generally factions other than the Romans give longer, more satisfying and less easy campaigns as long as they are not phalanx heavy. Chariots, elephants and more importantly phalanxes are the Achilles heel of the game - they are simply too powerful to be fun, especially considering that RTW vanilla is TW fast forward on the battlefield.
Noir