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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Honestly, I can only confirm that on higher difficulties the AI will try to ambush and will scout for ambushes and hidden units, it also goes into "loose" formation sometimes.
I'm not convinced that the other points are true or can be noticed by players. Especially the claim that the AI will use "stop and shoot" tactics or will "move units out of the way of collapsing walls" seem more like wishful thinking. What's the "appear weak" plan?

---

I've seen the MTW AI use double-envelopment by sending cavalry out to both flanks, and I remember LongJohn talking about making this change to cavalry in one of the MTW patches to make cavalry try to flank more often. In STW, I've seen the AI conduct a double-envelopment ambush, but this is caused by the presence of two forests on both the left and right sides of the map, the tendency of the AI to hide its troops in trees and the tendency of the AI to try to set up amushes. I've never seen the AI make this double ambush in MTW, but it might be due to the topology of the maps.

You see the AI use the "stop and shoot" tactic all the time in MTW and STW. That's when the AI stops it's advance to shoot at you instead of just continuing to move forward and charge. The use of this tactic may be more pronounced in MTW than it was in STW, and doesn't really work to the AI's advantage unless it outnumbers you by a lot of shooters since it doesn't use shooters as well as a human player can. On a side note, you'll notice that AI archers don't always release their arrows on an animation cycle. This mechanic is no doubt there to conserve ammo for the possibility of shooting enemy melee units after the human player's archers had run out of ammo. This was a more effective tactic in STW because the men in the unit retain all of the unused ammo regardless of the number of men left in the unit. In MTW, dead men take their ammo with them, so the tactic of skipping volleys works to the detriment of the AI shooters because the unit looses killing potential as it sustains casualties in a skirmish with the player's shooters.

I'm not sure what the appear weak plan is other than a delayed attack. In other words, the AI knows it has the stronger army, but doesn't attack right away hoping that the human play will attack it instead.

The AI definitely uses loose formation, but it puts units into loose formation only after they have sustained significant casualties, casualty rate or casualty proportion (I'm not sure which). As soon as the casualty rate drops as a result of going into loose the AI will return the unit to close formation only to go back to loose again when the casualty rate increases. What would be smarter is for the AI to go into loose sooner and stay in loose as long as the unit is under fire.

I've never seen the AI sustain casualties from collapsing walls when defending a castle. On the other hand, I have sustained such casualties by placing my units too close to the inside of a collapsing wall when I'm defending a castle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngarakaS

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.

---

I totaly agree. Rome total war is set in the best time period for battles. This was the time when empires were forged through conquest and the sweat of ones brow, not through the petty deals of diplomats. This is the time of true bravery and warfare.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Barca

Rome total war is set in the best time period for battles. This was the time when empires were forged through conquest and the sweat of ones brow, not through the petty deals of diplomats. This is the time of true bravery and warfare.:2thumbsup:

---

The Sengoku Jidai was also such a time. In fact, it translates as "warring states" or "the age of the country at war". During this period there was nearly constant military conflict in Japan that lasted roughly from the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th century. Japan was unified under a single daimyo by the end of the Sengoku Jidai which is the objective of the game.

It seems Puzz is talking about differant versions of RTW than myself, but he does have a good overall point about the AI being silly (I just wouldn't call it dumb).

The reason why I mentioned that some of the mods seem, to me at least, to make the AI at least appear to be smarter is a campaign I'm currently running with the Parthians in RTR 1.9 Platinum. In this campaign, the Seluecids send wave after wave of infantry stacks against my all-cav forces (I only use infantry for garrison duty) and I beat them every time (N/N setting), but the odd part is that, at first the Seluecids sent mixed forces (cav/infantry/skirimishers) against me. When that didn't work (mostly because I attacked the skrimshers first and isolated the general's unit with my cataphracts), they started send forces made up of phalanxes of mixed quality, often charging my horse archers with the phalanxes to try to bring the HAs into hand-to-hand combat (In response, I would simply have the HA unit under assault from the infantry withdraw and keep firing using the Parthian shot). When all-phalanx forces didn't work, the AI started using Agrysipides Legionaroi (ersatz Legionaries with pila) and skirmishers against me (they stll can't beat me beacuse the Seluecid infantry match up poorly against the Parthian cavalry, but the AI bribed the Armenians to declare war on me, which has slowed my push into Mesopatamia to a crawl as the AI for the Armenians is 'smart' and has started sending cavalry heavy forces against me, and the ersatz legionaries do inflict heavy casulities on me). In short, the AI in this campaign seems to adapt to my tactics. Is it really 'adapting'? I can't say with any certainty, but the campaign has become a huge war with myself and the Bactrains against the Seleucids and Armenians. The AI has made some mystifing decisions, but its putting up one hell of a fight nonetheless.

Overall, could the AI be better in the TW series?
Yes
Is CA willing to spend that extra time to make the AI better?
No, but crafting a playable game is harder than most of us think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

The reason why I mentioned that some of the mods seem, to me at least, to make the AI at least appear to be smarter is a campaign I'm currently running with the Parthians in RTR 1.9 Platinum. In this campaign, the Seluecids send wave after wave of infantry stacks against my all-cav forces (I only use infantry for garrison duty) and I beat them every time (N/N setting), but the odd part is that, at first the Seluecids sent mixed forces (cav/infantry/skirimishers) against me. When that didn't work (mostly because I attacked the skrimshers first and isolated the general's unit with my cataphracts), they started send forces made up of phalanxes of mixed quality, often charging my horse archers with the phalanxes to try to bring the HAs into hand-to-hand combat (In response, I would simply have the HA unit under assault from the infantry withdraw and keep firing using the Parthian shot). When all-phalanx forces didn't work, the AI started using Agrysipides Legionaroi (ersatz Legionaries with pila) and skirmishers against me (they stll can't beat me beacuse the Seluecid infantry match up poorly against the Parthian cavalry, but the AI bribed the Armenians to declare war on me, which has slowed my push into Mesopatamia to a crawl as the AI for the Armenians is 'smart' and has started sending cavalry heavy forces against me, and the ersatz legionaries do inflict heavy casulities on me). In short, the AI in this campaign seems to adapt to my tactics. Is it really 'adapting'? I can't say with any certainty, but the campaign has become a huge war with myself and the Bactrains against the Seleucids and Armenians. The AI has made some mystifing decisions, but its putting up one hell of a fight nonetheless.

---

Well I'm glad you are getting a challenging campaign with that RTR mod. I also get one with XGM for RTW/BI. In fact, I lost repeatedly playing Carthage and going after Rome because Ptolemy kept attacking me relentlessly. I don't remember if I tried to get Ptolemy off my back using diplomacy. I think I did, and it didn't work. I'm doing much better in the campaign where I decided to go after Ptolemy militarily from the start. However, I stopped playing my XGM campaign because the huge number of battles that you have to play were not as tactically interesting to me as the ones played with Samurai Warlords which also has a difficult campaign.

Doesn't the fact that you are doing so well with all cavalry armies seem wrong to you? Where is the combined arms gameplay that the AI was designed to use?

When Creative Assembly introduced STW, they talked about making a learning AI that would adjust its tactics based on what worked and what didn't. They never did make that learning AI for the battlefield. However, in STW and possibly MTW you will see the AI randomly choose a battlefield strategy from several choices. They did implement a bit of a learning AI at the strategic level by making the AI invade a province with more troops if it had lost the battle for that province the previous turn. The AI will keep on increasing its invasion force, if it can, for that province each time it looses. Anything more than that seems to me to be happening by chance. The RTW AI is notorious for breaking alliances, so it can't be using them in a long term strategic plan. I think the most it does is gang up on the human player if he becomes too big which is a smart thing for it to do. I don't think the strategic AI can adjust what it builds based on the tactical battles because CA has said that the strategic AI and tactical AI are completely separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

Overall, could the AI be better in the TW series?
Yes
Is CA willing to spend that extra time to make the AI better?
No, but crafting a playable game is harder than most of us think

---

Yes, but its Creative Assembly that decided to bite off more than it could chew with their ever increasing number of units and features while a beautifully implemented and well balanced tactical system was allowed to deteriorate. They had a great start with the first game, but they lost the handle in their pursuit of increasing sales. The biggest decline was with RTW where, not coincidentally, they brought down a curtain of secrecy on how the game worked so that the players would have a much harder time determining what had been removed and what no longer worked correctly. You don't see the guys who used to do those in depth tests on the game around here anymore because almost all of them left.

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

Quote:

---

Doesn't the fact that you are doing so well with all cavalry armies seem wrong to you? Where is the combined arms gameplay that the AI was designed to use?

---

I use all cavalry forces with the Parthians/Sassinsids because 1)it's historically accurate and 2) thier cavalry are really, really good. As to your second bit, I really don't know. As RTR is a mod (duh!) and does tweak the unit selection, I really don't know.

My biggest gripe with the A.I is a lack of imagination with unit selection (lets face it, unit selection is half the battle). It often won't use the best units available to it, only the easiset to recruit (hence why I have never faced Sassinsid heavy cav while playing as the ERE in BI). If you can make the AI smarter with unit selection (this is why most mods drop peasants, because the AI has a tendency to over-use them) than you can make the AI a lot smarter on the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

---

I don't think anyone here would argue that improved graphics can make a game better -- that point has never really been in contention.

What *is* being disputed is the assertion that a game is good simply because it has nice-looking graphics. Unless a title's underlying mechanics & gameplay are solid, the most beautiful and/or realistic graphics engine in the world can't make it a good game. After one gets done "ooh-ing and ahh-ing" over the pretty visuals, there needs to be something more substantial underneath backing it up -- otherwise, a game is little more than a hardware demo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I don't think anyone here would argue that improved graphics can make a game better -- that point has never really been in contention.

What *is* being disputed is the assertion that a game is good simply because it has nice-looking graphics.

---

:yes:

"Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue." Yes, but it is still a dead parrot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

I use all cavalry forces with the Parthians/Sassinsids because 1)it's historically accurate and 2) thier cavalry are really, really good.

---

I'd venture to say too good. You're not going to claim that they could have beaten Rome or the Greeks/Macedonians are you? However, I'll bet you can win the game with those cavalry factions. Factions like that should not be able to conquer the whole map, but should have more limited winning conditions. Even Rome never conquered the whole map depicted in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

My biggest gripe with the A.I is a lack of imagination with unit selection (lets face it, unit selection is half the battle). It often won't use the best units available to it, only the easiset to recruit (hence why I have never faced Sassinsid heavy cav while playing as the ERE in BI). If you can make the AI smarter with unit selection (this is why most mods drop peasants, because the AI has a tendency to over-use them) than you can make the AI a lot smarter on the field.

---

You can add the all artillery armies of MTW to that list, and you even got those all artillery AI armies in the MedMod which was one of the better mods created for MTW.

Well the AI's unit selection is a big reason why we have good battles vs the AI in STW and Samurai Wars. The AI does train the better units, and because the gameplay has a strong rock, paper, scissors system the AI plays a stronger game. The reason is that it was designed to operate within a rock, paper, scissors system. The PR for STW emphasized the RPS gameplay design, but the RPS was continually weakened with each installment of the series to the point where the AI plays a weak game unless it simply has a much better army than you have.

I don't know if the RPS was further weakened in M2TW/Kingdoms, but I do know that the claim about returning the tactical gameplay to its former style before RTW by people like Bob Smith of Creative Assembly was not entirely true because they left the charge speeds at RTW levels. They never intended to really go back to the former gameplay, and just did their usual PR promotion of trying to suck in former fans of the series to purchase M2TW as they did with RTW. How many times do they think former customers are going to fall for the same trick? You see what happened with M2TW? They pulled out of supporting it, and said it was too hard to fix it because the problems were in the basic design of the engine. At least with ETW they are telling people that the tactical gameplay it's not going to be anything like their previous games. I shudder to think what it's going to be like. Les Grognards will probably be out by then, and it might be decent. That game maker is at least trying to take real time tactical wargaming in the direction that Creative Assembly should have by fielding even larger armies on larger battlefields. I remember the claim by CA that RTW had larger battlefield maps than MTW, but when we went on multiplayer we found out that the RTW battlefields were smaller than large maps in MTW. The units also moved at higher speed than previously which effectively reduces the size of the map further. You got more units to control, but they were smaller so the number of men on the battlefield was actually less which they never mentioned in their PR for the game. You also had less time to control these more numerous units, and the sprite graphics were degraded (which they never mentioned). Yes we were mislead by cleaver PR semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I'd venture to say too good. You're not going to claim that they could have beaten Rome or the Greeks/Macedonians are you?

---

There are ifs and buts and maybe I miss the point, but the largest empire on earth was that of the Mongols, a horse faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

---

Speaking for myself, I'm afraid that I fell out of love with "jaw dropping visuals", as I like to call them, several years ago. I am far more impressed by clever game design and AI these days.

Personally I don't think TW games benefit much from the latest eye candy, because a battle is best viewed from such a height that small details such as randomised faces for invidividual men in the unit or men that get bloodier and dirtier as they fight, are largely irrelevant. Better map designs with more emphasis on effects and use of terrain and weather would be more desirable than such visuals. If they want to improve visuals CA would do better in improving the landscapes and appearance of cities, rivers, farmland and forests, especially when viewed from a distance. Armies also need much improvment in this respect.

Graphics in general have a lifespan. Good AI doesn't. You will probably look back on ETW in 5-10 years time and laugh at the 'primitive' graphics just as you are doing with STW/MTW now. Unless AI improves in line with visuals I will not be buying any new TW games solely based on the fact that they, quite debatably, look better. IMHO decent quality sprites will always be better than angular 3D models that turn into blurry blobs when viewed at range.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

Here I go again...

I am all for a tw game with limited units and great AI (I hear Caravel screaming shogun at the computer) but I must say that improved graphics would make the game a lot better. Yes i'm going to say a lot better, again. Only this time a little louder.

---

We can't deny that, but a question about your preferences. if the "next improvement" on a game you play says "better graphics, but game less challenging", would you be 100% happy with that?

I don't know/remember with which game you started playong, but there's probably a difference in opinions between those who started in 99 (?) with shogun, and played MTW afterwards, then RTW, then M2TW... And those who started directly with RTW or later. For there are a few changes in the way things work.

IMHO a 20 years old player who started with RTW 3 years ago could be... surprised by MTW/STW and find those games "old fashioned" maybe, when a 35 y.o. gamer who started with dots on a map 20 years ago would be more than satisfied with STW/RTW graphics

Apparently, the better the graphics get, the worse the AI gets.

SO the opportunity cost of good AI is good graphics.

SO where did the original topic go? Looks like this thread degenerated into another graphics vs. gameplay thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

There are ifs and buts and maybe I miss the point, but the largest empire on earth was that of the Mongols, a horse faction.

---

I know Tosa, but that was much later than the time period covered by RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

Personally I don't think TW games benefit much from the latest eye candy, because a battle is best viewed from such a height that small details such as randomised faces for invidividual men in the unit or men that get bloodier and dirtier as they fight, are largely irrelevant.

---

And, you don't even get faces for individual men when you zoom out to a level where you can actually play the game. What you get is 2D sprites in RTW and M2TW, and these sprites are of lower graphic detail than the sprites used in MTW or STW; the MTW sprites being more detailed than STW sprites. So, MTW has the most detailed spites of any Total War game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

And, you don't even get faces for individual men when you zoom out to a level where you can actually play the game. What you get is 2D sprites in RTW and M2TW, and these sprites are of lower graphic detail than the sprites used in MTW or STW; the MTW sprites being more detailed than STW sprites. So, MTW has the most detailed spites of any Total War game.

---

Precisely. If you view a unit from a certain height in RTW and then pan around the battlefield above that unit. You can see the 3D models for individual men turning into the blurry sprites as you do so. With mercenary units this is more obvious as the green of the 3D models is replaced by the rough equivalent of the faction colour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I know Tosa, but that was much later than the time period covered by RTW.

---

Hello Puzz3D,

Yes, more than 1,000 years later.

I confess I'm not sure about the stirrup, that was something that made cavalry more effective, at least the charge. The bow has seen developments too.

And yes, the Roman empire did have its share of problems already, but the Huns in the 5th century were more than a small problem. That was a mounted force too.

I do not think it would be impossible for a horse army to defeat the toughest Roman legions. In fact, I guess it would be a very effective way to face that meatgrinder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caerfanan

We can't deny that, but a question about your preferences. if the "next improvement" on a game you play says "better graphics, but game less challenging", would you be 100% happy with that?

I don't know/remember with which game you started playong, but there's probably a difference in opinions between those who started in 99 (?) with shogun, and played MTW afterwards, then RTW, then M2TW... And those who started directly with RTW or later. For there are a few changes in the way things work.

IMHO a 20 years old player who started with RTW 3 years ago could be... surprised by MTW/STW and find those games "old fashioned" maybe, when a 35 y.o. gamer who started with dots on a map 20 years ago would be more than satisfied with STW/RTW graphics

---

I started with Rome then almost immediately moved onto STW and MTW then most recently M2TW. So I do call STW/MTW old fashioned and hence cannot play them as the graphics totally ruin it for me.

I agree with what you are saying about a 35 yr old gamer being more satisfied about the graphics, that totally makes sense.

As for your first question, I have purposefully left it to the end as it is a rather challenging. That depends wheter or not I found the earlier games too taxing e.g. I would not like to see CA make the game anyless challenging than M2TW. Although I would like to see STW/MTW with better graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

I confess I'm not sure about the stirrup, that was something that made cavalry more effective, at least the charge. The bow has seen developments too.

---

The stirrup was highly significant, as before this cavalry charges as a viable battlefield tactic were not really possible.

The cavalry in RTW charge into enemies and melee with them as if stirrups are being used. Without stirrups, charges with lances are not possible as the rider will be unhorsed on impact and melee on horseback is hampered as the rider cannot stand in the stirrups while fighting and has to hold on somehow. Saddle horns or chains, as used by early Cataphracts to keep them in the saddle, are simply not on the same level as the stirrup. No stirrup means no mounted knights and this pretty much equates to no full scale cavalry charges.

This is why I feel that cavalry are overpowered in RTW, and chariots, which would have fallen almost out of use in the timeframe of the game, are insanely overpowered, though at the same time unpredictable and unbalanced.

Quote:

---

The stirrup was highly significant, as before this cavalry charges as a viable battlefield tactic were not really possible.

---

not correct. The Sassinsids especially deployed super-heavy armored cavalry, as did the Hephalitites, the Samaritains, and the Armenians from time to time before the introduction of the stirrup, and these cavalry would charge at full gallop against infantry and other cavalry. (source: Osprey Elite series 'Sassinsid Elite Cavalry AD 224-642') The fact that I beat the Seluecids in RTR and the ERE in Rio's BI mod and IBFD with all cavalry forces shows how much better the cavalry are in the period of RTW than at least the phalanx infantry perfered by the Diadochi states. Even the Romans had problems fighting all-cavalry forces (see Carrhae), so the fact that I'm beating infantry forces with smaller all-cav formations doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Where RTW messes up in terms of cavalry stats are the Roman cavalry, which even after the Marian reforms still weren't that good (Crassus's cavalry force at Carrhae was made up of Galatian Gauls, not Romans for the most part, and the Romans didn't deploy cavalry of a similiar nature to the Parthians/Sassinsids until the introduction of the Equites Parthi, Equites Cataphracti, and Equites Clibnarii in the 2nd or 3rd century AD). The AI also seems not to comprehend how to deal with all-cavalry formations (thier is a way, but I won't say:book: ) and seems to 'panic' when it sees its facing all cavalry formations.

Hello caravel,

What I'm not sure about is which factions had/used stirrups and when. The Huns were the first?

Edit: Hound of Ulster's post wasn't there yet. They didn't have a stirrup, did they have some other technique then? I recall knights used high saddle backs when jousting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravencroft

Apparently, the better the graphics get, the worse the AI gets. SO the opportunity cost of good AI is good graphics.

---

Creative Assembly (I think it was MikeB) said that different programming teams work on graphics than work on AI, so there is no trade off because of that. I would say the faltering AI is due to not enough time in the development schedule to make the AI handle all of the features which have been continuously increasing with each release.

However, there is the issue of the graphic artist adversely affecting the play balance or game mechanics. Here is one example of that. In MTW, the Templar Knights had a lower charge bonus than other comprable knights. Players asked why since the Templars were historically an elite organization who were very capable fighters. LongJohn answered this by saying that the graphic artist has incorrectly depicted the Templar knight with a sword rather than a lance. LongJohn felt that he couldn't give a unit that charged with a draw sword as much charge bonus as a unit that charged with a lance, so he cut the charge bonus of the Templar in half and lowered the cost of the unit. Of course, this mistake wasn't noticed until the artwork was finished, and guess what? There's no time in the development schedule to change the artwork. Why is the graphic artist not consulting with the historical consultant or the designer of the battle mechanics in order to avoid such mistakes?

Take another example from M2TW. The graphic artist or whoever does the animations decided that a guy with a knife will swing his weapon faster than a guy with a sword or axe. So what happens? The guy with the knife beats the guy with the sword or axe because he gets a lot rolls of the dice in the melee. Clearly, the guy who did the animations didn't understand the game's mathematical combat calculation. Of course he doesn't because he's an artist not a mathematician. Can the animations be changed. No because there is not enough time in the developement schedule, and it's too much work for a patch as well. I know this was addressed to some extent in M2TW, but it never should have happened in the first place especially with things that you don't have time to go back an redo. Now why did this happen? Because up until M2TW, all units used the same combat cycle time. So, someone decided (The graphic artist?) to give different weapons different combat cycles without considering what that would do to the combat results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravencroft

SO where did the original topic go? Looks like this thread degenerated into another graphics vs. gameplay thread.

---

I think it changed into why one version of the game is better than another which is more interesting to discuss than simply saying which version you like best. It could have been posted as a pole, but there aren't enough people coming to this site anymore to produce statistically significant pole results, and those kinds of poles are not scientific anyway because there is no control group. In any case, ever since RTW was released the RTS type of player dominates Total War sales.

It would be RTW simply because two of my favorite mods - N2TW and ROP - use RTW as their base. I stiil like MTWVI very much what with all the mods I have for that game. Can a game be defined strictly by its mods? One thing I find bothersome in the TW games is how the AI army will split itself to try a cheesy outflanking manoevre. This is absolutely ahistorical as the whole idea in these battles was to keep an army together and in formation. This cheapo tactic merely serves to open up a new flank right in front of my waiting and eager troops. I can only imagine the fate of any RL general that would have tried that. He would, I believe, have had more to fear from his own superiors than from the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

I started with Rome then almost immediately moved onto STW and MTW then most recently M2TW. So I do call STW/MTW old fashioned and hence cannot play them as the graphics totally ruin it for me.

---

OK, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

As for your first question, I have purposefully left it to the end as it is a rather challenging. That depends wheter or not I found the earlier games too taxing e.g. I would not like to see CA make the game anyless challenging than M2TW. Although I would like to see STW/MTW with better graphics.

---

I now some warmongers who would be bored by battles that looks unwinnable for me... What matters is that one has fun while playing! ~:cheers:

Then I just rethink of the ultimate TW game in my opinion, which would include varous levels of difficulties, campaign and battle, different micromanagement levels, and tons and tons of scenarios (maps + units + historical context)... So that everyone plays TW and finds what he seeks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

not correct. The Sassinsids especially deployed super-heavy armored cavalry, as did the Hephalitites, the Samaritains, and the Armenians from time to time before the introduction of the stirrup, and these cavalry would charge at full gallop against infantry and other cavalry. (source: Osprey Elite series 'Sassinsid Elite Cavalry AD 224-642')

---

I've already mentioned early pre stirrup cataphracts, they and their lances were effectively chained onto their horses. Mmost of these cavalry were apparently also armed with bows and historians generally disagree as to how they fought. Cataphracts are an exception rather than a rule. They should indeed be regarded as true heavy cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

The fact that I beat the Seluecids in RTR and the ERE in Rio's BI mod and IBFD with all cavalry forces shows how much better the cavalry are in the period of RTW than at least the phalanx infantry perfered by the Diadochi states.

---

I'm thoroughly confused as to which game you're playing? In all eras cataphracts should be good, not overpowered but decent enough. In the BI campaign they would be a much more potent force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound of Ulster

Even the Romans had problems fighting all-cavalry forces (see Carrhae), so the fact that I'm beating infantry forces with smaller all-cav formations doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Where RTW messes up in terms of cavalry stats are the Roman cavalry, which even after the Marian reforms still weren't that good (Crassus's cavalry force at Carrhae was made up of Galatian Gauls, not Romans for the most part, and the Romans didn't deploy cavalry of a similiar nature to the Parthians/Sassinsids until the introduction of the Equites Parthi, Equites Cataphracti, and Equites Clibnarii in the 2nd or 3rd century AD).

---

We agree on that. My main gripe is with the generals' cavalry units, but some other cavalry units are also overpowered. I actually remember being decidedly underwhelmed by the parthian cataphracts in RTW in fact. I feel that those should have been the strongest cavalry in the game.

:bow:

Well thanks for the explanation.

Now I know that the graphics and AI aren't mutually exclusive, just that CA is faced with a lot of deadlines.

It was the Avars who are generally accepted for the introduction of the stirrup, though cruder forms existed earlier in the east.

The Parthians were able to deliver a crushing defeat of the Roman army under Crassus, however, even after hours of enduring arrow storms and exhausted by heat, his men were still able to repell the initial cataphract charge. What Crassus was unaware of was that the horse archers were not going to run out of arrows (which is what he was expecting) as the Parthians arranged for re-supply. Further drained by arrows and heat, they were eventually broken by cataphracts.
Given the right conditions, there is no good reason why an all cavalry army should not be able to defeat an infantry army. The Romans lost battles against the Sarmatians and the Huns and it was no coincidence that the eastern empire adopted similar cavalry among their armies.

I would argue that RTW gave too much strength to cavalry but it also introduced HA that did not sit as targets while they released their arrows. Of course, the invulnerable CC manoeuvre gave them an obvious exploit, which is a shame.
In MTW, it was possible to keep your infantry together, with crossbows close and endure all the arrows from a cavalry army, while inflicting enough kills with your crossbows. When the HA ran out of arrows you generally had enough men left to defeat any melee cavalry. In other words, the armour was too good.
In M2TW, I see a repeat of the problems that I came across in MTW. I'll admit I was impressed with the graphics (unless zoomed out) which made watching replays entertaining, because you can get in close and watch the action. But CA took away the option to save campaign and historical battles :dizzy2: and I was not impressed with the explosives launched by artillery and the way walls collapse into jigsaw pieces.
Tactics should always prevail over unit choice and STW offered this more so than any subsequent release

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

It was the Avars who are generally accepted for the introduction of the stirrup, though cruder forms existed earlier in the east.

---

The Avars.

Quote:

---

The Parthians were able to deliver a crushing defeat of the Roman army under Crassus, however, even after hours of enduring arrow storms and exhausted by heat, his men were still able to repell the initial cataphract charge. What Crassus was unaware of was that the horse archers were not going to run out of arrows (which is what he was expecting) as the Parthians arranged for re-supply. Further drained by arrows and heat, they were eventually broken by cataphracts.

---

Patience is a virtue.

Quote:

---

Given the right conditions, there is no good reason why an all cavalry army should not be able to defeat an infantry army. The Romans lost battles against the Sarmatians and the Huns and it was no coincidence that the eastern empire adopted similar cavalry among their armies.

---

I'm just an armchair general of course, but a cavalry army would be the army of choice to defeat legions. There are several battles where infantry destroyed legions, but I would prefer to keep a distance, provoke, exhaust and destroy them bit by bit. You need smart and mobile cavalry for that.

yea ummm .
I dont have favorites .
i like them all in diferent ways .
when it comes to RTW . . . the gameplay is at its best:thumbsup: :thumbsup: . . . the graphics are not too bad nor too good . they are just fine .
but referring to M2TW it looks a little more realistic i think .
beacuse in a unit , every soldier is dressed in diferent ways and that . its artistic but the gameplay somewhat i dont like it too much . when fighting on the battlefield . its just too slow . maybe its my graphic card . but yeah it is a cool game :thumbsup:
you can build castles and convert them to cities . i like the M2TW recruitment type . . . as the settlement grows .
the rec slots are more available and you can form an army faster than rome total war . :tongue: i like that . . .
if they could put that recruitment type in RTWBE it would be way better :tongue: :dizzy2: but you cant have it all :stunned:
soo yeah i like em all :thumbsup: :tongue: :dizzy2:


Edvard0