It's back to MTW for me

I'd hoped the mod to unlock all factions could hold my intrest in RTW a bit longer but a short stint as the Armenians proved to be the same old story. The fact of the matter is that the heart and soul of TW gaming is what happens on the battle field, And as pretty as that field may look there's been to many fundamentals changed or lost that the game no longer challenges. The AI is so stupid and predictable I cant remember ever being supprised once by a move from the AI.The kill and route rates are just far to high wich results in tactics never being Implemented in the game. e.g. in MTW you could pin an enemy unit with a much weeker one of your own and have time to get your cavelry around the rear to charge and route them. Imagine trying to pin a legion with war band by the time your cavelry got there they'd be runnig for the hills. And why when defending are you never allowed to deploy your army on the best bit of high ground. This is one of the basic plesures of TW. Yes you can argue this makes it more challenging but I just find it a pain. The best thing about defending is taking the best position possible with a smaller army than your attacker and still having a chance of winning. And why when attacking does the AI send its forces one unit a time up the middle to be butchered by archers and route before a melee begins ??? I could ramble on for ages about this but I know its all been covered in other threads.Yes there has been many inovations in RTW wich are fantastic. It looks stunning, The map and deplomercy have improved and no one would want to go back to using the same mouse button for movement and unit sellection. The fact is MTW with all its rough edges is a better game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fester

The fact is MTW with all its rough edges is a better game.

---

MTW has rough edges....the rest is just your opinion. My opinion is that MTW is nowhere near the quality of STW.

........Orda

Quote:

---

MTW has rough edges....the rest is just your opinion. My opinion is that MTW is nowhere near the quality of STW.

........Orda

---

Didn't some one make a STW mod for MTW?

I think STW is better because it had all those little movies and details like the throne room. I always wonder why CA cut the movies.

Oh, Legendary Geshia... how we hated you...

Playing all the games i think Mtw was the best, but there were some nice things in shogun, like the movies and stuff. One of the things that is missing from shogun is ships. I know they werent important in shogun japan, but it is a feature that i miss whenever i play.

orda, what do you like better in shogun that medieval. Im not trying to argue as it is your opninion, but i am curious to hear why you like it better.

~:cheers:

I wonder why the cut the movies too. I speculate that it was much easier to have still images for two reasons. First they don't need to hire as many animators, and second videos take up more space than still images.

I MTW I miss the throne room too. Also, ignoring the superunits of the expansion each unit (with the eception of redundancy between heavy calvary and naginata calvary each unit had its own well defined function more or less. I miss that simplicity in MTW.

I don't have RTW yet but hearing that they don't let defenders position themselves is turn off! Dumb! That reminds me of Civ3 where you couldn't group many armies together immediately. Even ants and monkeys know power in numbers!

Fester: Did you try it on the hardest difficulty yet?

I hated the films and throne room. They where a waste of time and switched it off most of the time.

I loved watching the ningas do there work though after the 200 time it got a little old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

I don't have RTW yet but hearing that they don't let defenders position themselves is turn off! Dumb!

---

In RTW they let you position individual units before battle, whether you are attacking or defending. You have quite a large area too. But unless you are fighting in one of the hillier regions (ie greece) there isn't much in the way of elevation.

Also the Difficulty AI is bugged, on the levels hard and very hard the bonuses in attack that are supposed to go to the AI go to both the AI and the human. Which just ends up resulting in quicker battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

MTW has rough edges....the rest is just your opinion. My opinion is that MTW is nowhere near the quality of STW.

........Orda

---

Why do you prefer STW to MTW ? Dont want to argue I'm just curious. I still think shogun is a fantastic game and its simplicity and the agressive AI are class even today. I just think MTW went a stage further and added the massive and intresting factors of rebellion and reapearence of dead factions. I also love the period and the history of when and where MTW takes place

I love RTW. Sure there are some bugs in it, but there were some bugs in MTW as well.

I just can't go back to the gameboard feel of MTW. I have played it a few times since I got RTW, and the amount of interaction in RTW just blows MTW out of the water.

You actually march your armies around the map in RTW, you can actually get ambushed. The Diplomacy, though irritating at times, is head and shoulders above MTW diplomacy.

The graphics are amazing compared to MTW as well. When I go back and play a game of MTW, the difference in the quality of the graphics is glaring. (and I used to think the graphics in MTW were amazing.)

RTW is much better at providing a realistic world for you to become immersed in without the super micro-management of a game like 1503 AD.

It is great. :balloon2:

about STW....it will be many disscusions about liking and disliking....because STW is a game about japanese history....a history far from our lands...i think that`s one of the cause....because the majority users on this forum are from Europe and North America

Quote:

---

You actually march your armies around the map in RTW, you can actually get ambushed.

---

True, but I dont think i have ever been ambushed. I usually just end up sieging. Also it takes days to get an arm across the map when i could do it in one move in medieval

Quote:

---

The Diplomacy, though irritating at times, is head and shoulders above MTW diplomacy.

---

Diplomacy in rtw is worse i believe. Though it has a nice new system, the AI could care less about an allaince etc. I rarely see them follow there diplomacy at all.

Quote:

---

The graphics are amazing compared to MTW as well. When I go back and play a game of MTW, the difference in the quality of the graphics is glaring. (and I used to think the graphics in MTW were amazing.)

---

yes RTW definaetly wins in the graphic department.

Quote:

---

RTW is much better at providing a realistic world for you to become immersed in without the super micro-management of a game like 1503 AD.

---

I'd have to disagree. I got immersed into Medieval off and on for years. RTW hardly lasted a few months.


It is great. :balloon2:[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

about STW....it will be many disscusions about liking and disliking....because STW is a game about japanese history....a history far from our lands...i think that`s one of the cause....because the majority users on this forum are from Europe and North America

---

Yeah I always figured that, but i thought Orda meant in gameplay. I thought MTW blew STW out of the water in gameplay, so i am interseted why he(and others) like shogun better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

True, but I dont think i have ever been ambushed. I usually just end up sieging.

---

Well that sucks. It's quite fun! Especially when you don't have nearly as many troops compared to the other faction. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Also it takes days to get an arm across the map when i could do it in one move in medieval

---

I guess this just comes down to personal preference. To me, it is much more realistic to have to march your armies around a terrain than simply drop them in the next province like a checkerboard. It is also much more realistic to me that an enemy army can be camped out on your province and adversely affect your economy and crop production without being in a battle with your army the moment they step foot across the border. In the same way, it is much more realistic to me that a diplomat, spy, or assasin doesn't have immediate access to everyone in the same province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Diplomacy in rtw is worse i believe. Though it has a nice new system, the AI could care less about an allaince etc. I rarely see them follow there diplomacy at all.

---

What is worse, the bugs you mean? In MTW all you could do was:

1) Ask to marry the daughter of another King or offer your daughter for marriage
2) Propose an alliance or ceasefire
3) Secure Trade Rights


In RTW, the only major difference is that you can't request to marry the daughter of another faction leader. There's even something extra, which is requesting or offering a Protectorate. Yes, there are bugs with the Protectorate system, but there are real advantages to having and becoming one.

You can request that another empire attack a rival for/with you. You can negotiate over Map Information, which is pretty cool. You can also give and demand regions.

IMHO, the diplomacy in RTW is way better than in MTW, even with bugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

I'd have to disagree. I got immersed into Medieval off and on for years. RTW hardly lasted a few months.

---

I did too, but to me, MTW just doesn't have that same immersive feel since I've played RTW. There is so much more interaction in RTW that it is hard for me to get into MTW like I used to.

In the end it comes down to personal preference, but it is still fun to discuss. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

In the end it comes down to personal preference, but it is still fun to discuss.

---

yes i agree completely.

but one note. Though the RTW map adds much more realism it maked unfixable situations. Like taking 20 years to get an army across the map. When an empire reaches critical mass it just takes so long to get anywhere and makes the game boring

Quote:

---

What is worse, the bugs you mean? In MTW all you could do was:

---

I mean I can make an alliance with greece and then the next turn they attack one of my cities. In MTW alliances were ptretty loyal unitl you reached critical mass and the whole world turns on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

I mean I can make an alliance with greece and then the next turn they attack one of my cities. In MTW alliances were ptretty loyal unitl you reached critical mass and the whole world turns on you.

---

But that`s not diplomacy as a whole. Think of all the things you can do in RTW, buy cities, get military access etc etc.

I played MTW after RTW. And I didn`t play it more than two days :dizzy2:

MTW battles put me completely of with their stupid camera (wich makes it almost impossible to what`s going on all those slopes there was to be found), hard to see what units you have selected, the fact that re-training takes ages etc. Such things put me off completing the campaign(some people said it was more difficult, I think it was way easier) and I went back to RTW, good ol RTW.

You thought it was easier?! i haven't played MTW much but..."way easier "then RTW?! Can you win in the first 10 turns are something? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I played MTW after RTW. And I didn`t play it more than two days :dizzy2:

---

I believe this is your problem. When going from a better looking game to a worse one then it make the worse looking game seem much worse. If you had played MTW first I believe your thoughts would be different. I reccomend trying MTW further and you will see why it gets so much praise.

Honestly for me....the best historical period is BI`s period....300-500 AD...so i assume that RTW:BI will be #1 for me ~:) ....2nd....1500-1600 is the next favourite period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

Honestly for me....the best historical period is BI`s period....300-500 AD...so i assume that RTW:BI will be #1 for me ~:) ....2nd....1500-1600 is the next favourite period

---

Yes it is a very intresting time period, but i dont think the issues over which game is better is the time period. The main issues are gameplay.

I agree MTW in my opinion has so much more playability and from what i can tell the main people who prefer Rome played it first. To be honest if youve only played medieval for a couple of days then youve not really played it, if you play it long enough you'll realise that the AI is acutally a challenge. I have yet to have a challenging Rome campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Yeah I always figured that, but i thought Orda meant in gameplay. I thought MTW blew STW out of the water in gameplay, so i am interseted why he(and others) like shogun better.

---

It depends how you categorise gameplay. I have always been more MP than SP. MTW does not come near since the factions and units are not balanced. If we look at SP, in STW we had seasonal turns as opposed to the awful annual turns of MTW where years fly by. RTW has come close to improving this but even RTW is still 6 monthly. This aspect alone is better than ( IMO ) diplomacy that essentially is meaningless. Re emergeance of a faction was ( AFAIC ) generally just a frustrating way for the AI to cheat and make your campaign drag on for a few more years. Rebellion could be considered a nice feature but I had occasions where I was seriously questioning MTW because of the ridiculous constant rebellion I experienced with Lithuania. I had a massive army under one of my best generals there, yet every year they would revolt. I would end up killing an army of some 3000 or more lowly rebel troops. After a few years of this I began to ask..."Where are these rebels coming from because, by now, I must have annihilated the entire populace?"

With STW, there is every possibility that going back there and playing a custom battle on expert, the AI will kick your ass.

The whole setting of STW felt more realistic and immersive. The battle maps looked far better than the too bright maps of MTW. The map textures were more varied, more realistic and more easily applied than those of MTW.

Individual units looked better due to the lack of dayglo colours. The fact that each player used the same units went far towards a balanced outcome and different combinations of these units were possible without seriously limiting the efficacy of your army. MTW/VI and the endless stream of cav/pumped sword armies totally finished any endearment for the game. In short, I was glad to see the back of it.
The interface in MTW was easier to use over STW and an improvement. There was a huge outcry at the interface of RTW being changed. Having played it for some time, I have come to the conclusion that it is more user friendly than MTW was. The only thing I miss these days is the facility that allowed you to draw out your units and have them all deploy the same depth with a right click.

I could go on and mention the weather ( which has never been matched since STW )

My hopes now are that the silly bugs that haunt RTW will be mostly remedied with the arrival of BI. It is for this reason that I have become tired of hearing constant criticism of CA. There are some members who seem to forget the bugs that were present in the previous games and there were many " I will not buy MTW " posts in the weeks leading to its release.
I hope that BI becomes the greatest in the TW series. If they can reproduce the weather of STW there is every possibilty

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Didn't some one make a STW mod for MTW?

---

Yes, Barocca did. It is still unfinished.
Samurai Wars was a MP Mod that used Barocca's STW units. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done to improve the awful MTW maps so the Japanese units looked totally out of place. There were still issues that were not resolved such as the cost of the Cav archer unit and this unit was by no means the unit it was in STW. There was a lack of interest anyway since people are not interested backward steps

.......Orda

I think anyone playing RTW first then having a go at MTW is going to be Imediately put off, Why would'nt they??? Rome looks and feels fantastic the camera is far smoother and easier to use and the fact that you have to use the same mouse button to select and move a unit on the field must seem insane. You think you've ordered a unit to move some where when in fact you've selected another unit to accept orders. This alone could put a newcomer off for good. But after weeks of never even being challenged by the AI and not loosing one battle it soon becomes apparent this games a bit hollow. I've actually found myself punching the air and shouting YES!!! when winning a tight battle in MTW. There are no tight battles in RTW I win them all. This is not down to me being a tactical genius its just to easy.MTW makes me manage my budget on a shoe string, often having to leave provinces in danger of attack maned by a far from full strength army. Now thats what I call intresting. In RTW once my empire becomes a certain size money is never an isue. This leads me to where I am now, Bored with RTW and possibly anoyed at some things MTW cant do as well as RTW. But I know wich game enthrawls me for months, Guts me when I loose a province worth a fortune and excites me when I can finnaly train that unit I've longed for. There is no comparison between the two, If they where movies MTW would be the low budget flick with an excellent cast and a plot to match, RTW would be the action movie with lots of explosions and some silicone tits.

MTW and STW were like games of Chess.....they made you think but the loo of it was crap compared to RTW.
I actually get immersed playing RTW, not as much now of course, but when i had just started playing it on VH/VH and i was fighting an incredibly decisive battle i would be shouting orders at my troops and bollocking them when they got it wrong etc...RTW is great for about four or five months...six pushing it but now BI is coming out, it is adding more features to the game, maybe they'll get it right and add the right stuff (even if the camp map is rubbish) i certainly hope so, RTW had the potential to be awesomly massive (just look at the previews CA gave us on various sites, the game was much bigger, more units and factions) game and with EB and RTR it will get there eventually
smeg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fester

I'd hoped the mod to unlock all factions could hold my intrest in RTW a bit longer but a short stint as the Armenians proved to be the same old story. The fact of the matter is that the heart and soul of TW gaming is what happens on the battle field, And as pretty as that field may look there's been to many fundamentals changed or lost that the game no longer challenges. The AI is so stupid and predictable I cant remember ever being supprised once by a move from the AI.The kill and route rates are just far to high wich results in tactics never being Implemented in the game. e.g. in MTW you could pin an enemy unit with a much weeker one of your own and have time to get your cavelry around the rear to charge and route them. Imagine trying to pin a legion with war band by the time your cavelry got there they'd be runnig for the hills. And why when defending are you never allowed to deploy your army on the best bit of high ground. This is one of the basic plesures of TW. Yes you can argue this makes it more challenging but I just find it a pain. The best thing about defending is taking the best position possible with a smaller army than your attacker and still having a chance of winning. And why when attacking does the AI send its forces one unit a time up the middle to be butchered by archers and route before a melee begins ??? I could ramble on for ages about this but I know its all been covered in other threads.Yes there has been many inovations in RTW wich are fantastic. It looks stunning, The map and deplomercy have improved and no one would want to go back to using the same mouse button for movement and unit sellection. The fact is MTW with all its rough edges is a better game.

---

Perhaps you should try my mod AI's Revenge it will challenge you.
Also the next version Xtreme is almost complete. It will change your opinion of the game.

Orda i see were your coming from now, but in my opinion i liked MTW better.

Your right about the weather, but that never really affected me much.

~:cheers:

Well I played the series in this order: 1st - MTW, 2nd - STW, 3rd - MTW VI, 4th - RTW

I still think RTW is the best of them for all of the reasons I listed above.

:charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Yeah I always figured that, but i thought Orda meant in gameplay. I thought MTW blew STW out of the water in gameplay, so i am interseted why he(and others) like shogun better.

---

I played STW through many times. MTW only lasted a few weeks for me. It just seemed like the same gameplay but on such a scale that it became unfocused and I lost insterest. STW also has a much better atmosphere for me and I really miss the seasons, harvest reports etc.

I've played a game of STW (without the mongol expansion) since playing RTW and it's still great to play. Probably because, as I said above, for it's style of gameplay (provice by province rathter than the free movement in RTW) STW's scale works much better than MTW IMO. I prefer RTW overall though.

I'd dearly love to have STW2 with the RTW engine and better battlefield AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

I hated the films and throne room. They where a waste of time and switched it off most of the time.

---

i dislike STW cuz i played it after i played MTW, its like newcomes dont know why we complaint that RTW is bad cuz they never played MTW or STW, even if they did play it after they played rome they find it annoying cuz they cant get used to 'MTW's rough edges.

i cant play STW for its battles, theyre so primitive, ugly, and not userfriendly.
you cant even turn the friggin camera. i think MTW is the best but i cant play it anymore cuz i fell inlove with RTW's graphics, lame i know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

about STW....it will be many disscusions about liking and disliking....because STW is a game about japanese history....a history far from our lands...i think that`s one of the cause....because the majority users on this forum are from Europe and North America

---

...and absurd.
Historical Accuracy had no meaning in STW.
It was even more absurd then RTW Egypt IMO.
Stupid movies, stupid geisha, only 8 factions, no complex diplomacy, unreallistic units, and it goes on.
I'm not saying it was a bad game, but it had nothing to do with actual Japanese hisotory.
It's like vanilla RTW.

I've played MTW for some time, but I definitely prefer RTW above MTW.

Especially the strategic gameplay on the new strategic map is something I absolutely love. It adds another dimension to the tactical battles. In MTW you chose your terrain once the tactical map had loaded, in RTW you have to pick your terrain on the strategic map.
For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.

Cool name!!

I was playing as Seleucids one time and my wife asked, "What is he saying??? Strappy Wash!?!??"

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

You thought it was easier?! i haven't played MTW much but..."way easier "then RTW?! Can you win in the first 10 turns are something? ~D

---

Ok, way easier was exaggerating, but it was easier, no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manbaps

To be honest if youve only played medieval for a couple of days then youve not really played it, if you play it long enough you'll realise that the AI is acutally a challenge.

---

The battles are more difficult, yes, but I have yet to find ot whether that is because of a good AI or just that the controls appears new for me, or the fact that the controls, the camera and navigation sucks. Perhaps a combination of all.

I`ve returned back to MTW now and will try to complete the campaign.

Viking what difficulty are you playing?

The battles on hard are much harder than RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Didn't some one make a STW mod for MTW?

---

MTW/VI v2.01 has the most highly developed battle engine, and the largest maps. The left click for both unit movement and selection is the main disadvantage. The unit balance and the pacing of the battles in MTW/VI is not as good as it was in STW. With the STW mod for MTW/VI, you have the best of both games combined. The unit balance is improved over what it was in STW which widens the variety of effective army types. Cav archers are used in Samurai Wars at their present cost, and are effective from what I can see. The pacing of a typical battle in multiplayer averages 15 to 20 minutes, and is evenly divided between shooting and melee phases. The weather in temperate or lush climate usually has intermittent rain which stops guns from shooting and adds to the tactical gameplay. The units are clearly visible against the ground textures which is not the case in RTW. You have the -ian command which allows you to view replays from unlimited camera height and any vertical angle. Even in the unfinished state, the SP campaign in STWmod is the hardest Total War campaign I ever played, and there are no suicide generals.

RTW has a host of gameplay issues steming from battle engine problems, unit balance, pacing of the battles and even non-standard strategy game design (i.e. load/save). The battle pacing isn't even suited to the AI which is strange because Creative Assembly made the AI and decided on the pacing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Viking what difficulty are you playing?

The battles on hard are much harder than RTW.

---

Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.

I found MTW to be just as bad, balance wise, as RTW. It surprises me still that some have forgotten the problems that MTW had and still has. The Spear units may as well have been scrapped when patch v1.1 was released. From that point on, MTW was a dead duck

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.

---

no only on expert does the AI get extra morale bonuses, just like the human gets them on easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strappy Horse

I've played MTW for some time, but I definitely prefer RTW above MTW.

Especially the strategic gameplay on the new strategic map is something I absolutely love. It adds another dimension to the tactical battles. In MTW you chose your terrain once the tactical map had loaded, in RTW you have to pick your terrain on the strategic map.
For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.

---

The same is so for MTW.

The difference between MTW and RTW, in the respect you mention, is that on RTW's map terrain can be easily determined simply by looking at the map.

While for STW/MTW, it takes experience to know the terrain of each province. Of course, its easier to know on Shogun's much smaller Strat Map, but once you've played a campaign or two, memory serves and an experienced player knows PRECISELY what the terrain will be in STW and to a similar extent in MTW.

Now, given what I've just said MTW has great difference over STW and RTW as well. Precisely, as you state, in RTW a player can determine terrain, prior to a battle and make appropriate adjustments to gain advantage or minimize disadvantage.

It may be a matter of taste or style, but for maximum challenge the less you know beforehand the better.

In MTW, a player could *choose* NOT to know.

For example, I made it a habit to play only Catholic factions in MTW, and most specifically I limited myself, generally, to the Danes and the Scilians. In this way, I caused myself to be basically unfamiliar with the Islamic factions, in addition to the Orthodox factions, though to a somewhat lesser degree; and, the Spanish, Catholic though they were, it was ALWAYS a shock coming upon them in battle. I can still recall the time I had dealing with the Jinettes!!

Also, entering Islamic territory was always challenging, as by the time I got that far south, the Islamics had VERY fomidiable armies; which many of their unit types I was (deliberately) unfamilir with or unused to dealing with. This along with the Terrain challenge of the Desert, again terrain I'd be (deliberately) unfamiliar with or unsed to, poised me for a 'first encounter' defeat, or a slim victory (leaving me open to counter-attack).

[I would also attempt to make myself as deliberately ignorant of unit stats as possible. Of course, this effort was mostly a failure. Though I never chose a unit because of its unit stats, but rather my experience in using that unit.

Needless to say, my kill ratio would significantly drop the farther I moved south/southeast.

This was very challenging and entertaining.

My whole point is this, its easier and less challenging to prepare for a known circumstance than it is to be poped into an unknown circumstance without *specific* preparation, and be forced to think fast and innovate.

Simply put, isn't it better to have no (battle) expectation?

One last thing, again, imo, the reasons you cite above, I think tend to highlight the fact that RTW's Strategy Map is less about Strategy and more about a kind of Grand *Tactics*.

Quote:

---

For example, with cavalry or phalanx heavy armies I try to avoid forest ground in enemy territory. On the other hand, if I expect to face an enemy army with lots of cavalry I march as closely to the forest as I can.

---

This is not *strategic* thinking. They are TACTICAL choices. The obvious question is why are *tactical* decisions being made on the STRATEGY map? I put the question to the forum, is RTW's campaign map, a true Strategy Map? No (similar) tactical decisions can be made on either STW or MTW's campaign maps.

Something to ponder....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Since it`s my first MTW campaign I play on m/m. The battles are harder, no doubt, but how much that is related to AI is what that counts for me. If changing the battle difficulty to harder don`t mean better AI but morale bonus to AI(just like intended in RTW), then I see no reason for playing harder than medium battles. I hate an AI that cheat.

---

While there were some who were stuck negatively on the cheating AI syndrome, the majority of the SP community, from my recollection, agreed that VH/VH is the most challenging.

In my experience, it is. A human player has a HUGE inherent advantage over the AI. There are endless threads detailing this. Consequently, a "cheating AI" should bear NO consequence to a skilled player.

Quote:

---

no only on expert does the AI get extra morale bonuses, just like the human gets them on easy.

---

That's the correct way to look at things!

Don'tcha just hate a *cheating human AI*? ;))