STW,MTW,RTW - does play sequence matter?

Hi, I'm new here and to the game series.
Just wondering if it makes sense to play these games in sequence of their publication or does it matter? I do have the Trilogy and 'snooped' into RTW - it seems Mind-boggling for the unexperienced and was therefore wondering if starting with one of the earlier games would help the learning curve. On the other hand, if I start with say STW would I have to 'unlearn' a lot to master RTW? Guess its all about strategy ?!?~:confused:
Any opinions as to start with game X because.... would be highly appreciated.
Thanks.:bow:

WELCOME No they are each different you can learn just as well with any of them. Dont let STW freaks tell you any different~:cheers:

Welcome! ~:cheers:

I suppose play order doesn't really matter too much. Each game is a little different, and STW is the simplest and probably easiest game to learn but they all have enough similarities you could probably do pretty well jumping from one game to another skipping the tutorials, though I suggest you do take them.

It doesn't matter too much but you would probably do well to start at the front of the triology as each game becomes a little more in depth. If you go out of order each step will be a downgrade of sorts. STW is not as pretty but its still a good game. I think a lot of people still go back to earlier games on occasion. So feel free to only play a campaign or two, you'll probably try it again some other time anyways.

Flip a die and divide the result in half rounded to pick? :juggle2: ~:confused:
Whatever, enjoy the series! :charge:

Shogun has a lot of interesting features, and MTW essentially built on the same principle. Rome is very different for either STW or MTW.

I've always had a fondness for STW, its fun and beautiful. MTW, especially VI, is a terrific game and still has a good online community (some diehards still play Shogun online but I recommend MTW VI for the best online experience). Rome has many interesting qualities and there's probably more folks playing it online right now than either MTW or STW.

Whichever you play (and I recommend them all) be sure to download the latest patches, get the expansions, and then try some of the mods.

Remember that while any of the three have fun SP campaigns, the most fun comes from battling online.

ichi:bow:

MTW had a better tutorial for the battles, if you want to get into battle faster. I also personally think MTW has the best battle speed and balance, although the BI expansion to RTW has improved RTW gameplay a lot. RTW is essentially in gameplay the same game on the battlefield, although with different unit balance and battle speed, and different AI, but the basic principles about morale, fatigue, terrain, incline etc still haven't changed much. The campaign map is however different. I think it's good to play at least the MTW battle tutorials before playing RTW, as the RTW tutorial says very little.

Welcome :bow:


First of all - yes, a lot of things changed between the game (fortunately sometimes to the better). However, the controls are very different. Fx. in stw/mtw you use left mouse to move units, in rtw you use right mouse to move. And a lot of others things as well - so essentially, you will have to unlearn some to learn RTW, if you start with stw/mtw.

That said - both games rock! I can really recommend playing, as soon as you are tired of RTW, go play shogun, then advance to MTW. Mtw is a lot more difficult to manage than either RTW or STW. Stw is the simplest - yet it's waay cool, you get NINJA and SAMURAI ~:cool:

Hehe, anyway, have fun dude

:charge:

I don´t know STW, so I can only compare RTW and MTW, but, anyways, here goes:
The most important thing (the battles, hey, the name of the game is "Total War", so it´s all about that) are fairly similar, yet there are differences. Apart from the graphics, the RTW control is - in my opinion - somewhat more "foolproof" with the left-click select/right-click move setting, but somehow it makes for a bit harder controls, when it comes to unit facing and rank selection. On the other hand, you can arrange your units in RTW in the beginning of each battle, be it defensive or offensive. In MTW you can place the individual units only in sieges and defense battles, when attacking you have to stick to a selection of template formations. RTW battles move a lot faster (or so it seems to me), MTW leaves a bit more time for thinking - which is direly needed, terrain and Generals make huge impacts and mistakes are punished severly.
Sieges are not that much different, in RTW you have more siege equipment (like rams, siege towers, ladders and tunnels) than in MTW, where artillery is the only heavy equipment ever used.

As already mentioned, the biggest difference is the strategy map, in MTW it´s a bit like the board game "Risk", while in RTW you can move your units to any place - which can be used to gain advantages on the battle map, be it by blocking a bridge or maneuvering reinforcements into your enemy´s back. RTW also has more diplomatic options, in MTW you can be allied, neutral or at war, in RTW you can secure trade rights, become Protector of a faction, buy and sell map information, instingate attacks on third parties etc. RTW, however, lacks the religious aspect of MTW, unless you´ve got the Barbarian Invasion expansion.

I can´t really recommend one over the other, personally, I´ve started with RTW, but I´ve grown to appreciate MTW a lot, too.

It does not really matter which order you play the games. The battle mechanics are virtually the same and take a little while to handle (managing the camera, coping with managing a dozen units in real time etc). RTW battles are faster, which can be good in terms of keeping the campaign going, but IMO requires you to pause a lot if you want to use tactics. STW and MTW have a "Risk" style map whereas RTW has a more open, movement point based one but none of them are particularly hard to master. The RTW one is probably more intuitive. The building elements to the games are fairly similar.

I would start with the one whose period interests you the most. Personally, I found STW had the least interesting strategic game and the battles quickly got exhausting (maybe another way of saying the campaign was rather challenging). In MTW, there are more strategic possibilities and the glorious achievements adds a nice role-playing angle. RTW is handicapped by being the least challenging of the three, but has some nice mods - Rome Total Realism and the forthcoming Europa Barborum - that bring it up to MTW quality.

An important thing when starting off is to choose a faction that is not too daunting. In STW, Shimazu is a good one - it has a defensible corner position. In MTW, England has a similar quiet starting point. In RTW, I would go with Julii (or another Roman) as you get some strong directions from the Senate and start off with a small base but great potential. Read some of the guides here for tips to get you started.

play MTW first, that way you won't get let down by the graphics that RTW has.

That is my advice,

I had bought RTW before I bought MTW, since everyone here kept on saying it was so much better-and MTW was for sale for about 5 euros :D

I bought MTW , installed it, patched it, and played it , but the graphics turned me down , nothin gnear the eye candy RTW has.
However, in the end I played MTW just as much as I did Rome, when the eye candy doesn't bother you anymore , you'll appreciate the gameplay and strategy part where in MTW exels in.

Can't comment on STW , since I haven't played it.

:balloon2:

Whow,
1st, thanks for the warm welcome and the quick, detailed responses ~:cheers:

Since I'm coming from the 'opposite' side of the universe (citybuilding (Caesar3, Pharaoh, et all) & CRPG (BG-series)) I played (snooping)RTW1.2 - Julii as such, meaning always autoresolving the battles just to get the strategic map aspect down ~;)

Believe it or not, it is possible to win - took me until 134bc to do so (full campaign) since I suffered quite high losses in each battle (some 300+ total IIRC) :embarassed:
Win or lose this way turned out to be like playing (russian)roulette ( I won some where the odds were 4:1 against me and lost were I had 5:1 favour) so I assumed there must be some 'scripting' involved to develop my empire as intended...
Now, the battle part of the tutorial in RTW is very confusing, I played it min 5, 6 or 7 times trying to keeping track of the events and its implications - to little avail :dizzy2: .
Summary, cavalry good against archers; spearmen good against cavalry; archers good against spearmen. Now, where does that leave all the other units that you can build (arcani, hastatii, town watch to name a few) and which of the categoties do they fall into ??? And what about the formations and tactics - oh my...

@LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix,
thanks for the tip of the tutorial in MTW being more 'in depth' - I'll give them a try then...:duel:

PS, I came to love assassins ~:) - they took out quite a number of 'stars' especially down in the Egypt (near east)area (60 years old, 6 or seven proficiency 'Eyes'?) heck, I sent him in against ? marks and he came back victorious ~:cool:

Again, thanks for the input and all the info to be found on this great site~:cheers: - I think I'll try to 'master' RTW and/or BI first (after coming to grips with the battle tutorials in MTW), so maybe I'll get to contribute a little to the knowledge base since it seems the least resolved and very wide angled with all these possiblities.

Personally I would not play STW or MTW before playing RTW,
Becous to me The other 2 games Made me relize how Bad RTW was,

So d im,agine Play RTW 1st If you want to actualy play it and not complain alot.

First of all, hi to everybody. Sorry for my english, because my mother language is spanish.

I´m a veteran of TW series. Began playing Shogun-TW, after MTW, then VI, and finally RTW and BI, but now I´m falled in love with RTR. I think this one is the best game avalaible of TW series.

Shogun TW brings me nice regards, because it was thw first time I really interest in strategic games. Until today...

Even is quite simple in more aspects, the battles are fantastic. How many regards playing as Shimazu, trying to conquer and cristianize all Japan! :gring:

MTW and RTW are improves of the original model. Many people have made a good abstract. in my opinion MTW is better in tactics and RTW in strategics. RTW has been mainly improved in BI.

The better version of game for me, I repeat, is nowadays, Rome Total Realism.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

Summary, cavalry good against archers; spearmen good against cavalry; archers good against spearmen. Now, where does that leave all the other units that you can build (arcani, hastatii, town watch to name a few) and which of the categoties do they fall into ??? And what about the formations and tactics - oh my...

---

I guess I left out a category of troops you could call "swords" - ie heavy infantry such as hastati and princeps. They are good against spears; fair against cavalry.

Arcani are a novelty "commando" style unit - I don't build them.

Town watch are just garrison troops, like peasants, to maintain order but not fight.

In terms of tactics, you are best looking at frogbeastegg's guide. Perhaps the key concept is flanking - hold them by the nose, kick them in the rear as the centurion advisor put it. I tend to form a line of swords/spears backed by missiles and when the enemy is engaged, try to work my cavalry round the flanks and fall upon their rear. For that to work, you have to neutralise the enemy's cav - e.g. waiting until it is committed or smashing it with your own cav.

I'd suggest playing an RTW v1.3 campaign on large unit size with M/M difficulty as Scipii. Remember to CTRL-S and CTRl-L before hitting end turn. Use minimal_ui, remove the green arrows and banners, turn off the radar map and keep the camera low for a nice battlefield experience. Auto-resolve battles against rebels to avoid the tedium of eliminating them, but play all the other battles.

STW and MTW/VI use a different battle engine than RTW. MTW/VI has some enhancements to the morale system, but it still works fine in STW. MTW/VI also has the smartest general in terms of not getting himself killed, and cav flanking is enhanced over STW. The STW/MTW engine has a stronger rock, paper, scissors system, and stronger terrain effects. The AI is smarter about using terrain in the STW/MTW than it is in RTW. Also, the units don't run as fast as they do in RTW, and they fight longer especially in STW where the rout point is lower. STW uses smaller maps, but this size is actually what the earlier battle engine is optimized for along with normal unit size. MTW went to larger maps, but the fatigue rate was not re-optimized for this larger size and tends to be a little too high. Strangely, eventhough the fatigue rate is lower in RTW and the maps are smaller than MTW, the AI units get exhausted if they have to cross the entire map which is apparently due to all the extra running around the AI does with it's units. The combat penalties due to exhaustion are fairly strong.

The reinforcement system in STW/MTW is problematic. You can get long streams of reinforcements entering the battle as depleted units leave. This wasn't too bad in STW because the maps were small and units always rout directly back to a single entry point, but on the larger MTW maps the reinforcements have a longer distance to travel and routing is away from the threat so battles can end up being very long. I've had many MTW battles that lasted over 1.5 hours and a couple that lasted 3 hours when lots of reinforcements were involved. I think my longest battle in STW was 1.5 hours. In RTW v1.3, the time spent fighting battles and spent doing things on the strategic map is more equal than in STW or MTW. Re-inforcements are handled differently. The longest battle I've had in RTW v1.3 is about 30 minutes.

STW is interesting because it has guns and no artillery. MTW, set in an earlier period, has very weak guns and artillery that doesn't move. The AI doesn't use artillery very well in MTW, and it brings artillery to field battles which isn't appropriate. You often see the AI when on defense move it's units to high ground in MTW leaving the artillery which can't move unprotected. When the AI is the attacker, all you have to do is keep your units back out of range. In RTW, the artillery can move and the AI makes good use of it.

STW has guns, but they are very strong in STW/MI v1.02 and they dominate any battle in which they are present. Some players like it that way, but they are definitely too strong for the battle system. It is possible to substitute STW v1.12 gun stats for those in STW/MI v1.02. Also, the battlefield ninja and kensai are questionable because they can't be adapted to the battle system very well. The system was not designed to model small but powerful units. For instance, I've spent many hours trying to balance the kensai in the Samurai Wars stat for STWmod for MTW/VI, and can't do it. In this sense, original STW v1.12 which didn't have battlefield ninja or kensai and had weaker guns gave better balanced battles. The weather system is a lot more varied and tactically important in STW than it is in MTW, and the seasonal turns impact the battles and require more planning in your ecomomics.

In general, as the number of unit types has increased in Total War games the playbalance in battles has deteriorated. This isn't so much of a detriment in SP because better units have higher support costs and you have to build up a tech tree to get those units, but it's a major issue in MP since there are no support costs and all units are available for purchase.

Play sequence doesn't matter, but I advice you to start with R:TW. After S:TW and M:TW I was rather disappointed with the challenge the new game provided. Especially the battles were too easy, and the strategy map did not provide the surprises M:TW did either. Still, it is a good game with great graphics, an improved interface and many refinements over M:TW. It also has a lively modding scene, with many good modifications (though most of them are still work-in-progress or open-beta's). Rome Total Realism is already mentioned, but I can also recommend Darth Mod (improves the A.I.), community mod (improves balance, and somehow also A.I.) and the soon-to-be-released-as-open-beta Europa Barbaorum, which promises to totally overhaul the game and make it as historically accurate as possible.

S:TW looks ugly compared to R:TW, but don't be deceived by appearances. Under the homely exterior lies a very solid battle engine and a reasonable (if not exceptional) campaign game. The unit balance of the original game is the best in the series, though the expansion does mess up the guns. Sadly, there are no big modifications to speak of (I think the game doesn't allow it), and the various interfaces are not as handy as R:TW's or (to a lesser extent) M:TW's.

M:TW is basically S:TW plus. It has a different setting, a slightly better battle engine and a strongly improved campaign game. Unlike S:TW, the game stays challenging even when you are winning, and there are plenty of hurdles for you to take before you rule Medieval Europe again. Sadly, the unit balance is less good than in S:TW and the large number of options does seem to slow the A.I. down a bit. On the plus side, there are many great modifications available, ranging from a Middle Earth Total conversion and a S:TW remake to Napoleonic, Roman and Hellenistic settings. Also, there are several mods that increase the challenge. I personally recommend installing MedMod after getting used to the game. Especially the later versions improve the A.I. and the unit balance drastically.

Happy conquering! :medievalcheers:

I'm thinking of buying stw for a taste of something new, after playing mtw for so long. Having read what has been said, does any one have any views on the type of stw to go for? Is the budget release with the expansion best or should I track down the first edition in its big red box and then add the expansion pack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left

I'm thinking of buying stw for a taste of something new, after playing mtw for so long. Having read what has been said, does any one have any views on the type of stw to go for? Is the budget release with the expansion best or should I track down the first edition in its big red box and then add the expansion pack?

---

Just download Baroca's STWmod for MTW/VI, and use the Samurai Wars stat as well. The links are in my sig. This is a graphic conversion of MTW into STW with the original units, original STW strategic map and the full Sengoku Period campaign starting at a slightly earlier date except the castles and battlemaps are still MTW. You get the improvements to the battle engine, naval feature of MTW and a very challenging campaign, but you don't have the seasonal turns or varied weather. There are more factions to choose from than in the 7 factions of the original game. The Samurai Wars stat was made to simulate as closely as possible the gameplay of original STW. However, some unit types from the later STW v1.02 have been included such as crossbows, naginta cav, battlefield ninja and kensai. The guns are reworked for better balance than in either STW v1.12 (too weak) or STW v1.02 (too strong), and when it rains they can't shoot just as in original STW v1.12. There is no geshia strategic unit in the campaign which some players felt was overpowered anyway. Sorry, but some of the corpses on the battlefield are invisible. I haven't been able to fix that yet.

The problem with the first edition STW v1.12 in the Red Box is that you might have trouble getting the campaign to work under WinXP. I get a lock-up on the first harvest turn under WinXP, but it works fine under Win98se. Converting the sound files might get to work. You might even have trouble getting the Warlord Edition STW/MI v1.02 campaign to work reliably. I get a persistent lock-up 30 years into my present campaign under WinXP, but it works fine under Win98se. The MI add-on was never sold in the USA.

The thing that really creates a difference between STW and the two later titles is the real atmosphere that STW has. Shogun really gives you a feeling of being there on a battlefield in Sengoku era Japan and that's what I think really makes Shogun shine over Medieval or Rome. I can still remember some of my classic battles from my early Total War career in Shogun. One battle that actually made me cry afterwards was a last stand in Echigo with Takeda Shingen and about 500 men facing an Uesugi force of several thousands. My men literally fought down to the last men and I can remember how much I valued their sacrifice. Hell and this took place about 5 am in the morning and I had school that morning, so yes Shogun really was that addictive. ~:)

@ third spearman

You should "track down" the Warlord Edition, which contains the original plus expansions (anything less would be a waste of money):



http://search.ebay.com/shogun-warlor...n_W0QQfromZR40

Also,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...697228-9943620

As for me, simple. When I played Shogun (years ago) I never thought any game would top that. I even uninstalled others games and leave only Shogun.

The Medieval came out. In a quick while my past 'awe' with Shogun vaporize. I swear that no one else on the planet can create a game as beautiful as that. So much fun, strategically and also the battles were great. I played every faction many times over with different settings and difficulty. Haven't uninstalled Shogun but haven't open it for quite some time. I was planning to use some mods (never understand what the fuss was about anyway) before Rome arrives on the shore.

So, guess you know the answer. With RTW I uninstalled every game on my PC (except Sims 2 for my wife - married now..) and install few copies of RTW so now I have teh RTW-BI , RTR 6.2 (current) , TFT 1.75 and Roma mod for 5.41. There's a free unuse copy for EB (whenever it comes out)

Cheers....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1pain1Duck

The thing that really creates a difference between STW and the two later titles is the real atmosphere that STW has. Shogun really gives you a feeling of being there on a battlefield in Sengoku era Japan and that's what I think really makes Shogun shine over Medieval or Rome.

---

While I feel that Medieval is generally superior to Shogun, (and I play Medieval far more often than Shoggy), on this point I completely agree. In terms of sheer immersiveness, Shogun beats the other two TW games hands-down. For that reason alone I can never bring myself to uninstall Shogun, even if I haven't played it for months (last time I played it was back in August, I think). Whenever I sit down and play Shoggy, I really *feel* like I'm a daimyo in command of my clan, and the battles are always more....."real" to me.

Quote:

---

The thing that really creates a difference between STW and the two later titles is the real atmosphere that STW has. Shogun really gives you a feeling of being there on a battlefield in Sengoku era Japan and that's what I think really makes Shogun shine over Medieval or Rome.

---

The music in Shogun is stunning as well as the artwork. Looking for the enemy hidden somewhere in the mists of the Japanese mountains...and suddenly those battle drums begin...~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

STW is not as pretty but its still a good game.

---

Objection! I think STW is the "prettiest" game of them all. Except of course that RTW has more detailed units. But the landscapes, the weather effects, the in-game movies - they are better and more atmospheric in STW than in either of the later games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

M:TW is basically S:TW plus. It has a different setting, a slightly better battle engine

---

Objection! IMO, STW has the better battle engine. It's smoother and faster and easier to control. And skirmishing actually works in STW, where it doesn't work reliably or at all in MTW.

I think if there's one improvement to the MTW battle engine over STW, it's that the kill rate isn't as fast so battles tend to last longer and there's more time for tactical maneouvres, or for correcting mistakes. But in every other way, STW's engine is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I personally recommend installing MedMod after getting used to the game. Especially the later versions improve the A.I. and the unit balance drastically.

---

I'm glad someone mentioned medmod. IMO, MTW is not worth playing without it, at least the unexpanded version of the game. Not unless you want to spend your time fighting large armies of peasants...

Well, as far as 'abiance' is concerned and me not having "grown" through the timeline, I have to say that each game has its wonderful 'triggers of immersion' and all do a good job in 'setting the mood' to get involved.(IMHO)

:book: Now, I took the advice, and played through half(so far) of MTW battle tutorial and can already tell that I'm going to face a 'rocky road' - or, 'it won't happen overnight' ~;) - even though I was 'victorious' in the battles, it just 'kills' (no pun intended) me to see my little men being slaughtered and all I can do is sit back and watch and wait for the outcome - or am I missing something? I am aware that casualties will happen, but once the units are engaged, there is nothing else I can do, right?? (like push those guys that are just standing in 3rd or fourth row forward or sideways or so...)
I'm also starting to realize, that as a 'general' in these days, you had to have had a pretty good stomach to endure all this w/o growing an ulcer....:book:

@PUZZ3D:

Quote:

---

Use minimal_ui, remove the green arrows and banners, turn off the radar map and keep the camera low for a nice battlefield experience.

---

How do you do all this? :embarassed: Specifically 'banners and radar map'?

BTW, what does "Can sap" mean - sounds like a pine tree ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Objection! IMO, STW has the better battle engine. It's smoother and faster and easier to control. And skirmishing actually works in STW, where it doesn't work reliably or at all in MTW.

I think if there's one improvement to the MTW battle engine over STW, it's that the kill rate isn't as fast so battles tend to last longer and there's more time for tactical maneouvres, or for correcting mistakes. But in every other way, STW's engine is better.

---

M:TW's battle model features rank bonuses, push back and a tweaked morale system. Cavalry depend more on their charge and less on the following melee to win. I didn't think S:TW that much smoother than M:TW, but I agree the battles were more of a challenge and the A.I. could skirmish better. It had too, though, because IMO M:TW's skirmish units are no match for their S:TW equivalents.

S:TW was more of a challenge in the initial stages of the campaign, but once you had half of Japan you could steamroller the rest. This is less present in M:TW, especially if you install MedMod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Objection! I think STW is the "prettiest" game of them all. Except of course that RTW has more detailed units. But the landscapes, the weather effects, the in-game movies - they are better and more atmospheric in STW than in either of the later games.

---

I couldn't agree more :bow: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

Now, I took the advice, and played through half(so far) of MTW battle tutorial and can already tell that I'm going to face a 'rocky road' - or, 'it won't happen overnight' - even though I was 'victorious' in the battles, it just 'kills' (no pun intended) me to see my little men being slaughtered and all I can do is sit back and watch and wait for the outcome - or am I missing something? I am aware that casualties will happen, but once the units are engaged, there is nothing else I can do, right?

---

I suffered from that too when I started S:TW. Unfortunatly, there is nothing you can do. Well, you could turn on hold formation (+2 defence, -2 attack) if you are planning a flank or rear attack: it will keep your men from dying so quickly. But if you can't support them, I advice you to use engage-at-will. Your troops will die faster, but so will theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

How do you do all this? Specifically 'banners and radar map'?

BTW, what does "Can sap" mean - sounds like a pine tree

---

Go the the R:TW folder, open preferences.txt and change minimal_UI and disable_arrow_markers to true, and show_banners to false. I don't know how to disable the radar.

"Can sap" means that a unit can function as a sapper. In game this means it can use sap points constructed during sieges to bring down walls from a safe distance by undermining them.

Quote:

---

BTW, what does "Can sap" mean - sounds like a pine tree

---

this means if a unit has the ability to use a sapping device, the tunneling system you can use in sieges, to knock down enemy walls.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

3.Now, I took the advice, and played through half(so far) of MTW battle tutorial and can already tell that I'm going to face a 'rocky road' - or, 'it won't happen overnight' ~;) - even though I was 'victorious' in the battles, it just 'kills' (no pun intended) me to see my little men being slaughtered and all I can do is sit back and watch and wait for the outcome - or am I missing something? I am aware that casualties will happen, but once the units are engaged, there is nothing else I can do, right?? (like push those guys that are just standing in 3rd or fourth row forward or sideways or so...)

---

Yes, when all units are engaged, there is little you can do except bite your fingernails. With very heavy cavalry, it can sometimes be good to pull them out of combat and then charge them back in but this seems to work more in RTW (and esp. BI or RTR) - the AI does it fairly well with knights in MTW, but I did not risk it much (someone once said the most dangerous part of combat is disengaging and I suspect the TW engine captures that element of risk in showing your back to the enemy).

But more broadly your question reminds me of what they said about Napoleon's battles - his enemies were defeated before the battle began. That even applies at a tactical level. The key decisions in TW battles are those that are made before your units engage - deployment, manouvring for position (eg a height), trying to induce the AI to attack, turning their flank etc.

Morale is paramount: if you want to win with little loss, find a way of causing a "chain rout" in the AI - e.g. hammering some units with missile fire and then crushing them in melee before their supports can intervene. The sight of their troops running can sometimes scatter a whole army, especially if you are shooting at them and threatening their flanks. Killing the general in particular works wonders for this.

Of course, it may not apply to the tutorials, but it is rare that all units are engaged. Often the trick to winning a battle with few casualties is to keep some men out of combat and use them to maneouvre to break one or other of the enemy's flanks when all the enemy's troops are engaged. Even lowly archers or skirmishers can have a role here - when they have exhausted their arrows, a rear charge from them with swords drawn (alt-attack) can turn a battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

Now, I took the advice, and played through half(so far) of MTW battle tutorial and can already tell that I'm going to face a 'rocky road' - or, 'it won't happen overnight' ~;) - even though I was 'victorious' in the battles, it just 'kills' (no pun intended) me to see my little men being slaughtered and all I can do is sit back and watch and wait for the outcome - or am I missing something?

---

Yes you are missing something. Use all the units in combination to support each other so if a unit gets into trouble you have other units in position that can come to its assistance. That's why the army formation and the placement of different unit types within that formation is important, and why there was a lot of complaining about the too fast combat resolution in RTW. When combat resolution is too fast there is no time to assist with supporting units. Also, units give each other morale support when they are in close proximity to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

How do you do all this? :embarassed: Specifically 'banners and radar map'?

---

Once you set minimal_ui to true in preferences.txt, you can toggle the radar map on and off with F5. Also, F4 toggles the unit icons on and off, and F6 toggles the command buttons at the top to either scoll up and down as needed, be always on or be always off. In addition, Ctrl-T toggles the gamespeed.

With the radar map off and the camera low you have to search for the enemy, and the maps don't seem flat at all because the rolling hills can hide enamy units. You may have to send out scouting cavalry to find the enemy or you run the risk of having your army flanked. Unfortunately, in RTW there is no fog. In STW, you often had enemies in your face before you realized it due to the fog, rain storms or snow storms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

With the radar map off and the camera low you have to search for the enemy, .....

---

You are kidding me right?...:embarassed:
I had trouble finding the enemy with all this turned on - that's what led to starting this post in the first place...

After doing the campaign map, I guess I got 'cocky' and clicked on 'quick battle', so I found myself with a slew of troops and a big 'Start deployment' on top of the screen, so I click it and a 'Start battle' came up all the while the enemy was nowhere to be seen and as I didn't know any better I clicked on 'start battle' as I was under the assumption that my install was corrupted and I wanted to get out of there - well, when I clicked that button, all of a sudden, there were enemies everywhere :dizzy2: - needless to say, it wasn't pretty - I learned how to run quite well though...~;)


Thanks for everybodys help so far, I promise to keep on trying (mental note: lots more reading to do) - back to the tutorials it is...~:cheers:

I'd suggest starting with STW since I always found the risk-style map of Japan to be more straight forward from a strategic perspective than that of Europe (MTW) especially if you start from the end of the island. Therefore, it may be a better starting point to learn the tactical/maneuver side of the game. The British Isles (MTW) are also less complex for the same reason but then you have to deal with the vikings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-F

I had trouble finding the enemy with all this turned on - that's what led to starting this post in the first place...

---

Ok. Then leave the radar map on until you get better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

M:TW's battle model features rank bonuses, push back and a tweaked morale system. Cavalry depend more on their charge and less on the following melee to win. I didn't think S:TW that much smoother than M:TW, but I agree the battles were more of a challenge and the A.I. could skirmish better. It had too, though, because IMO M:TW's skirmish units are no match for their S:TW equivalents.

---

Yes, I think MTW's battles are probably more - epic, shall we say, because they seem to last a lot longer before one or other side breaks. In Shogun the battles are usually shorter and more intense. It's probably no more than a matter of taste which you prefer.

However, I wouldn't describe the tweaks you refer to as part of the battle engine. They are more to do with the battle logic. The engine is the bit of programming that handles the actual movement and redrawing of the units, and in Shogun, it's much smoother.

Perhaps this is more evident to me because I used to play both games on a less than powerful PC. MTW battles get bogged down really quickly. STW's is much smoother, faster and more responsive by comparison. It's like the difference between a program written in C and one written in Assembler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

S:TW was more of a challenge in the initial stages of the campaign, but once you had half of Japan you could steamroller the rest. This is less present in M:TW, especially if you install MedMod.

---

Yeah, it's true that STW is a lot easier by comparison. I had fun for ages when I first got it though. I can steamroll my way through an STW campaign now.