What made M:TW superior to R:TW?

I see a lot of people in this sub forum saying that they didn't like R:TW at all and that it was a step backwards from M:TW. I would just like to know what you liked more in M:TW then in R:TW...or what you liked in S:TW that you liked more than the other two. Looking at the series as a whole, I really like the evolution of the strategy map section...sure, R:TW did have a lot more micro-management, thats about the only thing I would like to see reduced a tad, but overall I like the extra work that went into it. In S:TW it felt like an afterthought almost.

I'm just trying to remember what I liked about M:TW, and I cannot come up with much. I much prefer roads/travel times as opposed to the plop armies here method. I love the forts/watch towers options, and how the forts go away if abandoned. I love the intricate city building similar to a Civ series where you can make choices as to what type of city you have. I just can't remember ever playing more than 2 o r 3 campaigns with M:TW...just didn't feel good...

Too many battlefield issues that made multiplayer a mess.

The battlefield AI in MTW is in my, and many others´, opinion superior to the one of RTW. In RTW, the enemy tends to charge your position, no matter whether he´s defending or attacking, and regarles of the terrain. In MTW the AI tries to get onto higher ground at least in the defences. When attacking they´ll come straight up on you as well, however. Slower battles, both movement- and kill rate-wise also make them less hectic and stronger relying on maneuvering and tactic.
On the other hand, the strategic AI of RTW tends to produce better balanced armies, in MTW you can occasionally encounter armies that only consist of arbalests.

I think the new Campaign map system is generally better than in MTW. Unfortunately, the AI isn't good enough to cope with it.

I think most people's problems with RTW are with the battle AI and battle gameplay rather than the campaign.

Well, I really tried to like R:TW, somehow I couldn't. On the other hand I just can't stop playing M:TW, now that I installed it again - it's just too much fun.
I suppose my main gripe with R:TW are the historical inaccuracies. The pharaonic egyptians, the three roman factions, german phalanxes, british battle chariots, and all the other fantasy units. While M:TW is far from representing medieval times correct it is much closer to a simulation, R:TW always felt too gamey to me, I'm a history nerd. Of course R:TW has many areas where it is superior, especially the graphics and battle speeches, but it misses something that creates the enjoyment for me. Of course that does not mean that I hate R:TW or don't want others to enjoy it.
There were other things I disliked: the (imho relative to M:TW) weak battle AI, the rebel hunting, the movement of lot's of small armies and reinforcements, there is much more micromanagement involved, playing large empires got tedious. The huge, epic battles of M:TW are rare in R:TW. Thus RTR and BI didn't really catch me either.

I'm curious if it will be like that with M2:TW too, it does look gorgeous, but the visual alone wears off fast for me... Of course I will give it a try.
Cheers,
h


Edit: I just read the CA bashing and part of the 'whining' thread, I haven't been around for some time.
So please don't understand this post as bashing or whining, it's not meant that way. I just tried to explain (also to myself) why I prefer M:TW. I have no gripe with CA, I enjoy M:TW too much for that.

Personally, I had aso much more fun playing MTW it wasn't even close. I lived on that game, where I forced myself to like RTW. For starters, in MTW the battle AI seemed a bit better to me, and the campaign AI seemed way better. The new campaign map for rome, while superior, didn't have the AI backing to make it a challenge. The risk style map of MTW was a lot easier for the AI, so it was a lot more of a challenge. I also love the medieval period.

Rome had vastly superior graphics, and some nice options such as choosing your heirs (although that may have been because of the era), pre battle speeches were nice too. Somthings I am dumbfounded why they left out like governors titles, dread ratings, killing prisoners and probably more that I forgot.

In all technicality RTW is a better game overall, but MTW was a lot more challenging and a lot more fun. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

I just started playing RTW for the first time yesterday. Didn't do too well in the Prologue (I was spread out too far with too few troops and I had two huge enemy armies attacking (one in the north, one in the south)). Currently playing the regular campaign as the Julii. Doing better, but I'm running into a wall in the North called the Brittons, and in the west the Spanish and Gauls. It did take me a little while to get comfortable with the campaign map. There are some things I like about it, some things I miss, but nothing that really bothers me.

I like how the terrain plays a factor. There are only so many ways to get to a particular location, and that you can have a good defense setup at the choke points to protect your homelands. Of course with that comes travel times. I miss the ability to drag units from one province and move them half way across the map. Reinforcements can quite a while to get up to the front. Fortunately upgrading your roads can help speed things up. Then come training units and teching up. So much relies on your population level to get to the higher level buildings. Of course, with higher population comes greater squalor.

There is definately increased micromanagement. I like the idea of RTW's rally points. Where new units will then move to a location. It got tiresome in MTW when you have 30 provinces pumping out units to have to manually drag and drop them from one side of the map to the other. Ships work better. Now instead of a single ship blockading your entire chain of ships, the enemy has to send ships to your ports to setup a blockade. In MTW it always felt that you were always disadvantaged by the sea zones than the AI. Of course, ship combat is entirely random, though helped by having superior numbers, or better captains.

I don't particularly like how when you want to queue a building or a unit up, that you have to pay for it upfront, even if it won't be built for years. I would like for it to be easier to queue up multiple units in an integrated interface. For instance if I want to train a unit each of Hastati in each of the cities that I can train them in, a couple clicks should be all it takes to queue them up. It could be as simple as selecting a unit, select a number, and the game will queue them up in as many provinces as you need to. If you have say six provinces that can train Hastati, and you only have the money for 4, you can have the game prioritize where they get trained to say your frontier provinces first. In addition, you should have the ability to prioritize a province for particular units, so if I want Patavium to prioritize Hastati training, then when I queue up Hastati, it will fill up the provinces I've selected first, then other provinces afterwards. Just some ideas.

Another thing I found bothersome is that when you have a scroll open and you have to scroll down through a list, the scroll wheel on my mouse doesn't work. This means that I have to click on the up and down buttons on the window. The scroll window zooms in and out of the campaign map (not something I want or need to do when the entire screen is filled with building and unit description windows ;)

I don't much care for the real time battles. I usually autocalc, unless a particular battle may appear to be close, and I've had far too many where I'll have the number advantage, but just lose too many troops. of course, quality of troops makes a difference, but I've had heavy losses on battles that I might have actually won. That leads me to one thing I have noticed. Cavalry seem to just dominate when it comes to the real time battles. They are fast, and unless they are severely outnumbered by troops that can defend against them, can do quite alot of damage. With that said, I had a couple embarrasing battles at the beginning of my Julii campaign where I charged my faction leaders unit into what I thought would be a soft target, but in the intial charge or shortly thereafter my faction leader got himself killed. That was my very first battle... then two years later in my second battle Faction Leader #2 did the same thing. In any event, my faction leader stays back until after the battle has commenced and I can maneuver him into a better position.

So, for my opinion, I like both games. Unfortunately I have to do alot of reading to figure out the game, whereas I've had MTW for about a year or so.

dit u ply alexsander

Battlefield:

-slower, more tactical combat
-more (varied) units for every faction (not just limited to hoplites as infantry for instance)
-bigger maps (that's the way it feels anyway)
-more height effects
-more balanced units (no real super units, besides the jedi generals)
-AI could handle the battles better

Campaign:

-map easier to manage
-risk style map leading to BIG clashes instead of small brawls
-Buildings more focused on war, not all those 'city management' buildings
-AI could handle the risk map better


Other:

I just prefer the medieval period to the Roman one.

i rarely ever played the battles in either M:TW or R:TW, it was the Campaign I was interested in (except multiplayer).

the campaign in M:TW was fabulous, I still play it now four years later.

the campaign in R:TW was dull and tedious, i gave my copy away a month after buying it.

somehow CA got it very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate

i rarely ever played the battles in either M:TW or R:TW, it was the Campaign I was interested in (except multiplayer).

the campaign in M:TW was fabulous, I still play it now four years later.

the campaign in R:TW was dull and tedious, i gave my copy away a month after buying it.

somehow CA got it very wrong.

---

Like myself, you may not have given the RTW campaign a chance. I must admit that when I first started playing RTW I saw the campaign map and was reaching for the sick bag. I hated it. I tried to get into it time and time again and failed. Eventually I sold off my RTW.

Now I intend to give it another go and try out some of the great mods that are out there. I also want to have a go at BI.

The problem with the risk provincial map model is that it was so very limited. The RTW map may not have been the answer to the question, but it does mark at least some improvement. Hopefully the M2TW map can build on this and produce a better campaign game. The main problem I had with the RTW map was it's confusing layout and ugly RTS style graphics complete with animated slow walking giants. It just gave me a headache to look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Battlefield:

-slower, more tactical combat
-more (varied) units for every faction (not just limited to hoplites as infantry for instance)
-bigger maps (that's the way it feels anyway)
-more height effects
-more balanced units (no real super units, besides the jedi generals)
-AI could handle the battles better

Campaign:

-map easier to manage
-risk style map leading to BIG clashes instead of small brawls
-Buildings more focused on war, not all those 'city management' buildings
-AI could handle the risk map better


Other:

I just prefer the medieval period to the Roman one.

---

I can't argue with any of that. I can quibble that the "feel" of a bigger tactical map is because units don't race across it so quickly.

Tactically, M:TW was much better but the relatively slow pace of the battles must have been frustrating to many players.

On the campaign map, the potential of a much better game is there. It just hasn't been realized yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Tactically, M:TW was much better but the relatively slow pace of the battles must have been frustrating to many players.

---

There was always the slider bar to fix that though (at least in SP). Implementing realistic speeds, but giving the option of a slider bar would have made everyone so much happier in RTW.

The gameplay was just better in MTW. The AI was better on the combat map, and the risk-style campaign map made it easier for the AI to cope. The RTW campaign map is a nice idea, but gives the AI too many options and the gameplay breaks down into lots of annoying skirmishes. The sequential turn mechanism allowed the player to exploit the AI weakness on the campaign map, this was not possible with MTW's move-at-once scheme (aside from a save/reload "cheat"). Empire management was slow and tedious (a better GUI would have helped here).

Rome just had a half-finished feel to it. There were lots of bugs and inconsistencies in the release version, and it just felt like another 6 months development would have created a much better game. I have higher hopes for M2TW, since this isn't a from-scratch effort.

I really disliked RTW from the first time i played it. I prefered the old STW and MTW control interface in battles and the game 'felt' more realistic - RTW felt more like an arcade game. I couln't get into the game at all and simply quit playing after only days.

However, the last few weeks ive started playing RTW in anticipation of MTW2 and found that I love it. Once I got used to the differences I realised what a quality title it was.

MTW felt more balanced than rome in that the Catholic factions were, to some extent, fairly equally matched and no one faction looked overpowered. In RTW I just feel that its too easy to win battles as the Romans and the challenge of beating a Roman army with a band of barbarians is the games best feature for me. But thats just the point, its Rome: Total War and i want the game to be more challenging when playing Rome. Even on harder difficulty sections not much will stand up to a Roman legion and after the reforms they are unbeatable. If the ai was better at teching up and building advanced units (especially on the huge unit sizes where population is at a premiuim early on) then the game would be more challenging as there are Rome beating units out there like the heavily armoured war elephants and sacred band of carthage, its just ive never seen the ai build them.
I suppose you could argue that MTW suffered from this but in the early game no unit dominated like Roman legions do.

Now I feel that RTW is a worthy addition to the total war series but, for me, the best in the serious was STW. It had more atmosphere than MTW and RTW put together in the way it drew you into the samurai culture. I found myself reading up on Japanese history just because I played Shogun. STW was also beatifully simplistic with its rock, paper, scissors mechanics. Other than WM there were not any really unbalanced units and even then the WM were incredibly vulnerable to the much more accurate archers that featured in the game. While the newer titles brought many improvements and greater variety of units this made it lose the beauty of outfoxing a bigger ai army composed of identical troop types of your own.

For me Shogun was one of the greatest games I ever played and the first online game I played. After the MI expansion pack killed the mulyiplayer game by splitting the foyer I lost interest in multiplayer and have not really played the others much in multi due to issues similar to those in Shogun.
If CA want a masterpiece then they must improve multiplayer and immerse the player in the medieval world in the way shogun did (and to a smaller extent rome) while paying attention to unit balancing particularly in the early game.

rome total war should be nicknamed siege total war.

sieges in rome total war become boring rather fast. once you figure out the layout of the towns they are all the same. once you figure a basic pattern they aren't dangerous like assaulting medieval total war castles.

in rome assaulting stone wall cities:
1- build 2 siege towers for the assault
2- in the setup pick a wall tower object of your assault one or two towers from the gate, clockwise from the objective gate. this is so if they have archers up on the gate they aren't hitting the siege towers and the 2 units pushing the siege towers
3- let the siege towers attack either side of the object wall tower
4- run the two units back counterclockwise on the wall to kill any units near the gate
5- with the gate secure run one of the units on the wall counterclockwise around the wall top about 1/4 the city circuit to capture all towers that can shoot up the main army.
6- march the rest of the army thru the gate and march counterclockwise 1/4 or so the circuit of the city to the street going to the city center and then take the city center

boring........

once you learn how to win sieges you have mastered 3/4 of the game as field battles are rarely big and decisive.

in medieval total war most of my battles are field battles and are often decisive.

5. should have been the opposite clock direction, sorry, as a junior member i can't edit my posts.

I don't have MTW so RTW was my first go with the series. however, I don't get how ppl compare them. there is sooo much difference between the 2. never mind the fact that there's over a millennia in warfare advances, tactics and weaponry between RTW and MTW.
why the battles in RTW feel faster paced? IMO that is because you don't have full body armor units with huge shields. instead, low morale hunters/farmers without proper trainin' or weapons made up most of so called barbarian armies in the days.. whenever ya encounter more "elite" troops that present some challenge and can match yours the battles suddenly don't feel hectic anymore.
RTW AI will try to take advantage of the terrain such as high ground everytime it's at disadvantage. but only at the beginnin' of the battle. it won't maneuver its army to a higher ground after the battle commence. why? because it's a waste of time/strenth and it makes 'em exposed/vulnerable to the bulk of light/fast troops in RTW.

if that's not enough. I can explain how suicide generals make perfect sense...
in RTW era it wasn't uncommon to see the general unit engage first. Alexander the Great comes to mind.... his cavalry unit was always first to engage the enemy army. but it was a poison(disease?) that killed 'im not the suicide general tactics... :skull:

my advice to your RTW haters is to get a fresh from scratch install of RTW updated to v.1.5 and try to play a few small campaigns on med/med and higher settings. then come back and see if half of the points you complained 'bout still hold true.

Better still, run it with the BI exe, it seems to make a difference, and I'm finding Gaul less of a walkover... (still pretty easy, but not nearly as much so as it was)

Quote:

---

What made M: TW superior to R: TW?

---

The atmosphere.

the online community... stw and mtw had a much more fun online community imho. rtw brought the munchkins out in droves, and forced the older, more respectful players to the sidelines.

the majic was lost for me the first time i logged into the lobby and couldn't talk in private, and couldn't tell what the hell was going on...

luckily there is still an old guard presence in the mtw foyer. i don't expect them to carry over to mtw2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t1master

the online community... stw and mtw had a much more fun online community imho. rtw brought the munchkins out in droves, and forced the older, more respectful players to the sidelines.

the majic was lost for me the first time i logged into the lobby and couldn't talk in private, and couldn't tell what the hell was going on...

luckily there is still an old guard presence in the mtw foyer. i don't expect them to carry over to mtw2

---

MTW provided better topics to discuss and more in-depth tactics to ponder. The players didn't change, the subject did.

For instance, one MTW thread that went on for more than 100 replies, all on the proper use of javelins. Roman infantry unit in RTW has javelins but, by the time you line up a proper shoot, the battle's over.

Again, though, I think RTW's strategy map shows great potential. If the battlefields are bigger in MTWII, I'm encouraged about tactics, too.

I echo Hermano and Yoko Kono in regards to their comments about the TW games' atmospheres. Now of course neither Medieval or even Shogun were perfect, but they both still provided a wonderful level of immersion that Rome simply does not have.

It's not any one thing, either--it was a combination of factors. Rome's anemic AI is at the heart of a number of problems I have with the game, but it's not the only feature that was lacking. The 3D map is overly bright, almost garishly colorful, and has overly-exaggerated physical features (especially mountains). All these things give the map a rather cartoonish look.

The voice acting--particularly during battles--was mostly poor. Unit speed was way too fast, and is part of the reason why battles rarely lasted more than 5-10 minutes. Battles are generally too short, and there's no "realism" mode you can enable to fix this. Units are more unbalanced than ever before (overpowered cavalry, archers, etc.), and so are the factions (Romans and Egyptians overpower everything;, yet Greece and Carthage are far weaker than they should be). Yes I realize the Romans should be somewhat stronger than the other factions, but they were still overdone.

Rome has an over-abundance of fantasy units. (Yes, Shogun and Medieval had them too, but not nearly as many.) The Senate assigns missions that often make little sense--ordering the Julii to blockade Sparta, ordering the Scippii to conquer a Gaulish city, etc. There are too many minor skirmishes with small armies consisting of just a couple units, and not enough decisive battles with larger armies (an AI problem).

Finally, RTW was probably the buggiest release out of all of Total War titles. Not that there's a PC game in existence that hasn't needed some patching after release (and Medieval was definitely no exception!), but Rome felt like the most unfinished out of all the TW games. It seemed like it could've used another 6 months or so of playtesting and hammering out bugs.

All of these things combined together to deliver a playing experience that was less than satisfying. As I've said elsewhere, Shogun and Medieval both had a terrific atmosphere that truly made me feel like I was there in the world. Rome, however, just feels like a "game". Newcomers to Total War might not know what they're missing, though, if Rome is all they've ever played. If that's so, I both pity and envy them. I played Rome for about three months before I finally gave up on it. I tried very hard to enjoy the game, but in the end I had to admit that it just wasn't fun for me--something had been lost from the first two games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Quote:

---

What made M: TW superior to R: TW?

---

The atmosphere.

---

Where I'm verbose, you are succinct, my friend. :bow:

Such an easy answer: MTW was an intellectual and cute girl with glasses, RTW was a hot gorgeous blonde bomb who thinks New York is the capital of London. You can spend a lifetime with the first girl, but you wouldn't like to remember the name of the second one after you had a hot night with her.

MTW had soul, RTW had flesh. And in the video game industry, soul matters. And I'm sure that CA knows what to do in MTW 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Such an easy answer: MTW was an intellectual and cute girl with glasses, RTW was a hot gorgeous blonde bomb who thinks New York is the capital of London. You can spend a lifetime with the first girl, but you wouldn't like to remember the name of the second one after you had a hot night with her.

---

What's funny LEN, is that's almost word-for-word how I describe those two games to my friends. Reading your post really gave me a sense of de'ja vu. :laugh4:

I actually like the old style Risk map compared to that of RTW, it just seemed easier. Yes, the AI did handle the MTW campaign map better that RTW's, and it also delt with battles better too. Moving to higher terrain when defending, flanking with cavalry when attacking etc, all made the game that bit harder. I only play RTW when I want some eye candy, what keeps me playing MTW is the unbeatable gameplay. Hopefully, MTW2 will live up to its name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Such an easy answer: MTW was an intellectual and cute girl with glasses, RTW was a hot gorgeous blonde bomb who thinks New York is the capital of London. You can spend a lifetime with the first girl, but you wouldn't like to remember the name of the second one after you had a hot night with her.

.

---

Best analogy of the month award goes to LEN :2thumbsup: , hope that cheeres you up a bit after Fenerbahce's failure to get into the CL.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Such an easy answer: MTW was an intellectual and cute girl with glasses, RTW was a hot gorgeous blonde bomb who thinks New York is the capital of London. You can spend a lifetime with the first girl, but you wouldn't like to remember the name of the second one after you had a hot night with her.

---

:furious3: I am suing LEN for breach of copyright[1]:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

To make an analogy between the Total War games and potential romantic partners, I would offer the following:

STW is like some kooky person you meet, hits you right out of left field with their zest, idiosyncracies and character. Funny, innovative, stylish and wonderfully unique. Ultimately, you may find their mannerisms become repetitive and their limitations start to grate, but you will always remember them with affection.

MTW is like the rather plain person you sit down next to and unexpectedly find yourself talking to well into the early hours. Outwardly rather bland and characterless, inwardly deep, engrossing and compelling. This is the one you could settle down with and probably should.

RTW is the absurdly good-looking one who turns everyone's heads and knows it. Smooth, urbane and graceful, this one can effortlessly dazzle and charm. However, for some strange reason, things might feel a little too easy and when away from them, in the quiet of the night, you wonder if they are just a little too shallow.

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=32

[1]Only kidding. :2thumbsup:

Thanks. However I wish it could change the fact that that I'll be double-clicking the MTW icon on my desktop in minutes, while, although there is an amazing and outstanding mod named Blue Lotus out there, RTW is reserved on CDs. :no:

Martok, it seems you are not the only one having a dejavu. Watch the post above how dear econ21 cries out for my copyright infringements. :tongue: :laugh4:

Dutch Guy, you know what? I won't be watching Fenerbahçe 's domestic matches this season, even ones against Galatasaray. Because I'm sick of supporting a team that double-folds the teams in his "mother's league" (that's how we call it) but is a well-soaked kitty when it is an international competition. :furious3: Before this thread turns into a footy one, I should stop because next analogy for Fenerbahçe will be rather tasteless. :wall:

I've been playing RTW for about a year now, and i've played some XGM and EB mods. Recently I went back to playing MTW as a result of the discusions in the .org.


In my opion:
Campain Map:
RTW campain is better than MTW
--1- The map has better graphics,
--2-Its more realisticit in terms of using Geography to your advantage.
(u can place forts or units along choke points or manuver to the top of a hill so that once the battel starts you start on the High slope) (An army can only advace a few steps instead of being able to jump 1/2 way accross the entire map in a single move) (Its is more micromanaging involved, than in MTW's, but I like it)
--3-Ships, interms of transporting troops and blocking ports.

Battle Map:
MTW's AI is better at tactical battle than RTW's AI.
--1- In MTW AI will position itself in better ground, and will RARELY initiate the engagement if you your troops in better ground with the flanks covered.
--2- In RTW units move too fast and kill too fast. To win most battles just make sure you have better troops and the enemy army will rout in 2 mins withough flanking.
--3- Poor use of skermishers and archers.

I also had MAJOR beef's with RTW due to Historical unaccuracies, but I don't know that much History during medieval perdiods so I won't compare it. Also a MAJOR beef I have with RTW is the AI's use of Phalanx (just form a solid line), but in MTW there were no Phalanx units so I won't compare it.

Oh and for the record. I like the RTW time period better than MTW.

Ave to Ancient History. :2thumbsup:

MTW made me feel like I was in medieval times. Rome did not have the immershun factor like MTW did. There are to many reesons to create immershun to list.

The battles, although the control is better in RTW (no longer accidentaly ordering a unit to move when what you tried to do was select another unit) MTW battles did often be slightly more interesting and difficult (though at one battle I had the ai over and over again retreated so when the battle started the enemy army was so disheartened by the constant retreating that they broke almost immediately).

Campaign-wise the MTW campaign I find boring, no diplomacy to speak of. RTW doesn't have any diplomacy to speak of either, but the map as is better, as well as actual gameplay in the campaign.

With regards to immersion, only STW have really had it. MTW might have had it hadn't it been for the poor map (Denmark doesn't have Skåne, the overly large Lithuania province and so on and so forth) and some other things such as greatly incorrect religions for some provinces (Lithaunia Christian, Kiev Pagan to make an example) as well as no real diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

MTW made me feel like I was in medieval times. Rome did not have the immersion factor like MTW did.

---

immersion indeed. M:TW was compelling, somehow R:TW was not.

It's just that, when all my troops are engaged, I want to zoom in on the action. But to really enjoy it, you need to zoom up close, whereas you didn't have that with MTW. And if you zoom up close, not only do you lose the overview but it's all over so quickly as well. Enjoying (for more than 1 minute!) while maintaining the overview is what made MTW superior to RTW on the battlemap. Just from a gamplay point of view, never mind the AI. Though Rome provides more different beautiful models per army per faction, the game effect of those troops can be simply classified as cav & non-cav. The subtleties that are there just don't seem to show up (due to bonuses being too small in the combat engine, morale being too low, etc.).

On the campaign map, MTW was superior to RTW due to the speed with which you could play. Simply drag and drop --> decisive battle. If the battle was not decisive, the AI usually retreated.


Rome is rich in content, like flesh, but lacking in AI, tweaking, and other quality time that should have been spent with it on a rainy sunday morning by programmers who make the game out of love. Not to impress, not to get those 100 new ideas in, but simply to play her.

They didn't need Quality Control and god what have you else for managers, marketeers and other ****. Video games were not designed like that for ages, and the only reason they're changing this is the money in the (now serious) industry.

Due to this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

MTW had soul, RTW had flesh. And in the video game industry, soul matters. And I'm sure that CA knows what to do in MTW 2.

---

too true. A lot of new ideas were implemented, but their actual effects on gameplay have not been thought through enough, much like breast implants.

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

Multiplayer:

There is no era selection in rome or did they fixed the problem in a patch? I love the early, high and late era in MTW 1. That makes the battles more different. I love the number of and size of the MTW 1 maps. I hate the rome maps. The performance of MTW 1 is great. 4vs4 with huge units is theoretical no problem. You can see the exhaustion fast. The cav movement is much better in MTW 1 than in Rome. Only the anti cav units are too weak in MTW 1. They are very difficult to use. But all other is nearly perfect concerning the battles on the battlefield.

There are many other points, but these are definite killed the game fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

---

You know, I never quite figured out why they didn't add that feature in Rome.

:balloon2:

I've been thinking about this question for a while and I think my opinion can be summed up this way.

The battles in MTW were not much more challenging than those in RTW (for different reasons) but they were generally much less annoying. If I wanted to play an RTS I'd play RoN or AoE or whatever Warcraft is around now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I just remembered one other area in which MTW is superior to Rome: Saved battle replays!

---

Yes. That is true.

I had a hard drive crash on my old computer. There were some battles in M:TW that were so good, I wish I'd burned them onto a CD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

You know, I never quite figured out why they didn't add that feature in Rome.

---

That makes at least two of us. I vaguely recall someone from CA talking about how they'd had difficulties trying to get them to work for Rome, but it still seems inexplicible that they were left out. I've saved a number of MTW battles over the years, and find it to be an attractive feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

There were some battles in M:TW that were so good, I wish I'd burned them onto a CD.

---

Yeah, I wish I'd remembered to do the same before I installed XP on my PC last year. [sigh] Oh well, c'est la vie....

In general, MTW was a simpler game and the AI was better able to play it. RTW introduced LOTS more complexities andthe AI didn't improve anywhere near as much, which is why it played so much worse than MTW.

MTW had better battlefields, with more varied and interesting terrain, especially in the distribution of hills. RTW's battlefields are extremely bland and rarely had more than 1 significant terrain feature.

MTW had far less micro-management, especially regarding the happiness of the provinces. I bought the game to build big armies and fight battles, not babysit whiney citizens.

MTW had less-realistic but also less-demanding naval system. I don't care about naval warfare, so again, this was a plus for me.

MTW had a better battlefield interface. You had more control over your units and the battle in MTW than in RTW.

MTW's system of granting titles was WAY better than RTW's system of general/governors. You could train units and appoint the best governors to be governors all the time. This freed up your family units to command your armies.

MTW's map was simpler. You were either in a zone and could affect everything in it, or you weren't in that zone. This meant far less micromanagement of spies, assassins, etc. as well as significantly reducing the need for the AI to make tough pathing decisions.

MTW's units were usually tougher in defense, or weaker in offense. Either way, MTW's units stuck around a while longer than those in RTW. RTW's units also broke too easily and moved too fast. Infantry sprinted as fast as cavalry, which is rediculous.

In MTW, you didn't pay for a queued unit or structure until it was actually being built.

MTW's generals had fewer V&Vs, which means that each V or V meant more. RTW had too many, which reduced the relative importance of them.

MTW's generals were immortal, so you were able to reap the benefits of training a unit up throughout the game. RTW generals (and their auxilliaries?) died.

MTW has Glorious Achievements.

MTW had battlefield penalties for being surrounded and for being packed too tightly. Friendly fire wasn't nearly as big a problem in MTW. Height gave an advantage to range (and maybe damage) for missile troops. The unit cards provided more useful information in a clearer way.

There's so much, but it can really be summed up in two points:
a) MTW was simpler, so the AI generally put up a better fight, and
b) MTW was simpler, so there was less micromanagement.

Off the top of my head:

MTW's Egyptians weren't completely anachronistic.

Battlemap AI.

Stratmap AI.

'Crushed together' combat penalties.

MTW's campaign map was notably more different and exciting each time than Rome's, ie the AIs were generally more coherently aggressive towards one another (Danes excepted).

MTW had eras.

MTW actually allowed for hammer-and-anvil tactics. BI made strides in the right direction, but MTW was better.

MTW had weather (apparently not invented until just before the Vikings invaded Britain).

MTW had faction re-emergences and factions waiting in the wings to emerge (BI, again, made moves in the right direction, but MTW was better).

In MTW, agents felt useful (I brought several neighbouring Catholic factions crashing down many times with the use of assassins and inquisitors - factions I wouldn't have been able to strike at directly, thanks to the Pope).

MTW was more immersive!

MTW didn't have hints and tips coming from irritating voice-actors (especially Victoria! Ugh! Australian also seemed an odd choice of accent to me.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midnight

MTW didn't have hints and tips coming from irritating voice-actors (especially Victoria! Ugh! Australian also seemed an odd choice of accent to me.).

---

Hey, she still didn't bug me as nearly much as Roman Centurions being voiced by American Marines. ~:rolleyes:

Another way in which I feel MTW is superior is the provinces' information scrolls. It told you at a glance everything you needed to know about a province: Its happiness/loyalty rating, what percentage of the population was which religion, any trade goods it possessed, any special resources it had (gold, iron, salt, etc.), and any bonuses it bestowed upon units/agents that were trained there. In Rome, I had to hunt for information on my provinces/cities, and rarely was it all located in one convenient spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Hey, she still didn't bug me as nearly much as Roman Centurions being voiced by American Marines. ~:rolleyes:

Another way in which I feel MTW is superior is the provinces' information scrolls. It told you at a glance everything you needed to know about a province: Its happiness/loyalty rating, what percentage of the population was which religion, any trade goods it possessed, any special resources it had (gold, iron, salt, etc.), and any bonuses it bestowed upon units/agents that were trained there. In Rome, I had to hunt for information on my provinces/cities, and rarely was it all located in one convenient spot.

---

thats an excellent point and one that i couldnt put my finger on til just now

i loved how easy it was in MTW to scroll through your cities to check loyalties, and also the way you could hold down certain keys (control-v or summit) to see where you had trade routes and loyalty ratings by province color

I liked the feel of control you had over your general with the granting or removing of titles. Your could groom a general with a couple of battles, then reward him with a governor title. A few more and grant him special position title. Really reward him by marrying your princess (that is about to go to the nunnery anyway) and bind him to your family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Godfrey

I liked the feel of control you had over your general with the granting or removing of titles. Your could groom a general with a couple of battles, then reward him with a governor title. A few more and grant him special position title. Really reward him by marrying your princess (that is about to go to the nunnery anyway) and bind him to your family.

---

Thanks Lord Godfrey; I meant to mention that in my last post as well. :bow:

Im new but im going to post anyway...

Rome has a personal touch, with what you just said about the generals, governors and adoptions...medieval didnt, but medieval had great variety in its battles...i played it at uni on a home network with friends for two years and we never got bored... However those great battles for me were lacking that personal touch...i had to use a lot of imagination.....which strangely is something i have a lot of......hmm....

anyway, you can imagine the dissapoitment when i found rome's battles to be a little samey...whatever the scenario....so for me the best is still shogun...although not perfect it got close....as close as it needs to before the arrival of medi2

ah its been so long since I've even thought about this game.
Rome had so much expectations and then ....
well its a bit bloody stupid isn't it.
I even eventually got given BI and its only been played twice.

Some good summaries given,
but basically MTW was playable and had memorable battles but was played to death and RTW didn't give a new challenge.

- Tactical & Strategic AI - Medieval is a much more challenging game than Rome because of its AI.

Provided you didn't straddle your army against the back map edge MTW's tactical AI could be a huge headache as its medium & heavy cavalry would consistently maneuver to hit you in your flanks and rear. It would also better manage its missile troops and its overall army cohesion was superior.

Strategically speaking because of stronger AI a single MTW campaign produces far more nail biting situations than all the RTW campaigns I've played put together. When modded the disparity between the two games only gets worse. Once the AI build routines are modded in MTW so as to give the AI more realistic armies (i.e. the elimination of Peasants in anything but rebellions & uprisings) the nail biting factor increases dramatically. Regarding RTW only Darth's formations mod seems to help RTW's tactical AI but it still cannot address its core weaknesses and does nothing to improve the strategic AI.

Sure, MTW's AI was prone to some incredibly boneheaded moves on and off the battlefield but on the whole it did more things right than RTW's AI which seemed to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity.

- Glorious Achievements Campaign - Many people were royally ticked when this did not appear in RTW and for good reason; the GA campaign game gives both the player and the AI the means to achieve victory without relying exclusively on the accumulation of new territories.

- Re-emerging factions - Ok, sometimes the how and where these factions re-emerged in MTW defied all logic (I once saw the French re-emerge on the shores of the Black Sea :inquisitive: ) but these events were fun and didn't feel unrealistic or 'gamey'.

- Battle Speeds - MTW's battles 'felt' more realistic than RTW's which saw units running, galloping and killing at superhuman speeds.

- Less suicidal generals - MTW also suffered from the banzai alpha male cavalry charge but when patched it was not nearly as bad as in RTW.

- Execution and Ransoming of POWs. Nice way to grab some cash and also keep a faction you might have some use for later on as a buffer state or whatnot.

- Weather effects on the battlefield (nothing like seeing a massive enemy army emerge from the fog... so cool)

- More attractive battlefields - Although I hated the fact that MTW had a finite number of battlefields they did look more realistic than RTW's which have a tendency to look really bland.

- Skirmisher units - MTW's skirmisher units were far more effective thanks to their ability to fire and retreat in less time than their RTW counterparts. RTW's skirmisher units are a much bigger pain in the ass to manage, especially since they're much more likely to poke holes in the backs of friendly units and commit suicide by engaging in melee instead of running like hell.