What are your least favorite TW games.(multi choice)
Printable View
What are your least favorite TW games.(multi choice)
Easy answer for me: the Alexander expansion
as a friend put it "the greatest general in history and they've turned it into a rush game"; very true..
Noir
Shogun, Mongol Invasion and Alexander.
Shogun and MI: I came in after RTW, so it was difficult to enjoy the board style, etc. At least MTW was in an interesting era, IMO.
Alexander: see Noir's post.
I put MI and BI: Mongol Invasion because I thought the Mongol campaign was boring and BI because I don't like the period, I like the rome period and I like the Medieval period but not in between.
I haven't played alexander but from what people tell me, I don't think I would like it.
Well, I haven't played them all, so I'm a bit selective anyway, but I have to say "Rome" - I started in MTW, went "back" to STW - although a bit more 'primitive' than MTW, it still has great atmosphere and playability. After buying a new computer specifically capable of running RTW, I tried that and ended up disappointed. I also got BI which was a minor improvement. After that I didn't bother with Alexander (after seeing some feedback from those who had) or M2TW. Due to my graphics card I need different drivers installed to play STW/MTW and RTW, so I'm afraid I rolled back to the old ones for MTW use. I will be revisiting RTW though, but only to install Europa Barbarorum :2thumbsup:
I'll have to say Rome: Total War - I can't really cast an opinion upon M2:TW, Kingdoms or Alexander. Sorry.
I entered the series like Warmaster Horus, purchasing Rome in March last year. I found it a very interesting experience, although, compared to some other games I had played, I felt that it lacked depth and immersion. Europa Barbarorum cured some of this for me, although eventually I played that to exhaustion.
Then, I bought Medieval: Total War in January. I was rather shocked at how different it was to Rome at first - I was just expecting a less technologically advanced version of the game which brought me in. The playability and re-playability of the game was perfect, and, in addition the many options and features added a new dimension to the experience. The only downside for me was the clumpier controls - being used to RTS games, left clicking to instruct my troops to move felt rather awkward.
After the fun I had with Medieval, I decided to buy Shogun in March. It wasn't quite as entertaining, but I enjoyed the era and the quality of the atmosphere all the same.
After purchasing two new PCs, both seemingly incapable of playing either of the older games, I turned back to Rome and soon realised that it was poor quality compared to the two classics. The battles now seemed to be lightning fast, not providing enough time to manoeuvre my armies and perform any decent tactics. The balancing also felt atrocious and the campaign map lacked any unique or interesting details.
Hey Macsen, is there anywhere I could find out more about your mod?
Hi Xehh - the best place is the "forum thread" link in my sig - it's not very organised though, I'm afraid, it's what's happened throughout development. One day I'll have to sit down and write a proper description/guide etc, but as for now I'm currently working on an expansion campaign for it, so that is taking all my time.
@Omanes - quite agree about the tactical depth to RTW battles - I see the typical pattern of ten minutes marching, 5 seconds of melee, then 10mins of running away or chasing routers. I am looking forward to EB, though, sounds like they've done a lot to improve matters :2thumbsup:
can't stand RTW,and Alexander expasion. BI made it easier to play. STW/MI/MTW/VI are the best, though I prefer STW/MI first.
Where's "GAH!!!", this poll really needs a Gah! option.
There all good in their own ways, they're diverse and all have their merits. So I refuse to vote and dishonour any of the hard work of CA.
:bow:
Rome got such a bad rap at release that I refused to buy it and stopped following the game completely; I didn't come back until MTWII came out... Which also got a terrible reputation in the community, but I stuck with following the forums it until the patches fixed the most egregious problems and I now find it very enjoyable.
Shogun has the blush of first love or something, I recall it fondly. MTW I played extensively, but only after VI came out. The VI campaign was, IMHO, the most interesting of them all so far.
:egypt:
First game i have played was MTW. It was the best game i have ever played until then. After that i bought Shogun and i was also impressed, although i didn't like it as much as MTW(because of the time period and the fact that in Shogun you were limited to only one nation-but let's remember that it was the first game of the series). Then i bought the VI expansion for MTW and was again in the 7'th heaven::2thumbsup:. Great game, great atmosphere. When Rome came out, i didn't had a graphic card good enough to let me paly the game, so i bought a new one. I was impressed by the new graphic, and the controls, but i was disappointed by the fact that the battles were so short - in MTW i had battles that ended after more than 4 hours. In RTW, 20 min. tops and it's over. When they released BI i evidently went out and bought that. A bit better than RTW, but i didn't liked the era. When Alexander was out, i thought to myself, this time they surely got it right, right? Wrong! It was the worst expansion of the series. Why do you have to rush things like that? No diplomacy, no nothing. Just a continuous dash to the finish line.
PS: I voted Alexander as the worst expansion of the series. Don't get me wrong. Is not a bad game, just that compared to the others in TW, is the last in my preference list. Compared to other strategy games is very good, but not if you compered it to the others.
RTW/BI/Alex is the same game, so I voted for all three. If the game is bad, expansions rarely fix it. RTW had all the building blocks of a good game but CA seem to have failed to get it all together for the release day. It's a "fun" game for a few of the high speed arcade like battles but is so severely imbalanced that that's about it. It's a very "gamey" game if that makes sense? With STW/MTW it didn't feel like you were playing a game at all, more of a "simulation"/strategy. I haven't bothered with M2TW as I didn't like RTW's campaign map, this pretty much rules me out of all future TWs as well.
Well said. ~:cheers: The first two games (particularly Shogun) have always felt more "real" to me, with great atmosphere and replaybility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
On the other hand, RTW just feels like a game -- it quite simply lacks the depth and immersion of its predecessors. I can't rate Rome's expansions, having never played them. As Caravel pointed out, expansions only rarely fix the original title, so I've never bothered with them.
I've not played Medieval 2 enough to really get a proper feel for it. My impressions thus far is that it's at least marginally better than Rome, but still nowhere near its older brother (MTW). I've not played the game since before the 1.2 patch was released, however, so perhaps it's significantly improved since then.
Regardless, I voted Rome.
I have the same opinion and yet.. try Alexander just once.. you won't be...dissapointedQuote:
Originally posted by Caravel
RTW/BI/Alex is the same game, so I voted for all three. If the game is bad, expansions rarely fix it. RTW had all the building blocks of a good game but CA seem to have failed to get it all together for the release day. It's a "fun" game for a few of the high speed arcade like battles but is so severely imbalanced that that's about it. It's a very "gamey" game if that makes sense? With STW/MTW it didn't feel like you were playing a game at all, more of a "simulation"/strategy.
:laugh4:
I'm surprised at how many people voted Rome...
I think the engine was an improvement, as was the campaign map. Vanilla Rome sort of sucks, but mods like EB and XGM have fixed the fast battles problem.
I did thouroughly enjoy M:TW.
I haven't played much of M2:TW, but, due to it being so buggy and few, if any, full conversion mods, I have to vote for it. Once mods like Medieval Arcturoso and EB2 come out, my answer will likely change to M:TW. I'll always love Rome with EB, but I prefer classical history to medieval.
I never really found the Viking campaign itself to be that interesting. I did appreciate it's additions to the main campaign, however.
for PC, there is no such thing:inquisitive:
Because of the inclusion of SecuROM - Kingdoms pole vaulted to the top of my list. Before that, I didn't have a least favorite.
My vote was perhaps not completely fair as I never played Alexander so didn't consider that one. Of the others my least favorite was Viking Invasion. Loved the patch to MTW, but Viking for some reason left a strong 'yea, whatever' impression on me after a few campaigns. Never was able to get into it.
Alexander campaign was too easy although the historical battles were somewhat decent difficulty. Also, it felt rushed and didn't give any sense of accomplishment when you won it. More like rush across the map.
Never played STW so can't rate it, as I started with MTW.
Of all thus, I would rate RTW:Alexander and M2TW as well as M2TW:Kingdoms as least favorites, mainly due to being bugridden, having no real replay value due to units being recycled across the factions and lack of decent patches/support.
Personally I disliked Barbarian Invasion most. In fact, it even took me a long time to even get past the first few turns, since I just didn't find any of the factions appealing somehow.
A small bit after that is Med 2 for me; I dislike how many units and stuff there is on the campaign map. It's cluttering and I personally don't find that princesses and merchants add that much to the game. Shogun, Medieval 1 and Rome I all played very extensively and all completed at least one long campaign. With Med 2, I always lost interest after some time.
I haven't bought Kingdoms yet, and never played MI (although my little brother did buy it and thought it was too hard... I was playing some other games when that was released).
Alexander sucked.
What Alexander got up to in his free time is not what is being discussed here. The poll was: "Least favorite TW game" :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Terentius Varro
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
:laugh4:
[groans at the uninentional pun] Bad Caravel! Bad! :whip:
I would normally never do this, but you leave me little choice: You've just earned yourself two days of stable duty. ~:rolleyes:
Shogun.
I voted Alexander,it wasa round grahm cracker that happend to run in my drive. Utter crap:shame:
Kek, you surprise me! Why is that one your least favorite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
:inquisitive:Quote:
Shogun: 10
:wall:
:thumbsdown:
Rome! Crap!:balloon2:
I too want to know.
i have all except Alexander, so ill vote RTW
must admit i love Mtw/Vi :thumbsup:
1. No variety. All factions have the exact same troop lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
2. Geishas. Once I figured out how to win using only Geishas, the game no longer became fun.
3. The setting. Feudal Japan isn't my cup of tea.
4. Inferior in all ways to MTW.
5. Was lured in by the screenshots on the back of the box that subtly promised it would be a recreation of the board game of the same name (also called Samurai Swords).
Not necessarily a bad thing. Shogun was balanced, and covered a smaller area and period - this is precisely why it's so good. MTW tried to cover too much at once, all subsequent TW games have made the same error of going for the "world conquest" thing. MTW had too few provinces for such a large area, and some very generic units, many of which were redundant. CA would have done better covering smaller areas such as Iberian Peninsula (Moors and Spanish), Byzantines vs Turks, 100 Years War, Crusades etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
The same could be said for Grand Inquisitor or Jihad spamming in MTW or massed Huscarle bumrushes, or fully upgraded Syrian Assassin spamming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
It wasn't mine either, but to be honest that didn't stop me from enjoying the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I disagree. Shogun was superior in atmosphere and in gameplay balance. The MTW campaign had more bells and whistles, such as generals with real stats, vices and virtues, titles and fleets. The interface was also better designed and easier to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I've never taken much notice of the back of game boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
:bow:
Alexander - A waste of CA`s time and ours.
Feudal Japan was actually the ideal setting for a TW game. A land with lots of provinces divided between many minor warring factions, worked better than any attempt to represent the politics, geographics and warfare of Medieval Europe or the Ancient world on an European scale (basically the engine is better suited to clans, or factions than it is to kingdoms, nations or countries). The whole map showed what was basically a civil war in progress. Instead of opening a campaign and looking at a large map of Europe with a number of factions in predefined positions, you were presented with a map on a smaller territory showing the progress of this war. The aggressiveness of the AI, battle engine and simple diplomacy was much more suited to this kind of scenario than a world scale one.
Even in MTW "factions" were still unwittingly playing the "sengoku jidai" launching daring invasions and breaking alliances at the drop of a hat. The battles far from being large battles deciding the fate of Constantinople or epic crusades were still in reality those same small engagements between rival clans in feudal Japan. The problem still being though, that in a single battle of a few men an entire kingdom, principality, dukedom, etc could be lost in a turn. Acceptable for an STW province but not on a map on the MTW scale.
The STW engine worked for STW but not so much for MTW. It would have worked better had smaller areas been used such as those I had detailed in my previous post. The STW battlefields had that atmosphere and fog, which I expect was removed from MTW temperate or lush battles to give the latter a larger and more general feel (very "camelot"). It may have also been because the fog in STW really brought those battles down to earth somehow. It made them seem like smaller skirmishes by a few men on a frosty morning, not the classic open and epic (some might say mythical) battles of the age of chivalry that MTW tries to represent (and still does so rather well IMHO).
Areas such as the ancient Roman Empire, don't work so well in my opinion as those lend themselves better to a real empire building game - which is what CA tried to make of RTW.
As of now it's Alexander, haven't played much of RTW Anthology, but I'm not too impressed of Alexander, most of the time in that era actually has been playing Europa Barbarorum.
Haven't played Shogun, want to buy it (with the expansion), no shops I've called have it, so might get it online from amazon.co.uk, hope it will work, as I know people have problems getting it to work/properly.
I'm not going to buy Kingdoms (unless the Securom is taken off)
My first TW game was MTW Gold, which includes VI
bought it a few months ago, and I enjoyed it so much, decided to get the M2TW demo, which worked (on low settings), joined this forum to ask if full version would work the same way, and about the 1.2 patch, quickly after I bought it, and a week later, bought RTW Anthology, mainly from being impressed looking at info on the EB mod.
:laugh4: :laugh4: Curse is, I voted Rome as worthless game! lol, I was thinking WTH alexander doing as best tw game:grin: , now I'd like to vote alex of course.:smug2:
Yes Rome isn't superb too, but only in vanilla, and time setting is perfect.
Voted Kingdoms, because of the Securom deal and the sickening CPU requirements.
Rome and its expansions just need some community polish in the AI department. And they most likely have already got this, with all these mods here - I haven't had the chance to test them yet, I haven't had the games for long. And there's quite a lot of atmosphere in those games.
Shogun is challenging, quite atmospheric and fun, but once I realised that I'd have to fight pretty much the same opponents over and over and over again, it quickly became the least played game of the STW/MTW/RTW series for me. Variety, even somewhat superficial, matters to me.
So Medieval 1 is probably my favourite ATM. Though I really dislike the 'one move - one province' feature of this game and Shogun, feels like I'm in my living room trying to conquer my kitchen. It's a pity it's not really possible to fix this. Fortunately RTW maintains a proper sense of distance.
Its good to see Alexander being at the.. top where it belongs - heh.
STW is predictably being punished by the "MTW and after" & "i can't stand with 10 unit types" crowd - heh - quantity not quality! CA always knew better..
Good old RTW is being dragged in the mud too - heh even if its in the paper it brings a sense of divine justice for all the ecstatic reviews and the gaming industry in general.
Well done orgahs!
Well I think you'll find that polls/petitions on forums are not taken into account by CA. How convenient eh? CA views those people making the votes as "autogenerated" or as multiple signatures made by the same individual. So this pretty much proves that CA regard those that still play the old games as a kind of sad movement of penniless nay saying spoilsports that are trying to somehow undermine the progress of the newer games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
For example this poll has probably been targeted by these nay sayers, whom of which have conspired to flood it in order to get their point across. The nay sayers are probably also more likely to be here wasting their time moaning on about such trivialities as AI, tactics and gameplay - whereas the happy and contented players are probably engrossed in one of CA's great new games and don't have the time.
Oh well, I can't waste my time here, I've got to go and log into my other twenty accounts and get voting. :yes: :2thumbsup:
Hail mighty Cambyses,
i thought they were "autogenerated" - why you have to log on again? :laugh4:
You mean some kind of backward, pessimistic nothings that feel significant complaining about such abstract things as good gameplay and atmosphere eh? :laugh4:Quote:
...this pretty much proves that CA regard those that still play the old games as a kind of sad movement of penniless nay saying spoilsports that are trying to somehow undermine the progress of the newer games.
Where is Stig to calculate how much money CA will not make by listening to the fanbase that posts? :laugh4:
They are autogenerated, but unfortunately their AI is as bad as CA's. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
recently bought Shogun GOLD (with MI) and I'm really enjoying it, great game
Alexander was definitely the worst for me. It's just not my style of playing, rushing. I prefer building up a strong economic base first.
So for me Alexander: :thumbsdown:
Sadly, on a more serious note, vanilla vBulletin does allow moderators to edit the amount of votes for each option. I doubt any of our resident mods would be corrupt enough to do so, but I understand the CA's viewpoint to a certain extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Shogun simply because they're all good and it's the oldest. So it has the worst graphics.
They're all so good I can't decide any other way...
The atmosphere of Shogun has never been matched, it was unique
.......Orda
p.s. I didn't vote
Rome is great to people with little or no knoweledge of history.
CA's statements on this issue were referring not to polls but to "petitions", where individual members post "signatures" in a particular thread to show their support. There is usually no poll in such threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
CA have proven adverse to such petitions, not because of any doubts as to their reliability but because they usually conflict with CA's current market strategy. This then turns into a "we don't like the direction CA are taking thread" which is then quickly closed down at the slightest excuse, such as an irresponsible post by an immature poster, before it can develop into anything at all.
Luckily for CA they have a group of faithful at the .com that will turn up to regurgitate the old "it's CA's forum and you're lucky it's running at all, they could close it down, blah blah..." etc, etc, etc, line.
It would be great in my job if I had a group of faithful customers that could call my complaining customers and tell them to stop complaining as they're lucky to be even allowed to complain at all. :dizzy2:
This is not CA bashing, but is based on simple observation.
:bow:
.
Voted M2, among M, VI, R, BI and M2. Can't comment on S, MI, A or K.
I hope E won't replace M2 on this throne. :no:
.
.
Just for the record, a particular CA representative (whose alias not to be mentioned) did accuse forum posters of faking polls/petitions. I remember him receiving his well deserved response in the appropriately mature ORG manner. (He wasn't one of the devs, who have always been kind at least here at the ORG.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
.
Voted Alexander. Reasons why I did vote for that and not for any of the other will now follow.
Shogun was the first and because of nostalgia and because it can be fun even now. Don't have its expansion nor knows much about it so can't say anything about it.
Medieval has many improvements over Shogun and is fun, and Viking invasion added some more fun stuff.
Rome has some weaknesses, and don't quite live up to its potential, but it is still a good game, and I prefer the RTW-style map over STW-style map, and I really like BI, however Alexander seems simply not interesting enough to even buy (even though I have seen it in store for a very low price). One faction in the campaign (and even if modded to play the most interesting faction, Persia, the campaign still don't seem interesting enough)
Medieval II I just recently got and it is fun this far, and as far as Kingdoms go, the only real problem I can see is the SecuRom thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
~:yes:
yep agreed about Shogun's Atmosphere, was the best IMO
Alexander, together with Hannibal and Napoleon are considered among the best and most celebrated generals in history.Quote:
Originally posted by Laman
however Alexander seems simply not interesting enough to even buy (even though I have seen it in store for a very low price). One faction in the campaign (and even if modded to play the most interesting faction, Persia, the campaign still don't seem interesting enough)
Alexander's period should have been chopped into more pieces space and time wise to be trully enjoyable and do justice to the feat of conquering so much in so little time.
For example, the unification of Greece, was a major campaign, but in the game the Greek peninsula and various important City states of the time that often were driven to mutiny from Macedonian rule (Corinth, Sparta, Athens, Thebes) are represented by a single settlement.
In addition Alexander is considered a cultural and politismic Ambassador; one of the first of its kind that litterally "married" the eastern philosophical perception (represented by the Persians, Egyptians and Indians) with the classical Hellenic one, considered generally the cradle of western ideals.
The game includes none of all this - and with the unit "balance" in the game it gives little insight into Alexander's tactical achievements and features on the field.
BI at least had a well crafted campaign game, atmosphere and an attempt to provide for unit balance on the field - Alexander was just a rushed by-product IMO; it certainly deserved better.
i've only played MTW, VI and Rome.
And i didn't like RTW that much
I voted shogon and alexander, mainly because alexander is a rush game, and in shogon all factions had the same units, but mongol invasion was good because you had the chalenge of fighting a very different enemy
in STW, it kept it fun. It was more harder, and you didn't need to memorize all these untis and such, and bulidings produce them for just one country,etc....
I just can t get on with RTW at all. I don t know why-it really irks me. But I ve got it, so if anyone knows a mod that makes me forget short skirted guys wandering round the campaign map, I d like to know.
The MTW chess/risk style is much more decisive and powerful. in my opinion.
EB is the end all be all of RTW mods IMO.
I am somewhat surprised that so many people voted that vanilla rome is worse than vanilla M2:TW. Vanilla Rome held my interest for nearly a year, whereas vanilla M2:TW was played for two weeks, and now won't be touched again until some proper FCM's are introduced, which is likely a year off at least. I find the game rather boring, albeit the graphics and sound are a big improvement over R:TW.
Well put. The STW/MTW style campaign map was also almost individual to the TW series, whereas the later campaign map is very generic and can be found in a wide range of games. It's nothing new, cumbersome and very "gamey". If you like these micromangement games then it may be your thing. If on the other hand you came onboard back in the STW/MTW era for the strategic battles and got quite used to using the very "decisive" old style map, then maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Furze
A possible explanation to this is that a proportion of those that voted RTW as the worst, stopped at RTW and did not move on to M2TW - possibly seeing this as "more of the same thing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
:bow:
Medieval 2 without a doubt. It could not hold my attention for more than a couple of hours. I still haven't even played half a campaign.
Without a doubt I prefer the 'chess board' style of campaign map in Shogun / MI & MTW / VI
also becuase I find it very confusing from RTW onwards to see exactly where my borders are (even when I highlight the map), just is one huge piece of land to me, with people all around, but in STW / MTW, I knew exactly where I was, etc
.
I have no problem with the new map, though I like the previous one as much. I'm not also in stitches with micromanagement; just the contrary!
My concerns are about shallowness, inconsistency, disturbing level of pseudo-historicalness, stupid AI, arcadiness... already being debated over at the Citadel in my rant thread.
.
You mean this one? (for the convenience of others who might be interested).
I agree, M2:TW is a disappointment overall. It feels very gamey. The unit variety is mundane in a "been there, done that" sort of way. The victory conditions are complete poop.
I'm almost turned off of the TW series at this point. If it wasn't for FCM's I would likely say goodbye for good, and it's doubtful I would buy empire based on magazine or website reviews (which held M2:TW up rather high), because both place too much emphasis on graphics. Just because a game is pretty, it doesn't necessarily merit an 80% rating.
A perfect case-in-point is Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II. The graphics were gorgeous, but the single-player campaign was utter crap. The story-line felt like an afterthought and the movie cut-scenes were about 10 seconds long. Talk about a lack of immersion....
M2:TW suffers from the same problems....It's basically M:TW on the R:TW engine. That sounds like a good idea on paper, but they failed to give that same sort of immersive feeling that M:TW gave so many years ago...
Another problem may be that we're all just sort of used to these games by now....back in the M:TW days, they were so fresh. I know I was enthralled. After playing for a few years, it isn't as fresh anymore, and it takes a little more to impress me. I think many veterans of the series feel the same way...
Second time i hear this within the last 10 days - i am sure CA was aware of that as were many people even before M2 came out. They are working on the naval battles now mainly to give this something new i am sure.Quote:
Originally posted by Bootsiuv
Another problem may be that we're all just sort of used to these games by now....back in the M:TW days, they were so fresh. I know I was enthralled. After playing for a few years, it isn't as fresh anymore, and it takes a little more to impress me. I think many veterans of the series feel the same way...
In my view, the SP campaign game focuses on the military dimension too much while other dimensions are neglected.
If you play MP you might find that battles are a whole world there on their own account - tactics and strategies in team games can be absorbing and complicated and in my view they take long time to trully master together with army control.
In the SP game though at least as far as i am concerned its the fact that the military aspect eats all others - it is rather standing on its own, has too much micromanagement and also lacks depth in say including logistics or sociopolitical factors affecting army recruitment/training/scope. CA seems at least conceptually to want to adress all this.
We are playing an ever mutating Sengoku Jidai through MTW to RTW to M2 and that has begun to rub off badly yes.
The game needs not be complex beyond "fun" to be interesting - its just needs to be complex so that it becomes fun again IMHO. Recruit massive stacks, besiege, exterminate repeat, can get boring. There are no true financial decisions to be made, since outperforming the AI financially is too easy in vanilla and moderately easy even in mods like EB. There is no true impact from politics or from social conditions. Some such mechanisms are there but are underused or are there just for show.
.
While I agree in the rest of your points, I don't in this one. I'm back to MTW after years, enthralled, and mind you, it's 0% unmodded 2.01. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
(That thread, yes. :yes:)
.
Hi Guys ,, I have recently returned to wargaming after an absence of almost a year ,, I didn't go much on BI or Rome so I have recently returned to MTW-VI along with some mods ,, I will one day buy Shogun & MI as from what Ive read here it most definately is better than what has followed on from Alexander .. So my vote goes to RTW .
Mouzafphaerre .. What Pirate game along with any mod or patches do you recomend ? I havn't sailed any seas since my days on the Commodore 64 .. long long time ago .
Welcome back dimitrios the samian,Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios the samian
So it seems that, based on the orgahs that have voted so far, RTW and it's expansions are the worst TW games overall. As I've said before this may be based on those that stopped at RTW and never bothered to buy any more TW games. I wasn't overly impressed with Rome and find BI uninspiring. I do play Rome now and again, and have a Julii campaign on the go at the moment, but it usually doesn't hold my interest for more than about 2 weeks maximum before I return to MTW/VI. This is despite the fact that the era in history that Rome covers interests me more than the Medieval era. The way I see it is that if the game is fundamentally flawed, fancy graphics and a preferred historical setting won't save it.
I could live with the RTW style map, especially if significantly improved as regards AI, diplomacy, and the movement/handling of agents, but battles are the main issue. A return to the tactic battles of the STW/MTW engine would be most desirable.
:bow:
.Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios the samian
Sea Dogs with Hosehead's Add-On Installer v.1.11, which practically includes everything that you can select from. Don't forget to apply the 1.06 patch!
Pirates of the Caribbean and Age of Pirates were intended as sequels. The first sucked without mods (you may find plenty at piratesahoy.com), the second I've never ever played... Both have excessively better graphics though.
Port Royal, the original title by Ascaron, is a trading sim set in the pirates' era Caribbean. It has spinoffs (Tortuga) and sequels but I like the original best, in which you can have fleet to fleet battles.
Tropico II Pirate Cove is an entertaining city building/management/piracy blend.
There are more but these are the first ones I recollect at first thought. ~:)
Hth! :bow:
.
I do not find the TW games comparable. The 3D campaign map R:TW introduced changed alot; and the settings are; apart from M:TW and M2:TW, very different.
Thanks Mouza & Cambyses ..
The BI campaign was much better designed than the RTW one i find, in terms of gameplay, historical accuracy and atmosphere feel. I had quite a few fun campaigns as the Saxons, the Franks, the Goths and both Roman Empires.Quote:
Originally posted by Mighty Cambyses
I wasn't overly impressed with Rome and find BI uninspiring.
The WRE has for example large cities that lack even the basic farms and trade facilities and also abunds generally with corrupt and unloyal family members. It is also religiously divided between paganism and early christianity. All this reflects quite well the conditions of the WRE that suffered from centralisation and abandoned countryside as well as unloyal and overambitious politicians. It takes about 30 - 50 game years to keep the population away from the verge of rebelling and more than 100 (almost the whole campaign) to decentralise the troop production centers (as opposed from keeping them all in Italy and the German frontier).
With the "Hording" mechanic the German tribes were quite well represented - even if you had beaten them back you would think at least twice about eliminating them; in fact you would be much better off to just contain them (and pray they don't all together migrate) rather than take them out, that was what the Romans were doing essentially from the time of Julious Ceasar. I believe that such a representaion of the German tribes could benefit the RTW vanilla campaign game too.
Try Gaul on RTW vanilla - or Pontus; generally factions other than the Romans give longer, more satisfying and less easy campaigns as long as they are not phalanx heavy. Chariots, elephants and more importantly phalanxes are the Achilles heel of the game - they are simply too powerful to be fun, especially considering that RTW vanilla is TW fast forward on the battlefield.
Noir