Good to see my original post has sparked so much debate.
Having played a bit more and reflecting on the comments in the thread, it seems to me that your feelings about each game are where you sit on the strategic to tactical scale. MTW has excellent tactical battles - there are a wider variety of troop types and a wider array of army types/ styles as well. You have to be able to face the heavy infantry/ heavy cavalry armies of the catholics through to the light HA armies of Islam. Also you are likely to come across all army types as well. Battle AI seems OK and armies are not so brittle. RTW tactical battles are OK - I like some of the new aspects and control mechanisms, but they are likely to be a bit samey as the oppolents are likely to be similar.
With the strategic game, I think RTW is the winner - the movement system is better, more economic management to consider and the diplomacy is much improved. MTW has some things to recomend it, but there are more challenges with RTW.
So with the above in mind, my style of game is more in the strategic camp as opposed to tactical. With MTW my strategic approach of concentration of forces leads to a situation after the first 10 - 20 years of me auto resolving most battles as they are a foregone conclusion - so I often don't fight many tactical battles after 20 years worth of move - so the challenging part of the game is early on. In RTW things are more strategically challenging and concentration of force is more difficult to do so ironically I end up fighting more tactical battles. However these battles are not long, present some challenges and add to the flavour. But more importantly the strategic challenges are just as daunting when you have a reasonably sized empire as they are when you start the game.
So it is not surprising that the 2 games have two camps of supporters - because they appeal to different areas of play.
A couple of other points - Matok raised the issue of unhistoric units in RTW - dogs, pigs etc - a fair point I would say. However, they did exist - just not so widespread as they seem to appear. The concept of gimmick weapons was quite widespread - but they tended to be "one shot weapons" and they always seemed to fail. The simple answer is to impose a personal rule on yourself and not build them. In my current campaign I have one unit of Wardogs which came as reward from the Senate. I haven't added to them and if they get wiped out I will not replace them. Are they really anymore unhistoric than Irish Kerns fighting Mongol cavalry or units of Vikings jumping on a boat and moving to Egypt in a blink of an eye?
Finally RTW is glossier with its fancy graphics - but is that any different from comparing MTW with Age of Empires. RTW does look nice and the improved grahics do help, in my opinion, in the tactical battles in simple unit recognition for example. But for me, it is the game which is always the most important thing.
So, all in all, currently I am enjoying RTW. I still love MTW and look forward to returning to it. My only bugbear with RTW is all the twiddly bits added as eye/ear candy - the first time your unit shouts "Unleash hell" as it charges is quite cool, but the 30th time you hear it in the same battle it really grates - and why do the spies have to move so slow, looking this way and that, mumbling something sinister - what is all that about!!!!![]()
Bookmarks