Quote Originally Posted by Ciaran View Post
Well, it´s not a particularly easy question to answer. I suppose both games have their strengths and weaknesses. Yes, the strategic AI of M2TW makes foolish decisions, but then again, if I´m entirely honest I can´t say the MTW one is better. I can´t even count the numerous times when factions, which I had reduced to one province still stubbornly refused a ceasefire, or long time allies won´t accept marriage proposals. It´s still the battlefield that´s my main gripe, the combat mechanism of MTW is still superior (the simple numerical rank bonus for spears and pikes instead of spearwall or phalanx, for example, or the ability to dismount cavalry at my discretion; not to mention the fact that seemingly it matters which kind of animation a unit has to decide the combat results - an absolute horror in my opinion, stats should be everything). I like the M2TW sieges, though, it´s the single one aspect where I consider it the best gamne of the series (not that they couldn´t be even better if I could dismount my cavalry in the deployment phase of a siege...).
You're entirely right that the MTW AI made very foolish decisions on the world map but due to the worldmap being far simpler it could still make for more than just a little challenge.

Does the animation make the result to randomn?