Hi, I apologize in advance if this topic has already been discussed.
I used to play Medieval total war, and then viking invasion, up until about 3-4 years ago, when it inexplicably stopped working. I then went out and got Rome Total War,and have been playing that. I'm trying to figure out if I should go back and buy the first game or the second one. First off, here are some of the switches from medieval to rome that bothered me.
Namely that simple display of chivalry/dread/acumen/piety/I think influence? That was gone. They also made it more difficult to move (theres no way it takes 6 months to move that short a distance on the map), it was more realistic than the first game but I don't feel like it was a positive switch.
Another thing that bothered me was how you can't just give people titles, like in the first game. Just because a general is in the city doesn't mean he should be king of that city; I much preferred the earlier version.
So basically i'm wondering how close to medieval or rome total war that medieval 2 total war is? can anyone comment on the status of those differences in the second one? I"m trying to figure out which to buy and i don't want to have annoying things like that in a new game when the old one was so good.
Thanks
Bookmarks