STW vs MTW

[caravel]

Well I may as well spark some more controversy... We have been over RTW vs MTW/STW many times on this forum but this has not been covered (at least not in recent history anyway).

Just how did the sequel improve over the first game? Was MTW the first step towards the campaign map game oriented TW games of today? How was MTW worse than STW?

I have my own opinions, but I'd rather see some other peoples'.

[gollum]

Very hard question master camelier; almost existential i'd say. MTW is to me the yang to STW's ying. Each game has its strengths and weaknesses. STW is the roster and so great gameplay, the atmosphere (environments, movies, sprites, design in general). MTW has equally good design in many areas (portraits, envoronments, campaign map sprites) but less in depth atmosphere. It has a better engine technically as it is STW made perfect (charges work for starters). It has a bloated roaster, but this is amendable by moding stats to be less divergent and in that case you are left with the benefit of feeling more the variety as intended that from an SP perspective is good.

It was however undoubtedly the first step towards the emphasis in the SP part of the game in TW that led to RTW. However this did not come at the price of downgrading the battles (or the campaign for that matter because unlike RTW MTW does not feel like doing a chore when you play) and as such it was acceptable from my point of view. Had future TW games been in the standard of MTW i would have been a much happier; however i do believe that a TW game combining the strengths of the two first games and taking out their weaknesses would turn me into a sort of pc gaming monastic



PS forgot to mention the seasonal turns and the harvest based economy system that MTW lacked. It could have really worked well in a MTW camp. based around the Crusader Kingdoms or elsewhere...

[Wishazu]

Very hard question master camelier; almost existential i'd say. MTW is to me the yang to STW's ying. Each game has its strengths and weaknesses. STW is the roster and so great gameplay, the atmosphere (environments, movies, sprites, design in general). MTW has equally good design in many areas (portraits, envoronments, campaign map sprites) but less in depth atmosphere. It has a better engine technically as it is STW made perfect (charges work for starters). It has a bloated roaster, but this is amendable by moding stats to be less divergent and in that case you are left with the benefit of feeling more the variety as intended that from an SP perspective is good.

It was however undoubtedly the first step towards the emphasis in the SP part of the game in TW that led to RTW. However this did not come at the price of downgrading the battles (or the campaign for that matter because unlike RTW MTW does not feel like doing a chore when you play) and as such it was acceptable from my point of view. Had future TW games been in the standard of MTW i would have been a much happier; however i do believe that a TW game combining the strengths of the two first games and taking out their weaknesses would turn me into a sort of pc gaming monastic



PS forgot to mention the seasonal turns and the harvest based economy system that MTW lacked. It could have really worked well in a MTW camp. based around the Crusader Kingdoms or elsewhere...

Pretty much my sentiments also. Definitely the deeper atmosphere in STW helped, the throne room with the map showing how much territory each clan held was great too.

[econ21]

I can only speak about the SP game. STW had great atmosphere, but was mainly about the battles. I found the campaign level was a bit a of a grind, to be honest. Conquering Japan, province by province, turn by turn - it was total war, alright and more challenging than any TW campaign since. But overall I prefer a game where I can turtle, go for "glorious achievements", play diplomacy, crusade, nurture generals with their own traits etc. MTW provided that - it gave you more variety of settings and more strategic options on the campaign map. I think the growth of PBMs with MTW shows the possibility the game provided for a "role-playing" type experience.

I also found the STW campaign suffered from more obvious gameplay flaws - the suicidal leaders and the Hojo horde made several of my campaigns dull after a point. The MTW campaign had its own problems - early AI armies of peasants/ballistas and the "I win" strategy of a global trade network - but these loomed less large for me.

[caravel]

I also found the STW campaign suffered from more obvious gameplay flaws - the suicidal leaders and the Hojo horde made several of my campaigns dull after a point.

Suicide generals was still a problem in MTW IMHO - much less so but still there. It reappeared again in force in RTW. The "Hojo Horde" was more an STW v1.x problem, not in MI.

The MTW campaign had its own problems - early AI armies of peasants/ballistas and the "I win" strategy of a global trade network - but these loomed less large for me.

Strangely I see these as larger issues as they affect the challenge aspect of the game. I am one of those people that exits in disgust if the challenge disappears from the game, mid campaign. This was the biggest flaw of MTW campaigns; i.e. that once your faction was established, victory was a forgone conclusion and all that was left to do, was spam units and micromanage them to victory. The vast selection of 'junk units' further worsens this as the AI trains them in abundance. Once I had fought several battles against a rag tag of peasants etc, it was my own morale that was suffering. This is probably what inspired me to mod the game.

[econ21]

Suicide generals was still a problem in MTW IMHO - much less so but still there.

For me, the problem with suicide generals in STW was not so much at the tactical level - the generals charging off into spears, RTW style, although that was irritating. It was the consequences at the strategic level of such behaviour. Whole STW factions could easily go "rebel" due to a couple of their leaders dying in short succession. If I was not careful, it was not uncommon to find myself surrounded by a sea of rebel provinces, which was just boring. I have not encountered that in MTW or any subsequent TW game. Maybe the later games were more careful at finding alternate leaders to inherit.

Added to this, the STW battles tended to be smaller and tighter fights where it was hard to resist killing the enemy leader to get an edge. With later titles, you could afford to be more magnanimous in battle.

I agree that STW was the more challenging game and of the two titles, for that reason, it's the one that I'd be more inclined to go back to it. If I am after the kind of experience that MTW offers, I'd be more likely to turn to a RTW mod or M2TW. Last time I loaded up MTW it was to compare the battle AI with M2TWs - I quickly came to the conclusion that memory did not lie and it was better, but that sadly I had also become seduced by the more modern engine's graphics and could not go back. STWs atmosphere and charm also comes into play here, sweeting the pill (a battle in Shinano is as cinematic to me as most battles with the later titles).

PS: I forgot another bugbear I have with STW's campaign - bridge battles, I hate them. MTW and later titles seem to have less chokepoints and again, perhaps less reason to use them. Our M2TW PBM players still manage to use them to neutralise large AI armies though, sigh.