MTW after RTW

[Morindin]

I CANNOT believe what I've just read.

Moridin, of all people, in essence, just said that MTW is *overall* a better experience, and, I believe he said A BETTER GAME!!!! (Figuratively not literally)

Sir, you have been one of the more aggressive RTW is the greatest thing since Hotcakes proponents, and now this.

I do believe you owe, at least, one of the Org members and apology, imvho.

I'd love to see your take on the RTW vs MedMod. There's a version for MTW plus Patch, I think its version 3.14. Why not load it up and give it a go, and if you happen to be passing the Bargain Bin, pickup VI, Patch it, and install the latest MedMod.

If your post represents your impression of vanilla MTW vs. RTW, then after playing VI plus the MedMod, then you'll fully comprehend what the Hardcore players have been whinning about.

I concur completely, the best of both worlds would be the RTW Strap Map (with a few adjustments) married to the MTW Battle Engine. Even sans the 3D battle field, units and sound effects, it would be a better experience; and please include the RTW sieges, which are infinitely better than MTW.

I might argue a point or two, but that was an EXCELLENT post.

I dont think I owe anyone an apology, considering I have avoided personal attacks in my entire time on this forum.
I am conservative by nature, and I was giving the developers the benefit of the doubt. I like to complete at least one campaign of a game before deciding wether its 'good' or 'bad', x is unbalanced, the AI sucks, etc.
I do admit that I was caught up a bit in RTWs "oh-ah" and the hype, I still think some of complaints are unwarrented, but I am now seeing many of the MTW veterins side of things, and yes there also was a bit of devils advocate going on (someones gotta do it).

I still think RTW is the better game, but only just. This is my point, it should be a significantly better game even without all its irritating bugs.

Interesting perspective, Morindin. I am not sure how much you played MTW before RTW but I can't agree that RTW only scores by virtue of sounds and graphics (these things mean very little to me), or that the two games don't feel alike.

I played MTW regularly since it came out so naturally I think very highly of it. However, there were a number of negative features that seem absent in RTW. The MTW battle engine might be more to my taste (killing and charge speeds), but the battles themselves were not necessarily better because the AI fielded dire troops (on early) - eg peasants, ballistas, archers - and because the reinforcement issue was a major drag (the first wave could be a challenge, but then you could spend half an hour dealing with dross). I actually have come to like the brisk pace of RTW battles - with MTW, you would be scared of ending a turn late at night, because several battles might errupt that required 3 or more hours to play out manually.

The MTW strategic map was much less involving to me - moving armies round on the RTW campaign map reminds me of the way an army really moves and does not feel like Civ at all (that game had incredibly tedious combat with moving scores of weak units one or two squares at a time). In terms of grand strategy, the ability of the player (only) to get rich in MTW by trade arguably broke the game. Plus the inability of the AI to make peace, coupled with pointless wars sparked off by piracy, made the strategic layer lose some interest.

I don't know how you can say the games don't feel alike - to me the battles and the building elements of all three Total War games are virtually identical in terms of what you do and quite unlike any other games I have played (well, less so the building elements, but the battle engine is still pretty unique).

Maybe I'll feel differently when I've played more RTW, but I found it hard to go back to STW after MTW and suspect the same will be true about leaving RTW for MTW.

Simon, RTW brings a lot of things that when I first started playing MTW I wish were there (populations, diplomacy, mainly strategy map stuff). Yes the battlefield AI isnt that wonderful in MTW either, but overall i THINK its less frustrating.
Some of the things you dont like about MTW however I do like! (the whole reinforcement thing for example) :)
The trade thing could really break MTW yes, but personally I didnt 'exploit' it when I played, only putting ships in 'realistic' places. Arguably the whole crappy ship system in RTW is almost worse (however Im playing around with modding the attack rate on ships). Also why cant CA give you fleets of ships? Instead of 120men and ONE ship why cant we had squadrons of ships? Some of the battles between Carthage and Rome involved HUNDREDS of ships. Anyway, I disgress.
If you read my post Im pretty critical about MTW, but its a much older game now so I think it gets 'more excuses'.

Anyway I cant see myself playing many more than 2 campaigns in RTW until an expansion pack. I might head off into multiplayer world, but really for games of this scope and size, that's pretty sad (I've probably completed the Baldurs Gate2 campaign 10 times - now THAT is an Epic game!). I guess its party due to the fact that im not really interested in playing barbarian (or fighting, who here is sick to death of fighting Barbarians?) factions and there are so many of them in Rome.

[rayoftoul]

In general movement speeds seem better in MTW. Apart from the fact that your guys slide around everywhere (which is point 3, atmosphere) they make more sense.

Agreed with all you said apart from that - if you were talking about movement in the strategy map. I prefer that units move based on where they are - rather than just 'next province, next year'.

But I see what you mean about everything else. I don't find myself as engrossed in RTW as I was in MTW and I don't think conquering all and sundry is quite as satisfying as when I was the old Byz

[Morindin]

Agreed with all you said apart from that - if you were talking about movement in the strategy map. I prefer that units move based on where they are - rather than just 'next province, next year'.

But I see what you mean about everything else. I don't find myself as engrossed in RTW as I was in MTW and I don't think conquering all and sundry is quite as satisfying as when I was the old Byz

No im talking about the battlemap. MTW your units, particulary cavalry (which really isnt that bad for its time, but after RTW its pretty funny), tend to 'slide' along the ground.

[econ21]

Anyway I cant see myself playing many more than 2 campaigns in RTW until an expansion pack.

That would be a sad indictment of RTW if true. [Although, to be honest, I don't think I have played even one campaign of MTW solo to the bitter end, as I tended to lose interest when my faction became clearly the strongest.] I wonder if you have tried any PBMs in the throne room? They are what really gave MTW added life for me - maybe you should sign up for one of the RTW ones?

I found MTW a little too free-form - almost like a strategy game equivalent of the role-playing game Morrowind. You have great freedom and a pretty amazing world simulator, but can end up directionless and without sufficient hooks to keep you involved. PBMs get round that problem - the social aspect makes you care and there is definite end-point.

I've only played one RTW campaign so far - and it killed my computer midway through - so I shouldn't really comment. But I found it much more "more-ish" than MTW.

Partly it was the Senate missions - as Julii they seemed exceptionally well-chosen and well-timed, giving me a gentle nudge when things started to lag and giving nice rewards over short time periods.

Partly it was the strategy map - each army move is perhaps less important than in MTW and so it is less demanding (less chess-like). It has more of the Civ-like "one more turn" factor and less of the chess-like "my brain hurts" aspect.

And partly, it was a feeling that early dominance does not give the same benefits as in MTW. In MTW, I found that once you had absorbed an enemy faction, you were very hard to beat. This seems less true in RTW - perhaps due to squalor etc. Moreover, once the Julii have taken Gaul, there is still an awful lot to do. Other factions have more formiddable units (ok not hard given the poor Gaul line-up but nonetheless after the dross you fight in MTW on early, it was a great pleasure facing the Thracians fielding full armies with a hard centre of Phalanxes, flanked by lots of falxmen). Some factions - notably the other Romans and Egypt - do a decent job of keeping pace with you and make me suspect the Roman Civil War will be an epic.

Anyway, as I said, I probably haven't played enough RTW to reliably comment, but, at this point, it has fully lived up and indeed surpassed my very high expectations.

[Medieval Assassin]

Swiss armoured pikemen, for one, that happened all the time.

***EDIT***

I couldn't finish anymore then 2 campains in MTW, it was just sad to go from STW to MTW... Couldn't do it.

[Morindin]

That would be a sad indictment of RTW if true. [Although, to be honest, I don't think I have played even one campaign of MTW solo to the bitter end, as I tended to lose interest when my faction became clearly the strongest.] I wonder if you have tried any PBMs in the throne room? They are what really gave MTW added life for me - maybe you should sign up for one of the RTW ones?

Well its more to do with the fact that Im not really interested in many of the other factions apart from Rome (from a gameplay perspective). Barbarian factions are incredably uninteresting. Some of the non-barbarian factions might be worth playing, Carthage might be fun. We shall see though.

RTW PBE might be fun, but you cant really play the reign of your faction leader due to him being too long. Thats another thing, your faction leader doesnt seem to have the same impact as MTW. A low influence leader REALLY made a difference, whereas RTW everyone hates me anyway, and my faction leaders influence only seemed to impact the Senate rather than other factions. If your a hugely powerful Roman juggernaught you expect some people to bow to your will, but the diplomacy in RTW everyone treats me like im a 1 province nobody right until my armies burn their capital to the ground.

Im playing a MTW PBE right now with some friends who dont have RTW yet - yes its quite a blast. I might have a go at playing RTW PBE, right now my second long RTW campaign Im playing with heaps of mods to the game (Im trying 0.3 kill speed +4 morale, tweaked the ships, and battles are great!).

Oh yes Im having a lot of fun playing RTW alright. Its just after a while the bugs/unmodable design features really start to get you down and make you think 'what could have been'.

My major problem with my first campaign as the Julii was that you ended up fighting hundreds of barbarians that were basically only different colours, with the exception of conquering Greece/Macedonia. I also got sick of endless snow covered maps, and I couldnt really expand down into more "interesting" territory (and worthy foes) due to the other factions controlling it, and the fact they were just too far away.
Also as time goes on the Senate missions become more of a drag than anything, they're unrealistic and I pretty much ignored 90% of them towards the end of the game. At the beginning of the game they're great however.
Fighting the Romans was definately interesting and fun, apart from the fact they had pre-marius troops when I had stacks of Urban Cohorts. :)

[Medieval Assassin]

Agreed, as most people see the game in a shock and awe fashion right now, in another month, everyone will be past the graphics and will truely see all the bugs and missing gameplay, things that should of been, I for one font like how goveners are in RTW, titles were alot better.

[Red Harvest]

I dont think I owe anyone an apology, considering I have avoided personal attacks in my entire time on this forum.

Oh puhleezzzz! Most of what you were writing not all that long ago was personal attacks, attacks on character, observational skills, play skills, mental state, etc. Many of us took it that way. Now you have done an about-face on your previously stated opinions presented as indisputable fact. I will give you some credit for taking time to understand the TW series better, but I haven't forgotten your claims of "hysteria" either, nor your attempt to paint folks such as myself as liars.

I don't agree that ToranagaSama should have called for an apology either, but I also had some of the same thoughts and kept them to myself.

It would be best to not spend time arguing over who did what when. I won't be calling for apologies, nor do I expect them--and don't be expecting any from the other side either. Let's stick to discussing the features, bugs, problems, pluses, etc. Put the past behind, and move on.

[Morindin]

Oh puhleezzzz! Most of what you were writing not all that long ago was personal attacks, attacks on character, observational skills, play skills, mental state, etc. Many of us took it that way. Now you have done an about-face on your previously stated opinions presented as indisputable fact. I will give you some credit for taking time to understand the TW series better, but I haven't forgotten your claims of "hysteria" either, nor your attempt to paint folks such as myself as liars.

I don't agree that ToranagaSama should have called for an apology either, but I also had some of the same thoughts and kept them to myself.

It would be best to not spend time arguing over who did what when. I won't be calling for apologies, nor do I expect them--and don't be expecting any from the other side either. Let's stick to discussing the features, bugs, problems, pluses, etc. Put the past behind, and move on.

Please, dont treat me like a little kid and put words in my mouth which I never said (liars?, character attacks?, mental state? uhh quotes please?) Right now im really tempted to pull out some PM's from the senior moderators of this board and what they had to say about the matter but for the sake of discussion I wont.

I'd really like to have a discussion in one of these topics without you, and only you, feeling the need to 'put me in my place'.

You know what? I dont think I ever will. Because of this my time here seems to be spent the 'org' experiance pretty crap, ignoring all your shit and holding my 'virtual tongue' in frustration.
There are other TW forums out there where all content is welcomed despite the percieved experiance of the poster being a basis of judgement.

Seeya.

[DisruptorX]

Disruptor, I don't understand what you mean by its all icing and very little cake. All the things from MTW are still there. Things like morale, flanking, fatigue, etc are still there in the battles. They are just plagued by some bugs and balancing issues atm. I'd like to hear what things MTW had (the cake as you said it) that aren't in RTW. I can see things that were implemented differently, but I haven't seen that they are removed.

The core gameplay is not as satisfying. The combat is retarded. I had the mod it, and now you get to watch the retarded soldiers fight as if they are stop motion robots (you don't normally get to see this because the combat is over too fast). The repeating animations of MTW actually don't look too bad by comparison. I do not like the way combat works now, it doesn't have that perfect balance where you knew exactly which situations troops could win and lose and the battle felt under your control.

I still somewhat enjoy the game, because at least you can admire your army better with the new graphics, but the game just feels wrong. It isn't satisfying.

MTW felt like Civilization, you couldn't quit; you had to keep on playing to get the next building upgrade in your city. In Rome, I don't have any problem quitting, because building up your cities just doesn't feel as rewarding.

The core of the game isn't a step up to me, is the problem. The things that really impressed me: the atmosphere and graphics, are superficial. I guess that is what I was trying to say.

[Arakasi]

Red Harvest, wasn't the posts by Cataline pretty explicit in saying that experts weren't to be treated any different than newcomers? Morindin never insulted any of the posters here. All he did was state his observations on the game. You guys as well were stating your observations of the game. The problem was that you took his attacks on MTW to be attacks on you. Am I expected to feel personally attacked if you make criticisms on RTW? No, it's just a game. Morindin was treated with outright hostility for expressing his opinion, and I feel that's wrong. He has as much a right to his opinion that you do to yours.

Disruptor:

The problem with the old 1/2 killing speed mod is that it screws up the animation. I'm a regular poster over at twcenter, and we've all there been working to mod the game to figure out other ways to do it. Since last week we've given up on the .5 killing speed and have moved on to working on things like defence, attack and health. We're genuinely working on things to fix issues in the game. Like I said before we've even found out how to possibly change movement rates by changing animations. Of course it is hard without tools, but even so the game is showing to be very moddable. I expect within the next 2-4 months that the modding community will do a great job on fixing a lot of things. I just hope that CA fixes the things that only they can fix (AI, UI, pathfinding).

As for the core of the game, well I can't argue with that. I get a totally different experience with it than you do. I'd say right now MTWs battles are a 9 to RTWs 8. But if they get those bugs fixed then the added features of RTW should pass it. Not sure what you mean by cities being less rewarding, but I think most have said that they support the idea of tying population to city growth and the change from Risk style map to real world style. That is where to me RTW is much better and if the issues with battles can be fixed the game imo will be near perfect.

[econ21]

Whoa, Red Harvest and Morindin, time out!

I have read many of your exchanges about RTW. From a dispassionate point of view, it has been interesting to see two sides of an argument, you know - "thesis-antithesis" leading to the possibility of a synthesis.

However, the note of mutual antagonism is hard to avoid and is rather out of character with the org (even in the tavern). I don't think either of you should stop posting, but maybe you don't need to react quite so much to the other's contributions?[1] Where two people can't get along, it can be better to just give each other space. There are lots of other contributors and posts you can each respond to.

[1]I believe it is called "kill-filing" on usenet...

[Patricius]

Some of the MTW animations are truly ugly. Maybe some people have a powerful imaginations, but blocky units pricking each other with pins - it sometimes seemed like that, could never be better. Seiges in MTW seem very crude by comparisonm There are patches to come, countless text files that can be adjusted by anyone of moderate intelligence. Aspects like trade with cities importing and exporting - all animated according to volume - seem so much better than MTW. Now cavalry seemed to play much better in MTW. MTW is probably better balanced unit on unit at the moment. But remember that future patches should bring a better balance to it all.

[Servius]

another angle worth inserting here is that more isn't necessarily better. I feel that several new features were added in that, while they may be more "realistic" and expand the complexity of the game, the result is more annoyance than imersion or giving us more strategic/tactical avenues to pursue. For example...

it takes far too long to move units around the strat map. It can often take a full turn (6 months) or more just to cross one province. That's just BS. Even with no roads there's no way it takes a year to walk from Venice to Rome. By extension, the same is true for shipping. There's no way it takes a year to sail from Venice to Greece.

City population/growth is almost everything in this game. You can't field armies without enough people, you can't advance to the next level of units if your city is too small...that's bunk too. To raise a legion you don't need an imperial palace, you just need the men, the equipment, and the training. One centurion from anywhere in the empire can train a legion, one blacksmith (provided he has the knowledge and materials) can make the equipment. It's know-how, not population. Once knowledge is gained, it should be accessible anywhere, not only in the city where it was 'invented'.

Squallor!? What advantage does Squallor add? It's like a money or time sink, an unnecessary convention built into a game as a stopgap to deal with the symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. Squallor just requires you to waste time and money building non-troop or economic buildings. True, it's more "realistic" but it doesn't make the game more fun, just more tedious.

Unit response delays are another example. More realistic, but it doesn't add anything enjoyable to the game.

Sometimes, simplicity is better, especially when the complexity is more annoying than fulfilling.

[Paul Peru]

I agree to a large extent with the originator of this thread.
Going back and forth between R & M I feel frustrated by both games.
I'm also vastly entertained, enthralled, captivated by both.
(I'm mostly playing VH XL mod and BKB super mod. Vanilla RTW)

Most of the issues with Rome should be possible to fix, but it's strange that after such a long time in developement the game is released with so many near-game-killers. Yesterday the Macs besieged Corinth, which I'd thoughtlessly obtained from the Greeks in return for a ceasefire, trade rights and a herring. I had no Julii troops nearby, and my nervous single bireme was still 2 turns away with the inadequate reinforcements when the Macs got to me. For some reason I had had no visible effect of the 10% order rating, and had trained 2 units of hastati. I thought I'd sally forth and see if I could chuck a pointy stick at their slow phalanx guys. I was allowed to do so, but then they started moving. They had lancers as well. I retreated behind my stone walls, and the Macs stood out there and got slaughtered by arrows from the towers. In the end, they had a few guys standing too close to the walls, about 250 or so. They were quick to run when I sallied again and outflanked their largest unit. Nice for my campaign, but very silly. And another thing: "Ooh, there's a fort standing in the way of my 1200 man army led by *******Lugotrix the Conqueror, and there's 80 town watch in it! Can't go there, then. I'm the clever AI!" And crossing bridges! It's totally FU. In my first bridge battle I just sat there laughing while the gauls went swimming. (anybody seen RRRrrrr!!! ?) Then I tried to counterattack, and a whole unit of dogs just dove in and snuffed it. A) dogs can swim B) there used to be a ford before roads were built C) why didn't they even try to get on the bridge?

Lovely game, though! There's a lot of feedback around, so if CA listen and make a real effort with the next patch, I'm confident that the modding community can make Rome a better game than Medieval. There's so much to like. In the mean time I think I'll try Hellenic and/or Napoleonic for a while. Or read a good book.

[Shoraro]

it takes far too long to move units around the strat map. It can often take a full turn (6 months) or more just to cross one province. That's just BS. Even with no roads there's no way it takes a year to walk from Venice to Rome. By extension, the same is true for shipping. There's no way it takes a year to sail from Venice to Greece.

Regarding this, it takes far too long to move around on the campaign map on Medieval as well. For an example, it takes two years to move from Wessex to Northumbria without a ship, which would have drastically affected the date of the Battle of Hastings if this were case. If we're talking about Viking Invasion, it would've taken him even longer to get down to fight William after duffing up the Norse at Stamford Bridge.

[Arakasi]

I say what we need here is to keep the land movement pretty close to as is. (maybe a 20% increase) The thing to increase would be ship movement. Double it or something. I still like keeping army movement like in RTW, just with more range. Being able to move from England to the middle east in one turn was ridiculous. I know the time was one year, but lets say you move that army there in response to someone building an army next door. I don't think the Egyptians would be so slow that they can't attack you with their army before your relief force arrives from London.

[ToranagaSama]

Please, dont treat me like a little kid and put words in my mouth which I never said (liars?, character attacks?, mental state? uhh quotes please?) Right now im really tempted to pull out some PM's from the senior moderators of this board and what they had to say about the matter but for the sake of discussion I wont.

I'd really like to have a discussion in one of these topics without you, and only you, feeling the need to 'put me in my place'.

You know what? I dont think I ever will. Because of this my time here seems to be spent the 'org' experiance pretty crap, ignoring all your shit and holding my 'virtual tongue' in frustration.
There are other TW forums out there where all content is welcomed despite the percieved experiance of the poster being a basis of judgement.

Seeya.

Morindin,

Please do not leave, rather let us engage in discussion and learn.

leads to and then

[ToranagaSama]

Now that the "ohh-ahh" factor has worn off with RTW, I've been playing a succession game of MTW along with a few friends alongside my new RTW campaign.

This is an extremely frustrating experiance. To put it bluntly, MTW makes me want to play RTW, and RTW makes me want to play MTW.

I think you're quite right, the "ohh-ahh" factor in RTW is HUGE! Actually, its blinding in many ways.

I was telling my bother the other day, that RTW is *overwhelming*, just like MTW was extremely overwhelming in comparison to STW. Its just that going from STW to MTW involved dealing with so many open *choices* mostly as a result of the much larger map. I remember loading MTW for the first and having no clue where to begin.

RTW is different, I told him that the overwhelming factor is not with the open choices as with MTW, but with the difficulty in comprehending the *underpinnings* (Economy, etc.) of the game, in the face of all the graphical changes, including the UI. The grahics combined with the UI are like a bright like shone into your eyes while your trying to drive down the road.

1. The controls suck and its very "cumbersome" trying to move around when you're used to using the arrow keys in RTW. Also the whole left click thing is a pain in the ass, since you could accidently move troops when you're trying to select them. I do like the removal of the pink arrows when moving troops around and the fact you can keep them in formation/facing. Also - NO BUGS!

I know a lot of people seemed to have a problem selecting the wrong unit(s), but I never had that problem. Lucky I guess.

I'm a bit confused, do you mean that in MTW you have to use Left-Click, both for *selecting* and to click on the spot you want a unit to move or attack?

If so, then, yes, on occasion this would happen to me, but not to any great detrimental effect.

The thing with right-clicking is that for heavy computer users and/or heavy Windows users, there is a natural dispostition to the manner in which Left and Right clicking is used. Right-clicking just doesn't feel natural, and goes against years indoctrinated use. I have to mentally force myself to right-click at times.

Is it reversable in RTW? I like to switch right-clicking for selecting and left-clicking for move/attack.

2. The UI is superior in almost every way to RTW's UI. The unit cards are much easier to see (1280x1024) display much more useful information. The game feels like you've got more cooler options to play with than the RTW UI, which takes up way too much space. Overall (when you get used to the MTW controls again!) its way easier to control your MTW army.

NUFF SAID! Total Agreement.

3. RTW battles have way more atmosphere. Graphics obviously, but mainly the sounds. MTW sounds suck compared to RTW. Can't hear arrows whizzing through the air, all your soldiers are silent, marching doesnt sound as cool, etc.

Here we disagree. STW was the best of the series in terms of Atmosphere, and I prefer MTW to RTW.

I'm not necessarily impressed with the sound effects of RTW, most of which add nothing to gameplay. It's not as if you can hear an Army sneaking up on ya, or something equivalent.

What is really different between STW/MTW and RTW, in terms of atmosphere is map Terrain. In STW and to a bit lesser degree in MTW, Terrain played a greater part in the game.

All I need say is Shiano (is that right?), and all the STW vets will smile...

In STW virtually, if not literally, each Province had a distinctive and very effecting terrain map. When considering whether to move into a Province, you'd best give thought to not only the opposing army and it's composition, BUT also the Terrain you'd be fighting upon. Terrain was either going to be an advantage or a dis-advantage, rarely did Terrain have a *neutral* effect.

In MTW, Terrain was a couple of degrees less effecting, in terms of the outcome of a battle, but it still was and could be used to effect. Where MTW improved upon STW was in having multiple terrain maps for each province.

In RTW, Terrain, so far in my experience, is mostly a non-factor, MUCH less so than with MTW. So far, it hasn't caused me to win or lose a battle, and only in two did I notice a mild effect. Advancing my troops sideways upon an upward sloping hill, the troops moving upon the higher portion moved *slower* than those moving upon the lower portion. Yet, I didn't notice any any determining *Fatigue* effect, both sides performing equally well in battle. This is noticeably different than with MTW, and degrees different than STW. Nagato (sp?) going up such a hill would be completely useless.

4. Strategy map. The MTW strategy map is very annoying now after RTW and its really hard to tell what the hell you're doing. You cant just glance over all your provinces and see if you're constructing stuff there. However the MTW strategy map has a very cool board game feel to it now.

You may have something here, but I still haven't figure out what all those icons mean in RTW, so at this point I have no opinion. If you're correct then this is a step up, but the way I see it, even with the icons you *still* need to check each City/Province before End Turn.

As far as feel goes, I like both equally as well. Though, I saw something the other night that was VERY AMAZING and hinted at the potential of the RTW map. I've yet to see a post to mention this potential, and I'm waiting to check it out more. I don't think ANY of us have, as yet, grasped the FULL potentional the new Strat Map. If they can't get this Map work for Campaign Multiplay....

5. AI. Overall the MTW AI on the battles is PROBABLY better than the RTW AI. On defence the AI in MTW manouvers way more than you see it do in RTW. Strategy map im not so sure, but the MTW strategy map is more simple than the RTW system so the AI doesnt screw up as much. Also the bigger MTW battles (combined stacks) is way more fun.

THIS is what we Veterans have been saying from Day 1 of the Demo!

I can still remember my first true campaign battle in STW. The armies facing each other from a far distance, slowly advancing, and all of a sudden the AI sends some units racing to my left manuevering them into perfect flanking position. I was like, oh yes! This is going to be better than any game I've played before.

Then came MTW, and I still remember that first true campaign battle. Similar circumstances, armies advancing slowly, then wam! The AI sends, somewhat expectedly, not only units out to the left flank, but SIMULTAENOUSLY to the RIGHT flank. I was like, OH SH*T!

In RTW, I've yet to have an OH SH*T! moment.

6. I used to have fun sieging in MTW but not anymore.

MTW sieges, to me, were never great fun. I always wondered why some seem to enjoy them so. Though, I admit, I enjoyed using the Catapult and watching the walls crumble. That was the best part, for me. Nice effect by CA!

I said it before I think RTW s/b changed to Seige: Total War, cause its ALL about the Sieges. IMO, I think the Kill Speed is too fast, in terms, of sieges. City Gates are like meatgrinders. The biggest I've assualted, so far, has been a Large Town, so I've yet to see what more of the game has to offer in this area.

7. Movement speeds. In general movement speeds seem better in MTW. Apart from the fact that your guys slide around everywhere (which is point 3, atmosphere) they make more sense.
However its not perfect, cavalry seems too slow charging in MTW but too slow trotting around in RTW.
Also cavalry seems a huge anticlimax now in MTW (altho I dont miss the school of fish effect)
I charged some 66 Knights into some poor 15 odd tired miltia expecting them to be bowled over. But no. My knights just get "stuck" on them killing a couple then hacking away at them for ages before the militia routs. Which brings me to my next point.

I don't know about "sliding around", don't recall such, but, AGAIN, this is what the Veterans have been saying from Day 1. You VEHEMENTLY opposed what we were saying, and DEFINITIVELY presented your *opinion*, though it wasn't presented as *opinion*, but as if it were FACT.

This is what upset a number of us.

Pleased to see that you now comprehend what we've been stating.

Personally, I've never comprehended why so many had such a problem with MTW's calvalry. I never did. You get, what I guess could be termed as the "bowling over" effect in RTW, but to me its a yawnnnn.... and doesn't look very realistic, but that's jmo.

In any event, I never used my Cav as *Line* troops anyway. I preserve them for Pursuit, and only used Knights as emergency reserves and/or, only when the outcome was obvious, to tip an even battle to my favor. Though, I often used my Cav in a deversionary manner.

I prefer the Gameplay effect MTW Cav have vs the Gameplay effect of RTW.

8. I really missed the flashing flags for routing units.

You mean the way they are in RTW? I've gotten used to the RTW way, but still prefer MTW flashing Cards. I think a combo would be best.

9. Bugs. MTW battles go far smoother (especially sieges) without any bugs that want to make you rip your hair out.

RTW's disappearing Generals and Armies are pissing me off! This is an obvious *dumbing down* of the game. I think the "Casual Gamer" wasn't adept enough to annihilate the AI's armies, so they came up with this! It should be OPTIONABLE.

10. Voices. This is partly point 3, but the guy for the MTW voices is so much better than the crappy Roman voice actor. He actually sounds his part. Troop voices are way better in MTW too.

The Euros seem especially bothered by this. I wonder if they'd feel better if the guy had a British or Aussie accent?!

Anyway, in general, I think the voice acting is sub-par, at best.

11. Killing speed. Melee is vastly slower than RTW but at the same time it looks really stupid now. Large numbers vs Large numbers is way better and units take longer to rout. Large numbers vs small numbers however in MTW is incredably unrealistic and MTW seemingly lacks the snowball effect.
Everyone is complaining that the arrows kill too much in RTW but MTW is the same if not worse (it should be though, more powerful bows etc). I had 20 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire. I was concentrating on something else for no more than 20 seconds, come back, and I now have 3 foot knights standing around being hit by arrow fire.

Not sure what to say. First, its been a LONG time since I've played vanilla; Second, what do you mean by "snowball effect"?; Archers ARE more effective in RTW. My RTW archers have gotten 150 kills or better, and I haven't perfected using them!!! In MTW playing Expert, it would take a good player and 2 units of archers to rack up such kills. With the MedMod on Expert, you'd have to be an EXPERT to rack up such kills.

There have been MANY discusions over the years as to the effectiveness of Archers. Many put VERY little stock in their use during crucial battles. For me, they are my stock and trade and form the CORE of my MTW army. I have posted virtual disertations on their effective use. It takes SKILL to use Archers to maximum effect.

With RTW, the necessary skill level has been greatly lowered, and I believe this was CA's design, in order to make the game "more accessible", read that easiser and simpler.

12. There is more depth to MTW tactically. Formations in particular. Different units need different formations for different situations. RTW it doesnt seem to matter what formation you put your units in.

AGAIN, do you here the Veterans WHINNING???!!! We, I, have been say this ALL along, day 1 of the demo. RTW precludes the use of HIGH TACTICS. I'm a bit miffed, as it took me approximately a YEAR to become what I consider a master.

In MTW and STW, a *skilled* player could use Tactics (formations, manueverings, terrain) to overcome (significant) numerical, weaponry and armour, disadvantages.

I'm still early in my progross with RTW, so I have to hedge my comment, as perhaps at higher Difficulty and futher in the game, things change; but as I've experienced so far. RTW requires a MUCH lower Tactical skill level. Again, I believe this is how they intended.

Really, both games feel like they've been made by different companies. MTW feels nothing like RTW. MTW (including the battles) feels like a grand game of chess, more of a strategy game like the oldschool hex based war games. I dont know what RTW feels like, part RTS, part civ game.
The big part MTW is lacking is in the atmosphere department and some clunky controls, but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

The frustrating part is RTW could have been this, but it wasnt.

You know I recall some of the noobs screaming "its a different game!". I believe they were right. It is different, and I believe that's just how it has to be taken.

Yeah, for me, if they put the RTW Camp Map with the MTW Battle Engine, it would be the best game of all. Oh, yeah, and better, more terrain derived maps.

[Edit]I forgot to add, the AI in MTW has way more good generals. You might see one or two good generals in RTW but the AI has literally tons of them in MTW. MTW far far superior here[/Edit]

Dude, your next step s/b to give the MedMod version 3.14 ago and report your observations. I'd be interested.

Finally to search the Bargin Bins and pick up a copy of Viking Invaison, patch it, and tack on the MedMod.

I'd *really* love to hear that.

All in all, yours was an good evaluation and an excellent post, but you gotta admit that its what we've been saying all along, and you have been opposing us.

[Longasc]

but I have to say that if you kept MTW exactly the same, but gave it RTW graphics and sounds - MTW would be the better game.

Add in the Strategic Map of RTW, and you are right.

I still feel sometimes sad because the battles in RTW lack so much depth.

If at least the spears would work against Cav and unit balancing would be better! I could even adjust to the higher speed, because it has some merits, too... battles do not last forever.

[Arakasi]

Toronaga, you objected to Morindin presenting his opinion as fact. What does your post do than do just that, basically saying "admit that we were right all along". So if I think that RTW is as good a game overall and has the potential to be the better game, than I'm wrong and you're right?

[DisruptorX]

As I said before, he's probably pissed at Morridin making a topic a while ago that was simply flamebait. He(morridin) admitted as much in the thread, too. All's good now, though.

[ToranagaSama]

Arakasi, please would you adjust your profile to state your place of origin, because if English is not your first language, perhaps we're having a communication problem.

An Opinion cannot be fact.

An opinion can be based upon one or more facts.

A fact is something that is without, question, doubt, nor is it subject to opinion.
A fact is a reality, it exist; contrary to nothing.
Please consult your dictionary if necessary (no insult intended).

The problem *I* had with his comments had little to do with the content, but to do with presentation, specifically, the comments were presented to be *Definitive*.

A definition is similar to a fact, it exists, it is a reality, there is no opinion upon a definition.

Certain comments, opinions, experiences, were presented as definitive and factual. They were not.

I object to anyone "presenting his opinion as fact".

Further and Finally, what has occurred is a complete about face.
What previously was presented with an air of definition and fact, is, now, being contradicted.

Regarding *my* post, NO! my post does not do *that*.

So if I think that RTW is as good a game overall and has the potential to be the better game, than I'm wrong and you're right?

First, the above is a VERY general statement of opinion. You are neither wrong nor right, you have simply stated your opinion with no basis of fact.

Now, if you were to follow up your *opininon* with statements of *fact* upon which you have based your opinion, then there *might* be points for disagreement or argument (in the literal sense, not the emotional).

Regarding your viewpoint upon my comments, as demonstrated by these words, "admit that we were right all along":

First, you shouldn't put those words in quotations, as I did not say that. It is *your* inference from my comments.

Second, I was responding DIRECTLY to the Post, meaning that Reply was based upon the original post of this thread AND upon previous comments by the poster. Unless, you were privy to the previous posts, you may be at a loss to fully comprehend.

If you are privy to that which precluded all the above, then its rather simplistic to discern what I am conveying is an unsophisticated, "admit that we were right all along". From my viewpoint, this is neither here nor there.

What disturbs *me* is when anyone presents THEIR experience and knowledge as being the sum total of; as such that the experience and knowledge of others can be discounted without credence, because one is not open to the possibility, let alone the probablity, that one's experience is, indeed, not the sum total of.

Using the medium in which we are communicating, how can anyone prove to anyone that one's experience and knowledge is greater than another's? It is extremely difficulty and, finally, impossible, if one is closed to the possibility, and particularly, the probability that one's own experience and knowledge is less than definitive or factual.

It is impossible to argument against such a mindset. Any attempt to do so is bound to devolve to a *personal* level.

This is what I believe occurred and there's little I can do to explain it better. I do hope I have proffered something for your comprehension.

That's all I have to say.

---

Now, if you want an OPINION from me, its this: I think that many people come to the Org, with the mindset that this is just another forum. The same as any *game* forum on the Internet. Some come here and conduct themselves and continue with a mindset as they might within those forums. To the contrary, the Org is unique and special place. I, personally, consider the Org, its admins/mods, and members to be a 'cut above'. Some notice this straight away, and some never get it. Some like it and stay, some don't and go. Some like it and never adjust to the difference, some adjust and and don't like it.

Whatever, I came here to figure out how Protectorates work....

later

[SpencerH]

---

To the contrary, the Org is unique and special place. I, personally, consider the Org, its admins/mods, and members to be a 'cut above'.

True said. This and poly are the only sites I inhabit.

Whatever, I came here to figure out how Protectorates work....

later

If you find out will you tell me. It seemed like a bad deal to me to take one on.

[ToranagaSama]

Do a search there's several threads.

From what I can comprehend....

First, there's a bug and Protectorates are broken. It seems that there's a high probability that if a faction accepts your offer, you'll involuntarily be separated from a larger portion of your bank.

Even without the bug, its seems pointless, as you receive no monetary benefit for the Protectorate and its not necessarily going to held you defend against attack, yet you as the Protector are *supposed* to defend it. Not sure if there are any penalties if you dont' come to their aid.

That's all I can figure from the comments of others.

Luck!

[SpencerH]

Do a search there's several threads.

From what I can comprehend....

First, there's a bug and Protectorates are broken. It seems that there's a high probability that if a faction accepts your offer, you'll involuntarily be separated from a larger portion of your bank.

Even without the bug, its seems pointless, as you receive no monetary benefit for the Protectorate and its not necessarily going to held you defend against attack, yet you as the Protector are *supposed* to defend it. Not sure if there are any penalties if you dont' come to their aid.

That's all I can figure from the comments of others.

Luck!

It was kinda a lighthearted rhetorical question , but thanks. It confirms what I guessed when the Parthians wanted 40000 kronkites for them to accept me as their conquerer.