Is R:TW better then Medieval?

[Kralizec]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome.

I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?

[Es Arkajae]

Well RTW is a later game and so has more features, unfortunately it also threw away some of the good features from MTW.

The battles though which are the main draw of TW games are also the main problem they ARE inferior to MTW, they've been dumbed down considerably so that they're over far too quickly the AI is also inferior to MTW (which is really unforgivable IMO) and battles require no where near the level of thinking or at least planning that one needed for MTW which is a real shame.

The game is still worth it I think as it does have a nice variety of factions to choose from and some of the new strategic features are nice, however if you're not sure then perhaps you should wait until the expansion is brought out or some mod comes along that restores the quality tha MTW presented to a player and you can ask other fans for some feedback before spending your money.

I don't dislike the game, I certainly enjoy it but not as much as I still enjoyed MTW when I had been playing it for this length of time.

So to answer the question plainly, no, RTW is not better than MTW.

[SpencerH]

RTW has the potential to be a much better game than MTW because of the improved strategic game but the short answer is that I'd wait before buying.

[Musashi]

I actually prefer Rome's battles to Medieval's, just because the spear > cavalry > sword > spear balance works MUCH better in Rome. In Medieval I didn't think it held true at ALL. To the point where sword infantry was pretty much useless throughout.

[MacBeth]

I still play MTW but gave up on RTW weeks ago.

[moerty]

MTW had the ability to give me a great feeling of dread when i encountered that 10 star 10 dread general, RTW not so much.

i do enjoy playing with RTW much more, everything else has been improved and now strategic borders makes sense, with mountains and rivers and passes limiting entrance to your territory. also for me the diplomacy is an awesome aspect, i haggle with the factions now, they bring a proposal i counter it and negotiations can get up to 4 counter offers before we agree or disagree. diplomacy only seems to be effective if you're not the 500lbs gorilla in the block taking everybody's territory, you have to respect other peoples territory in order for them to parlay with you. factions tend to be A LOT less accomodating when you have taken just one of their provinces.

all in all i say RTW is a buy, don't listen to the jaded fanboys they whipped themselves into a frenzy expecting this game to be perfect and couldn't live with having their illusions shattered.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Strategically, RTW is better - more options, many possible developments.
Tactically - battles were better in MTW, the AI had more initiative. In RTW AI is surprisingly dumb and this makes the game dull sometimes.
Talking about graphics - RTW rulz (though some miss the Shogun weather effects)

If you're a TW fan, RTW is a must.

[Dutch_guy]

I would say I like RTW better , I have MTW , it;s just the Time-frame and the graphics which are great.
AI was probably smarter in MTW but I don't mind that to much.

Also look at teh mods that are / coming out , like EB and there is even a BFME mod in progress , great stuff.

[sunsmountain]

MTW had a standard army setup. This meant it usually had cohesion, and attacked as 1, or camped as 1.

Rome has a dynamic setup (it never camps). Its units react to almost everything, from getting in range (leading to stupid parade shows in front of your archers) to seeing reinforcements. Unfortunately, it doesn't react clever as it should (ie, camping - sometimes, standing still in general). People who would like to feel some of the power of a dynamic setup, do the AI trick:

Open Data\descr_formations_ai.txt, then search for (second formation entry):
Code:

;****************************************************************
;Standard formation. Infantry line in front, missiles behind
;cav on the wings
;************************************************* ***************
begin_formation ai_standard_line
;
;
; purpose flags attack defend ai_priority 2.0


Change ai_priority 2.0 to 0.6 or even less.

This still doesnt guarantee success, but if people are honest, neither does MTW. It's just that far less can go wrong in MTW, whereas there are many options in RTW (and therefore, also, reasons for it to stray)...

I liked MTW, but when i go back to it, it's ugly, and limited. The campaign map is not very dynamic, it's all about the battles. This does give it more focus, but you can automate Rome to get the same effect. Problem is nobody does, because if you CAN manipulate something to your success, hardcore gamers WILL, automatically losing focus in Rome:TW. They didn't have this problem in MTW.

The strange thing is, even though Rome:TW battles are faster, the game is slower to play than MTW. Whereas I could get to the High Age in MTW within a reasonable amount of time, i have not succeeded in getting a single campaign beyond 200BC in Rome, for a comparable number of turns. And yes i attack during winters (of course)

[The Stranger]

eh that's beacause the years are 6 months a turn and you have to micromanage almost everything to keep your cities in line

[Bob the Insane]

Overall and in my opinion...

Technology - yes
Execution - yes
Immersion - no
The little details - no...

The more I think about the more I come to realise that the RTW engine would have been perfect and worked far better for the MTW style/era game than it does for the ancient world...

[Musashi]

It's funny, I actually found the AI in Medieval to be just as silly... If not more so...

In medieval all you had to do was build a half-square against the battle boundary and the AI would never try to outflank you, because it couldn't send it's troops past the battle boundary. As far as I can tell, you can't deploy at the battle boundary anymore in Rome, and the AI always tries to flank me. I never seem to have quite enough infantry to form a half-square either, I'm not sure why that is, but I think it's a matter of having to deploy infantry in deeper formations in this to get results. In Medieval I could deploy a formation 2 or 3 deep and expect it to hold against heavy cavalry. Doesn't quite work in Rome.

I actually saw more parading in Medieval than I ever have in Rome...

[Red Harvest]

Short answer: Not by a long shot.

Longer answer: The graphics are great, there are many great new features in battle. The strategic map is impressive. Unfortunately, battles are not challenging on any level, and unit balance is whacked. Combat speed is measured in Warp Numbers. The battlefield AI is really quite bad. There are some rather massive remaining bugs that effect the strategic game (load game siege bug and it seem like most of the traits are bugged.) Lots of potential. It could be a great game.

It is worth buying, but don't expect to get hooked like MTW or STW.

[BDC]

Edit a few files, and RTW is almost as good as MTW, and looks much better.

I'd suggest removing city walls, editing the set up formation priorities and a few other things.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

No. There is absolutely no sense of accomplishment in RTW no matter what I do. I played MTW to death for over a year. I have yet to carry an RTW campaign past 150BC. No goals and a busted diplomacy model makes for little enjoyment and almost zero replayability.

[The_Doctor]

RTW is good game, but like playing games in the medieval period more. Which is strange because I can't stand the medieval period when I read a history book.

In RTW you know Rome will win. They have better units and there seems to masses of them and you have the senate with an elite army coming to get you if you invade Italy.

In MTW it was a lot more open and unplanned, anyone come become powerful.

They removed lots of great feature that where is MTW. Loyalty is gone, so there is no more civil wars. Religion has gone, so no more converting enermy provinces until they revolt. Different time periods are gone, so the game gets boring a lot faster. +1 valour provinces gone.

The tech is terrible, it is really simple. I liked the MTW tech tree a lot more. Especially units requiring mutliply buildings. For example, knights needed stables, an armourer and an estate, but in RTW you need one building, where did the legionarys get that armour and sword from?

The temple system is also terrible. Why on earth would building a temple give units better weapons and more experience. Why would cities get better farming, increased growth rate and increased trade items. Why would you need a temple to build a ship?

The campaign map is a lot better, but it looks odd. Rivers with right angles and those bizzare passes in mountains.

Also I miss castle assaults.

I can only play RTW with the Total Realism mod. The combat system is better, the battles are longer because the kill rate has been decreased and the morale of units increased.

That went on a lot longer than I planned.

[The_Doctor]

Another thing, what happened to dismountable units?

[Wishazu]

Rome total war is much better, though i do miss the hours long 18000 a side battles i sometimes had in SP mtw

[hrvojej]

I would advise not to buy RTW. You'll save yourself a lot of stress over what the game could have been and right now is not.

[econ21]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

Yes, this is a big pull of the TW games for me - the historical interest. RTW has some ahistorical things, but is closer to giving you a taste of ancient military history than any other mass market game is ever likely to be. There's a thrill in watching a horde of Gauls batter down on a Roman legion, in standing up to British chariot charge, in commanding a swarm of Parthian horse archers with cataphract shock troops, in seeing a wall of Macedonian pikes advance remorsely on your position...

However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome.

Yes, some people hate it. But I don't understand the "no attack/defend" setup point. At the tactical level, you can set up your armies on attack and defend very easily, just like MTW. Potentially there is equal scope for tactics as MTW and more scope for strategy, but I agree they are less required because the game is easier. The campaign map is easier in RTW - the AI fights less well (it is prone to being defeated in detail). Some folk say the tactical AI is weaker, although I have not noticed that so much.

I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?

There are oodles of unique units - far more variety of units and indeed whole army styles than the rather generic MTW sword/spear/cav/archer units and standardised armies. Parthians really do fight almost all mounted. Rome can rely on legions; Greece and Macedon on phalanxes; Carthage relies on elephants and cavalry etc.

Basically, whether you buy it depends on your expectations. Some people want perfection, some people want a very challenging game, some want a very historical. If you fit one or more class, you might be best to avoid it. But if you can appreciated a game with a lot of historical flavour, a lot of innovation and creativity, but with some flaws in gameplay and historical accuracy, give it a go.

[Quietus]

I've played Medieval:TW for quite some time now and I'm considering buying Rome:TW. Particularily it sounds like an interesting because antique history is so much more interesting (in my opinion anyway)

....

I can't really say that I'm bothered about graphics, even though they're impressive it's not a reason for me to buy a game. What is very important IMO is unique units- the more the better, one reason why I never got into Shogun: TW.
So what do you think?

It's not even close. MTW is the worst of the three, IMO. RTW is feature packed compared to MTW.

Here's the lingering major problems in RTW (if you ask me):

1) High Speed
2) High Kill Rate
3) The infamous "Siege Bug".
4) Size of battlemaps.

The mod people can fix the first two. No definite word yet on patch 1.3 for 3). Number 4) is simply a personal preference. There's a lot of solid, beautiful maps i've noticed, but you only get to play in the middle section( ). I'm hoping they give the players a choice of actual battlemap size in the expansion pack.

As for the unique units, there are PLENTY.

However I've got some doubts. One person I talked to about it hates it, saying that for example there is no attack/defend setup like in M:TW and that tactics and strategic thinking aren't really required in Rome.

I've said that myself before v1.2 that you need little to no setup in RTW (but they've fixed the skirmishers in patch 1.2 including the pri/sec bug).

However, with MTW, the battles and the setup are the same again and again. Fairly monotonous compared to RTW. I mean, if you've fought against elephants with heavy chariots, you can't turtle, you have to break your army apart or the elephants will smash them really quick. If you spread them too wide, the chariots will cut them one by one.

The battles are much varied in RTW, hands down (due to the range of units that are accessible). Yes, you should get RTW if you ask me.

[Productivity]

Strategically, RTW is better - more options, many possible developments.

Once you get past the bugs though...

[Shadar]

I personally think that many many aspects of RTW is better than MTW. One of the best examples would be the new campaign map system, which makes the game a LOT more challenging to a lot of players - it makes you think on an entirely different strategic level compared to MTW.

I also like the sieges in RTW - manning the walls is cool (even though the computer utterly sucks in attacking stone walls because they get shot to pieces by the defensive towers, i think its very challenging to attack stone walled cities playing as some factions. If you got the time limit on anyways)

Although the battle-field AI may be lacking at times... i think its not horribly terrible. Just bring smaller armies when you're attacking. The battlefield diversity is a really good improvement on MTW though - rather than having some unique units for the different factions, there is virtually a different tech tree for each faction. This makes it so much more enjoyable and a lot of different playing styles originates from that.

[Red Harvest]

Quietus,

IMO, #1 on the negatives should be the lack of competent AI in RTW--it's not even on your list! The rest wouldn't matter that much or could be compensated for. But you can't mod around broken AI. (Not referring to the strategic map load game AI bug either...)

It's certainly subjective rating a game, but AI scores higher in my book than aesthetics. MTW vs. RTW AI is no contest.

I've been playing the new Bull Run game the past several days. What a comparision that makes with RTW. Bull Run certainly has many limitations (focusing on a single battle, no strategic component, etc.) but the AI is competent. It doesn't have beautiful 3D units, but its AI can walk and chew gum at the same time. It has its failings of course, but it is good about maintaining cohesion within brigades and flanking or charging to exploit any perceived weaknesses.

[LordKhaine]

I'd say no... RTW isn't better than MTW. But at the same time I wouldn't say it's worse than MTW. They just both do different things well. When I play RTW I miss many features from MTW... and when I play MTW I miss many features in RTW! I enjoyed many hours playing both of them (and indeed, do continue to enjoy playing them)

Now... what we really need is MTW remade with the rome engine...

[Big_John]

no.

[The Stranger]

the only thing i think MTW is better than RTW is the era thing, the different type of campaigns (normal and glorious) re-emerging factions (but better structured so factions destroyed 100 years ago can't come back) and the random events like floods famine (though the plague is oke) and the historical generals

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While MTW still holds a place on my HD I play RTW mostly because there is so much to be discovered. I haven't fought with all units yet and not al traits and ancillaries have been sen by me yet.

That being said, tactically MTW is better. While the more sophisticated system of the charge bonus, secondary weapons, shield etc are certainly in RTWs favour the AI let's it down big time. I'm a big fan of the opening skirmish. In MTW I spend more time moving my ranged units about, duelling with their archers then I spend fighting nose to nose with the main body. But skirmishing against RTW AI is like taking candy from a baby. Even if you stop wheeling onagers forward to pelt them till they quit the field with half their army dead. Or stop bringing masses of high qualitry slingers and archers.
And fighting with the main body of your army against theirs in RTW isn't much of a challenge either, though the only reason this is more noticable then in MTW is because now we get nice bonusses to put in the hurt. Let's face it MTW was no genius in this regard either, but sandwiching a unit in MTW only meant heavier morale penalties, it remained a slog until they broke because cavalry didn't plow in and ride down everyone with their backs turned like in RTW. In MTW cavalry were just a way to move swords about quickly, in RTW they really charge home.

[The Stranger]

look in program files/activision/data/text/export_VnV here you can see all the possible traits, look in program files/activision/data/text/export_ancilleries here you can see all the ancilleries

About th dismountable units, i miss it too, but the castle assaults are more realistic (atleast with wooden till 1st stone wall) and the AI in MTW never could really handle a siege in RTW atleast a bit

[Spartiate]

I personnally think that RTW will eventually be proved to be the better game(or engine at least) but i still prefer MTW and its mods,especially Napoleonic Total War.I had deleted RTW from my hard drive for quite some time before just recently re-installing it again with the 1.2 patch.MTW never left my hard-drive for 2 years.Hows that for a comparisson?