Is R:TW better then Medieval?

[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)