MTW or RTW? which is better??

[PittBull260]

alright, i know graphic wise RTW wins, but what about the gameplay, which one is better??


i played both and truly think MTW's gameplay is way better..

[ichi]

depends on personal preferences and tastes, but I prefer VI

in this forum you may get a lot of votes for MTW, but try the same poll in the Rome forums . . .

ichi

[Shambles]

stop with the multiple threads of same nature

[BAD]

stop with the multiple threads of same nature

Which are?

Would have to say MTW cos we have RTW in our house and it isn't even installed on my PC. ^^

[PittBull260]

stop with the multiple threads of same nature

i posted the same thread in the RTW forum because i thought they might give me diferent votes over tehre, and they did, right now tied at 10-10

[Martok]

I have both, and Medieval wins for me hands down.

Even though Rome has better graphics and UI (I also feel Rome's soundtrack is slightly better, but of course that can't be judged objectively), I still have far more fun playing Medieval. In my opinion, Medieval has far greater replayability: Better AI, fewer bugs, the Pope isn't as much of a pain as the Roman Senate, and you don't have to beat Medieval to unlock all the factions! This last one really bugged me about Rome. Yes, I know you can go into the game and quick edit a certain file to make all factions playable, but you shouldn't have to do this in the first place.

I also don't like how unbalanced the factions are in Rome. If you're playing as the Egyptians or as one of the Roman families, it's a virtual cakewalk. Not that it really matters which faction you play as. The AI (both strategic and tactical) is so weak, that I generally win 80-90% of my battles, even if I auto-calc them all. And the few that I would lose, if I went back and fought the battles myself, I'd win about 80% of those as well. (For those that are wondering, this is on Normal and Hard--I don't like playing difficulty levels where where someone gets an artificial bonus.) In short, it's almost impossible to lose battles in Rome, unless your army is in a truly difficult situation--i.e., they're outnumbered 3:1 or worse (5:1 if you're Rome or Egypt). Yes, you can win battles like that in Medieval as well, but almost never when they're auto-calculated.

This is not to say that Rome doesn't have its charms. The UI is much more streamlined (and you can still look at as much info as you want), the 3D map adds a nice level of strategy (as far as placing forts/watchtowers, defending chokepoints, setting up ambushes, etc.), traits and retainers give your Generals more flavor (plus traits aren't applied as randomly as they are in Medieval), the AI city governors are reasonably effective, the music is excellent, and of course the battles are eye-popping.

None of this, however, can truly make up for Rome's deficiencies: The limited factions (made even worse by only being able to play the Romans at first), the faction imbalance (Rome and Egypt roll over everything, while Greece and Carthage are way underpowered), the meddlesome Senate (they make the Pope look like he has a non-interference policy); and worst of all, the lackluster AI. I say this with all the respect and credit due to CA (because Shogun and Medieval are still wicked fun, and I will always love them for giving us those games); but if they can only give us a single-player campaign, then they need to be damned sure that the AI can give us a decent challenge. Rome simply does not do this.

[jadast]

I like the options available on Rome's stategic map. Moving troops by sea into lightly defended rear areas. Keeping control of your population centers by meeting the enemy in the field is also nice. However, for tactical enjoyment, I prefer MTW. For replayability I also give the edge to MTW. My perfect game would be MTW with Rome's graphics.

[CountMRVHS]

I'd say MTW as well. My perfect game would be MTW with a few of the strategic options available in Rome. The MTW graphics don't bother me one bit, and although I enjoy the RTW graphics very much, it just seems like it wouldn't be the same game somehow if it got all 3D on me.

Strategic ambushes in MTW would be cool, but then there is something to be said for the simplicity of the way battles get fought in Medieval: you move your army into a province, you fight the guys in that province. That's probably pretty close to the way it would work out back then. And in RTW, I'm rather sick of the AI making tons of tons of 1-unit armies. Having princesses and religious agents in MTW also was a neat feature that I enjoy.

I guess the naval system in RTW is really where it beats MTW; and the general idea that armies and fleets have movement points as opposed to only being able to move to an adjacent province or sea region.

[Zarax]

You know, if CA ever releases the source we would get a world of endless possibilities in improving MTW.
Even by doing relatively simple things such as giving modders more stuff to work on (for example a way to set faction appearance) we can extend MTW's replayability to incredible levels.

[Arkatsson]

I own both and I like MTW is better. Charge my knights! Take that King of Aragon!

[Grey_Fox]

Hmm. They both are good in their own ways. RTW has great graphics and a lovely campaign map. MTW has good gameplay and the battles seem more epic.

So I say STW is better