MTW or RTW? Which is better?

[Productivity]

MTW.

The fact that my win:loss ration in RTW is ~250:3 is ridiculous. All the graphics in the world mean nothing to me if the gameplay is shocking.

The gameplay is shocking.

[Hunter KIng George]

MTW all the way... I also enjoy Rome for a while then get somewhat bored, graphics are awesome but the gameplay does not compare to the same level as MTW as everyone knows. I enjoy the challenges MTW brings... something Rome will never have.

[Volstag]

Each installment of the TW series has, IMO, come very close to being the "ultimate strategy game". Unfortunately, each installment has failed in one way or another (again, IMO). R:TW has, by far, the most promise/potential but, sadly, it's probably the most "incomplete" of the three. If they squash the bugs and strengthen the AI, they'll have a bonified winner on their hands. It's kinda sad to think that S:TW is, perhaps, the strongest title when it came to challenging gameplay... and each iteration is progressively worse.

Unless the R:TW expansion dramatically reduces the shortcomings of the game, I may end up passing on future TW titles -- or, at the very least, waiting until they're languishing in the bargain bin. Here's to hoping!

[Rowan11088]

Well no question, single player in MTW was more challenging. but I don't think it was for the right reasons....the whole province setup left many key areas undefended that wouldn't be inRTW, and RTW is the more realistic in this aspect. Being able to manuever your armies around an enemy while they're camped to surround them, or set up an ambush, are also impossible in MTW. As for units, MTW wasn't very balanced at all IMO. Get some weapon and armor upgrades for your AP axe/sword units and they will cut through ANYTHING, and since archers were so crappy in MTW (short of arbs) they won't be taken out at range. Javelins didn't work at all in MTW either, and as someone said horse archers were annoying but not very effective. RTW definitely has more unique and distinct units, like chariots and phalanxes, and you can't for example make your Carthaginian infantry the equal of the Romans with simply a few armor and weapon upgrades. In MTW I could make Woodsmen that could take out Chivalric Knights if I built up my province right.

[Quietus]

MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you.

MTW battles are the same over and over. Spears and archers upfront then flank = Win. You can't do the same thing to Elephants and chariots in RTW. Siege battles in RTW is the best. Try attacking a city full of elite enemy soldiers. That's strategy, that's fun!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I will compare the two via addiction levels.

MTW/VI: Consumed my life for months. Maybe even a year. Would get up early to play it. Would miss school bus repeatedly if parent's weren't around to correct that. Dinner < MTW. I could never finish a campaign, because I kept being distracted by other factions... Occassionally got whupped on Hard-mode, still loved it. Hell, it even brought me to this forum, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And the mods. *Sigh* the mods.

RTW: After a month or so, lost interest in vanilla. Mods kept me playing for another month. Have stopped playing for about two months. Currently awaiting certain mods to be finished. Expansion pack garnered only mild apathy; not frenzy that VI put me into. Can butcher enemy armies with ease and a few archers. No fear of strategic threats whatsoever.

Red Harvest: do you have a favorite mod for RTW? Just curious.

[Mongoose]

"MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you."

Is there REALLY any diplomacy in RTW? i have not seen any. Maybe i should look harder?

[The Stranger]

MTW campaign is actually stale compared to RTW, it's just easy, repetitive province jumping. The provinces will give you unlimited soldiers and you can jump from one corner to another in one turn. Not a challenge at all.

There's zero diplomacy in MTW. You will hit a point where the AI automatically becomes one faction no matter what will attack you.

MTW battles are the same over and over. Spears and archers upfront then flank = Win. You can't do the same thing to Elephants and chariots in RTW. Siege battles in RTW is the best. Try attacking a city full of elite enemy soldiers. That's strategy, that's fun!

'that's true, but most people are dissapointed with RTW cuz it is 99% but not 100% it's good but you see it fail at everything. it is winning till 90'th minute and got beaten in extra time

[[seminoles]shadow]

all i got to say is RTW

[Aetius the Last Roman]

I've noticed no real difference. The AI in both games will always go for the most advantageous terrain. I have noticed that barbarians in RTW will employ a feint with a small part of their armies, which I've never seen in MTW.

What utter rubbish!

Does anyone else but me notice that the AI in RTW is so moronically cavalier that it feels the compulsion to play charge of the 26th light brigade with its generals every battle. In MTW you do not have this problem.

Does the AI of MTW feel a need to launch itself into unneccesarily impossible battles and siege relief operations?

Has the AI in RTW ever been able to use superior numbers of troops to its advantage like the AI in RTW? (maybe the egyptian horde might be an exception here).

Does MTW make your autoresolve battles ludicrously impossible?

Does any one else notice that the flank attacks in RTW are so misguided, weak and disorganised compared to MTW?

Has anybody been able to win as many mythic (4 kills to 1 loss against an equal enemy) battles in MTW compared to RTW.

As for diplomacy, I've yet to see the super-realpolitik principle of the AI removed, the me see , me kill doctrine of TW diplomacy.

If homogeneity is a problem please explain how MTW actually has more units types available than RTW. Maybe some of the pro-RTW people have not realised this but if they actually managed to beat one faction in MTW and go beyond a culture specific region than the difference in units is very large.

Yes the graphics are good, we've all seen the chariots cut blades of grass but what we have yet to see is an AI that can use chariots.

As for the repitition of MTW, try the super arrow storm in RTW, the Cavalry rush.

The main thing that seperates RTW from MTW is the strategy map which is great but the problem with it is the AI doesn't know how to use it. I'd rather play a simple game with challenge rather than a complex game against the height of ineptitude.

In addition to this, even I have to concede that the reinforcement issues in RTW is far better solved than in MTW, however, I have never got the 10,000 man battles I got on MTW.

However, no one can deny that the only realistic way to lose a battle in RTW is to autoresolve it.

[Mongoose]

"However, no one can deny that the only realistic way to lose a battle in RTW is to autoresolve it. "

I've lost battles......but i was out numbered 10:1....and i only had one unit...

[Titus Livius]

What utter rubbish!

Wow...that's an awful lot of passion over a video game. It's okay, I'm sure it's your father that you're really mad at. Perhaps you should take up another hobby, like botany. It's probably better for the blood pressure.

What about the rest of you guys? What is it with this huge emotional investment in a video game? You obviously pinned a lot of your hopes and dreams on RTW to get so riled up.

[Shambles]

seriously MTW beats RTW hands down,
RTW has 1 thing and thats snazzy gfx.

Its prety much unplayable in single player Well unless you never played any of the other TW games and dont Like a chalange.
RTW really is the worst of the TW seriese,
But as it was given Masses of advertisement you get Lots of people who have never played a decent TW game (by that i mean they only ever played rome) coming here Praizing Rome.
And saying its the best game ever,
possibly I would be one of those people had i not played the other 2 games,
But honestly
Rome dosent even compare,
Its not even in the same league, IMO

What about the rest of you guys? What is it with this huge emotional investment in a video game? You obviously pinned a lot of your hopes and dreams on RTW to get so riled up.

I payed nearly £50 Thats almost $100 for this game,
and i never play it becous it sux,
My emotinal Envolvment about the game is realy Resentment towards CA and there shoddy workman ship,

And i also resent the people who pat ca on there back and say

"GREAT job Worth the money. Now let me spend a nother $100 on a expantion to fix This game you couldnt be botherd finishing in the 1st place."

It undermines All that Real gamers say.
And then ca Decide that they can get away with this sort of shoddy qualaty.
And they dont Need to fix it with a patch,
Simply becous some of the People who are easily impressed say they like it.

I guess simple things really do please simple minds,


To me thats just plain wrong.

[Titus Livius]

I payed nearly £50 Thats almost $100 for this game,
and i never play it becous it sux,

I guess there's one born every minute. I don't pay over $40 for any game, no matter how hyped it is.

I also find it interesting that you "never play it becous it sux" but you're willing to write 500+ posts about a game you hate. I've bought games that I didn't like. I trashed them and moved on to the next thing.

[Titus Livius]

And i also resent the people who pat ca on there back and say

"GREAT job Worth the money. Now let me spend a nother $100 on a expantion to fix This game you couldnt be botherd finishing in the 1st place."

It undermines All that Real gamers say. .

Ah, so everyone who agrees with you are Real Gamers.

So that means the rest of us are what exactly? Fake gamers? Imposters? Awfully convenient reasoning.

[Shambles]

It's okay, I'm sure it's your father that you're really mad at.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess there's one born every minute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What followed was another member taking a very aggressive attitude .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

your inability to grasp that other people have opinions which are the opposite of your own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get over yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prehaps these quote's are directed at yourself?
Some 1 needs to check there attitude
This is not the back room.

Say no more

[Titus Livius]

Some 1 needs to check there attitude
This is not the back room.
Say no more

And which of these comments did I make prior to member's getting aggressive? Not a one. I merely replied in kind.

And whether or not this is the back room is no concern of yours. If the moderator's have a problem with me, one of them can let me know. If you have a problem, you can stop reading my posts.

Nice try though.

[Hotspur]

MTW, I've played all the TW titles and expansions. Its still MTW + VI. An exceptional game with an epic quality that Rome has not recaptured.

Rome's OK but MTW was simply outstanding.

[Jambo]

Let's face it the diplomacy in ROme is really not much different to that in MTW. It's pretty basic with the useful addition of being able to extort some token money out of the AI.

It, like so many other aspects of Rome, could have been so much more.

[abrarey]

RTW has better gameplay and more options. But I will like to see a new MTW with the same engine game (or better) of RTW, i think the medieval age is more exciting to play. In RTW, Rome has many advantages over the other factions, but in medieval age the factions don´t have a superadvantage over others factions.
That will be a good idea a new MTW.

[Blacknek]

Gameplay wise - this is quite a retoric question I guess

although I think ROME is easy digestible fun; let's see what the add-on brings to gameplay.

It's not over yet; if the Battle-AI gets decent, this one is a sleep-killer all the way

[Spino]

Medieval is better than Rome.

Rome wins by a landslide in terms of graphics, sound and 'ambience'. No matter how you slice it Rome simply looks and feels 'epic'. The campaign map looks great and plays well and the tactical battles are positively divine to behold. Rome also allows you to do more within any given game, it possesses enormous scope or breadth. However, while Rome makes an incredible first impression once I discovered that it was all breadth and precious little depth it failed to hold my interest. Once the luster of doing all that there is to do wears off one is confronted with the realization that there is tragically little meat on Rome's bones. The abysmal AI is the main culprit, no matter how little or much it has to do it always does a terrible job of it.

Medieval gets points where it really counts. First of all it possesses more 'depth' than Rome. Civil wars, faction revivals, three separate eras, the cuddly Mongols and especially the Glorious Achievement campaign are HUGE bonuses in my book. More importantly, Medieval is simply far more challenging than Rome. In Medieval I would sweat out the decision making process on the strategic map because I knew there were only so many sensible moves I could make and sometimes there was nothing I could do to prevent the AI from taking advantage of a weak position. Massive enemy stacks amassing a few provinces away or worse, on my borders, never failed to put me in a tizzy and get my blood flowing. In Rome I can pretty much play in a semi-comatosed state because you can count on the AI self destructing on both the strategic map and the tactical battles. Rome's shockingly inept tactical AI has provided me with more lopsided victories than I care to count. I honestly can't remember the last time I sweated out a massive battle in Rome the way I did in Medieval. Medieval's tactical AI consistently offered a greater challenge, most of it had to do with it's greater penchance for attempting a massive flanking maneuver, especially when in conjunction with cavalry. I don't recall a single battle in Rome where the AI marched and countermarched its entire army in order to gain an advantage on my flank.

Even in terms of modding Medieval's mods have a much greater impact on gameplay simply because they are more successful in affecting the AI thus making the game more challenging. The ability for modders to actually change the AI's build priorities in MTW had an enormous impact on the challenges presented to the player, especially in tactical battles. In contrast while Rome's mods are far more impressive to behold they do absolutely nothing to make the AI more effective. Even those mods that try to introduce new 'features' still cannot circumvent the fact that the AI will not be able to stop the player from walking all over it.

[Blodrast]

wow, so many things have been pointed out about the differences, that I don't think I can bring much of anything new...or even if I did, it would not make much of a difference anyway.
To make things clear, it's MTW for me as well, no contest there. As the poll actually shows...

edit: I have actually read all the posts from the beginning of this thread up to here, and I find it interesting that _many_ of the older members on this board (older as in having been here for a long time) have not posted at all...
Food for thought (not too much thought, though...).
(hint: could that be an indicator of how many of the people who have experienced STW and MTW come to the RTW forum often enough ? )

[professorspatula]

Medieval is better than Rome.

Rome's shockingly inept tactical AI has provided me with more lopsided victories than I care to count. I honestly can't remember the last time I sweated out a massive battle in Rome the way I did in Medieval. Medieval's tactical AI consistently offered a greater challenge, most of it had to do with it's greater penchance for attempting a massive flanking maneuver, especially when in conjunction with cavalry. I don't recall a single battle in Rome where the AI marched and countermarched its entire army in order to gain an advantage on my flank.

Amen to that.

Tactical manoeuvring was a big part of MTW, and you could spend the opening five minutes of the battle moving your army to the best defensive position, only for the AI to try and go around your position and gain the terrain advantage for themselves, all whilst their missile cavalry attempt to flank and cause you more problems. You feel like you're in a battle even before the first arrow has been fired and the first blood is shed. I remember being led around the Scottish Highlands by rebel Clansmen who wouldn't engage until my army was exhausted; and battles where I was desperately defending hilltops from numerous directions, all whilst the AI tried to draw my men away from the main defensive position. In RTW the enemy tends to just march or sprint directly towards your army, with a few very slow and far too obvious flanking manoeuvres where the flanking unit sometimes doesn't even bother to get involved until it is exhausted and the rest of the army has routed. Heroic victories are far too common and numerous to mention, even when you fight on flat landscapes and with an identical army to the AI.

If CA can manage to salvage the disasterous AI and make it better than MTW's (which really is what you'd expect it would be before RTW was released) then with the extra features of the expansion pack, maybe it'll be more difficult to compare which game is better. But vanilla RTW by itself is certainly an inferior game.

[Samurai Waki]

STW and MTW own RTW in terms of battle strategy... in terms of Campaign Modes, one thing that really bothers me in RTW is that agents are still represented as gamepieces, which doesn't really add up on a map obviously not set like a board game... RTWs diplomacy aspect would have been much better if you could send agents to different locations without actually moving gamepieces. The Computer would calculate the distance to go from one place to another in matter of turns. So you would give your diplomats missions, say to sue for peace... while at war with sed faction and when you're diplomat recieves the message to sue for peace, it still takes awhile to get your message back to you, so you and your enemy would still be fighting until you recieve a message from your diplomat saying that your factions are now at peace for the moment. Of course assassins and spies from other countries can try and steal or kill the rider relaying the message which would screw everything up and you'd have to start from page 1. Politics should take a deeper meaning, in this time, wars were fought through diplomacy before battle... so you couldn't surprise attack an enemy, unless of course you were a barbarian faction. You could set terms and agreements of the war, you're enemy would have to accept or give you their terms as well. Wars fought with surprise attacks and such would greatly affect the dissent in your population, or the population that you are trying to usurp. Of course some enemies will never agree to your terms or you to theirs, but if you persistantly harry your adversaries for war, and they continue to disagree, then their population will become restless... war in these times were fought with a different mind set then in modern times... honor your enemies. If you reach the objective of your war (which could be anything from usurping a territory you rightly believe is your's to all out total war) then the war would essentially be over. Major belligerent nations (such as Rome) would also have a lesser view in the eye's of the people they are conquering if they do not set terms of war.

[Zatoichi]

It's interesting to note that the BI expansion is bringing back quite a few of the core goodies from MTW - loyalty, civil war and religion to name but 3. Now, if they can improve the AI as well in line with what we've seen before in MTW, I think RTW will come out top over all. But what do I know?

[Daveybaby]

RTW campaign map is better by far (except for the bugs and AI stupidity).
MTW combat is better by far.

[sapi]

I come back to this thread, and i find it sad....MTW by 30 votes.

People, think of what a game rtw is, not of the bugs...you cannot deny that it was a step foward, albiet a bug-ridden one

[drone]

I come back to this thread, and i find it sad....MTW by 30 votes.

People, think of what a game rtw is, not of the bugs...you cannot deny that it was a step foward, albiet a bug-ridden one

It is both a step forward, and a step back. What CA/Sega needs to do now is build on the Rome engine, and create the ubergame that Rome should have been. I think they just released RTW too soon, it needed at least another 6 months of work (and probably another 3 months in QA/public beta).

[Butcher]

Regarding memorable battles, here's the difference I see between the two games:

In MTW, a memorable battle I can think of was when i matched my upgraded, experienced late english army to (what i thought) a better position through wooded hilly terrain, only to be surprise charged in the flank by the entire spanish army. Cue 1/2 an hour of desperate fighting to try and salvage some parts of my army, only to have my King die as he led a desperate countercharge. Great stuff.
In RTW, a memorable battle I can think of was when my Scipii Army went through 3 twenty unit strong armies of the Senate and Brutii in about 15 minutes.