MTW or RTW? Which is better?

[Red Harvest]

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.

Yep. That is my main problem with it as well. My battlefield win/loss ratio hovered in the 50:1 to 100:1 range through several campaigns. ***BORING***

It is interesting that RTW is getting drubbed in this poll at the moment. Afterall, this is the RTW forum, meaning the folks here have some interest in it (even if for some of us it is now reduced to morbid curiosity.)

[drone]

M:TW. Rome just doesn't have an "edge" to it, it's hard to get sucked in. After the first few years, it's just a job: kill the rebels, build up the rubber-stamp cities, annihilate the hapless enemy stacks, rinse, lather, repeat. It's got cool graphics, but it lacks a mental "flavor".

[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!

[Colovion]

I think that my vote will go to RTW after the XP and EB Mod is released... assuming that the XP fixes all off the known problems with the game and adds a couple little fun features.

My vote goes to MTW now because I played it with the BI and the MedMod and it was utter ecstasy. I do, however, remember becoming entranced with the demo I downloaded which I played over and over until I saved up enough to buy the full version + XP. I even illegally downloaded the full vanilla version but I never got around to playing it more than the tutorial over and over. The game was of such scale to me that I didn't want to miss any immersion factor by playing on a version that might be missing some music files or something.

look forward to the XP with longing eyes hidden behind scarred thoughts of past disappointments. :(

[Sol Invictus]

Sad thing is that I have only scatched the surface of Rome; always seem to be waiting on patches and mods before I finally jump into the deep end. I finally broke down and rebought MTW:VI and now remember all the nice things about MTW that RTW doesn't have. So I find myself playing MTW now and still waiting for patches/Mods/Expack to make it all right. Very sad.

[Magraev]

The question goes to gameplay - there I feel M:TW wins without contest. Unfortunately it's difficult to go back to inferior graphics once you've seen how it can be done.

I still love M:TW the most in the series. If they fix all the bugs in R:TW I might change my mind.

[The Stranger]

just like that is giong to happen

[Magraev]

I can dream can't I? Maybe the X-pack will make my dreams come true too

[Strongsword]

Choosing MTW over RTW is as confusing to me as the popularity of Will and Grace.

Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW.

The strategic map alone provides depth to troop movements that is not found on MTW--both on land and at sea (amphibious assaults)

Moreover, the AI on MTW is overrated. Similar tactics that are decrided in RTW will achieve the same measure of success in MTW (i.e., engage the infantry and use the cavalry to flank).

I think most players ljust ike the MTW time period better (knights and chivralic men-at-arms) than ancient Rome, which accounts for the favor of MTW over RTW.

[The Stranger]

no, i think most hate the buggy RTW disc, and the weak childish AI, but the good things don't overpower the bad things. the savegame bug is a gamebraker, only god knows what's next. maybe the romans arén't the romans but the evil martians

[Red Harvest]

Choosing MTW over RTW is as confusing to me as the popularity of Will and Grace.

Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW.

The strategic map alone provides depth to troop movements that is not found on MTW--both on land and at sea (amphibious assaults)

Moreover, the AI on MTW is overrated. Similar tactics that are decrided in RTW will achieve the same measure of success in MTW (i.e., engage the infantry and use the cavalry to flank).

I think most players ljust ike the MTW time period better (knights and chivralic men-at-arms) than ancient Rome, which accounts for the favor of MTW over RTW.

Flash over substance. RTW presents the *illusion* of depth. Flash and "depth" falter if not properly supported and fleshed out. Poor execution is worse than not having a feature at all. Better to do the simple well, than the complex poorly. In MTW I can't win nearly as many difficult battles as in RTW. And I can't win them in MTW with virtually no casualties as I can in RTW.

As for increased depth, the RTW AI fails to handle either the tactical changes or strategic changes well, so the increased depth is actually a weakness of the game rather than a strength as it should be. The problems with the huge number of stars that player generals easily get in RTW (and the AI does not) shows another dimension where depth is increased, but so poorly implemented and bugged as to destroy gameplay. As a result, removing all the traits would be an improvement in RTW for gameplay. Some folks have removed all walls to get around the save/load bug. It's bad enough that I gave up on the game as have many others. Yet I haven't given up on its predecessors. So it is very hard for me to see how anyone can rate RTW above the other two.

Time periods don't matter that much to me...if well executed. Pawning this off on some time period bias is not gonna work...especially when you consider the core of STW players out there. I was really looking forward to the phalanx units. But again, the AI can't use them properly at all...and heavy cavalry can cut through phalanx units frontally. Unit balance is an absolute mess. Charge doesn't work in a logical fashion.

Another thing, what about periods...why only one period for RTW? The Marian reforms are a non-issue since they don't effect the campaign (it is over by then.) There is an illusion of depth in RTW at the moment.

In MTW you can't just use a cav rush for everything. The examples you gave are of flash, not substance. Those are gamey non-historic examples. I "solved" RTW as Carthage in my 2nd campaign. I switched to nearly all cav (on VH back when difficulty levels worked) and easily swept the field. MTW required balanced armies and building/maintaining a cav army is expensive in MTW. There is much more depth to battlefield play (terrain) in MTW. And the MTW AI is better about holding its high ground than RTW (not perfect, but much better.)

RTW's missile code is far less developed than its predecessors. We did manage to get FF fixed to match MTW for the most part, but we still have firing sixteen ranks deep, next to no distance attenuation, weak or non-existent weather effects, and very accurate "indirect" fire.

MTW and STW had naval invasions...not sure what you were trying to say.

[Mongoose]

"Anyone who has zoomed in to see their War Elephants destroying an entire unit of Legionary Cohorts, or Cataphrats rolling through infantry, or set Carthage afire with onagers knows that RTW is on another level than MTW."


I don't know about you, but when i see a unit of cataphracts(sp?) charge through pikemen and win(from the front)..... and you are mostly talking about graphics, which do not add any depth to the game.

EDIT: wow, RTW is getting beatin badly i guess it dosen't do so well when the eye candy part of the game is not counted

[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

[Titus Livius]

Personally, I find it very difficult to stick with a game in MTW now that I've played RTW. Graphics, gameplay, units, and the all-important use of terrain make Rome the better game.

And I'd wager that at least a few of you are voting for MTW as a retaliatory measure against CA for all the bugs, lack of customer service, etc.

[Mongoose]

But what about the AI?

[Titus Livius]

But what about the AI?

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.

I think a lot of the "difficulty" factor in MTW comes from the fact that all factions had basically the same units. When you field 6 Urban Militia and your opponent fields the exact same thing, sure, it's going to be a bit tougher.

But I also remember being able to drive most enemies from the field with ease in MTW as well as in RTW. Once, with the English, I killed about 2100 Almohads for a loss of 17 of my own boys. Some of that had to do with the fact that the enemy could only bring up reserves as they're units routed off-map, and that could be a pretty damned long walk, so the new way to employ reserves also stands in RTW's favor.

All in all, if one AI is slightly better than the other, it doesn't much matter. I'm a better general than both of them combined.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And I'd wager that at least a few of you are voting for MTW as a retaliatory measure against CA for all the bugs, lack of customer service, etc.

And if we are, who can blame us? Some of those bugs are pretty close to unexcusable.

[Shahed]

RTW is better in that it adds many desirable features. Unfortunately these features have come at the expense of gameplay. MTW wins.

[[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.

[Shambles]

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.

Have a look in the apothecary,
or sword dojo,
Then come back and tell me where my 500+ posts are.

I owned Shogun total war since it was released.
And still play it to this day,
In fact Im playing in a match tomorrow or saturday in the tourniment i am holding.

I play mtw on a regular basis.

And Rome total war has been Uninstalled and Religated to the pile marked Unwanted

And the game still is not £20 or $40 In this country.
It still equals like $85 now.
So If you lived here I guess you would not own any game untill it was like 12 years old

[Colovion]

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.

You forget that some people see unspent potential and wish to see that tapped into in the future. Not everyone gives up as easily as you do. Simply because you do not feel passionate about a subject does not mean that it isn't justifiable.