Looking for a game like RTW...

[Mongoose]

...But harder and with a less boring late game. any ideas?? EU2??? What would you recommend?

Thanks .

[Productivity]

Medieval: Total War

[Papewaio]

Shogun: Total War.

Any of the mods for the above.

[doc_bean]

Have you actually played a full IG campaign already ? I haven't even seen it in stores yet.

In response to the original question: if you like empire building and don't care as much about the battles : Civilization III.

[Mongoose]

I played the IG demo and the battles seemed tiny compared to RTW/MTW, are they bigger in the full game?

Thanks for all the replies

[Fragony]

Most will disagree, but STW and MTW are superior games compared to RTW. I would try those.

[Mongoose]

O.K, i have narrowed it done to:

MTW
CIV3
Knights of honor

IG sound good but im looking for something set from 1000 BC-1500 AD

[econ21]

O.K, i have narrowed it done to:

MTW
CIV3
Knights of honor

Never heard of Knights of Honor, but Civ3 and MTW are chalk and cheese.

Civ3 is a building game, strong on exploration, expansion, economics, research, diplomacy etc but not a historical wargame. Early warfare is about inching 30 or so crappy units one square at a time across a strategic map. It has no semblance to any war in history and no tactics. My impression is that it has a rather superior AI, but it never sucked me in. (Civ2 did, but even then, it was more like an addiction to "one more turn" than a very pleasurable experience.)

MTW is very like RTW. The strategic layer, building and diplomacy etc, are much less refined than Civ3. The campaign map is less fluid and less realistic than that in RTW - more Risk-like, if that means anything to you. Perhaps as a consequence, it manages to pose some interesting strategic dilemmas and challenges - more than in RTW. But where Total War shines is in the tactical battles. They are, in my opinion, an object of wonder not matched in any other historical wargame I have played. MTW battles are rather better than those in RTW - the pace is slower and I think the AI is better. But basically MTW is RTW in a later era with less chrome and more solid, challenging gameplay.

[thepipe]

I had the same question as you and I tried IG. Don't get it I bought it on friday and I've already beat it on hard with prussia. Its way too easy and simplistic and the battles, althought they look awesoom, aren't fun there basicly mass chaos till one side is slatred. I heard so much about how indepth the management part of the game would be but it was BS.

[Mongoose]

Alright, i've narrowed the list down to civ3 or MTW, knights of honor seems to have even worse multiplayer then RTW

[thepipe]

What is it with this smear campaign against IG? You don't even sound like you've played the game. I have trouble believing you've beaten it on hard with Prussia and found it "So easy" when most people are having difficulties playing the game on Easy.

I'll try to be brief b/c this probably isn't the place for this-

Its not a smear campaign, in fact I was upset about people dogging this game before it even came out; furthermore I didn't call every store in my city every day last week till I finally found a copy on Friday, then run out and buy it and played it all weekend just so I could come here and smear it. I don't have much of a life but I have a little more of one than this.

Yes I have the game and yes I've won it on hard with Prussia if you really want to get in to a pissing contest I'll gladly post some screen shots.

I don't know who you've talk to that’s having trouble on easy every form I've gone to for IG is full of post saying "I can recommend playing on easy its just too easy" or "I just finished a campaign on medium and I hope hard is more challenging." There maybe some people having trouble on easy but to say most people are having difficulties playing on easy it just flat untrue.

They tried to put in alot of features in but didn't develop any of them. There is no variable tax rate, no such things as differing traits or ability levels for your generals, no governors at all, the campaign map is like risk everyone in a province is considered to be at the same place. After the first few hectic years no one ever attacks you and its way to easy to get way to much money and you can by what ever you want for cheap prices, first and foremost territories. These two things, lack of pressure and over abundance of money, render any potential the management system had irrelevant as there is no need to be efficient or shrewd.

Don't even get me started battles. The map for each province is always the same except for weather, the attacking force always starts in the same place, the defending force always starts in the same place, the attacker always have the same objective, and defenders always have the same objective, you can’t pause and give orders basically turns the battles into autoresolve battles you get to watch.

for heavens shake theres not even a moral system. A unit of basic infantry (militia) can( and does) charge a cannon battery, get blasted the whole time and reach the battery with less than 10% their original strength and the still keep going and take out the battery with out routing. Moral and routing is a critical aspect of any war situation, particularly in this era. It’s laughable that they left this out.

The game is totally simple and boring and totally doesn't live up to the hype the developers created for it. It is obvious to me that they worked hard on some parts of the game (audio visual is outstanding, yes better than RTW) but then they just threw the rest together to meet a deadline. The game needs about another year of development. When developers do this I think it’s far from a smear, in fact quit fair and necessary to call them on it.

So much for being brief.

Finial word, all this is my opinion of the game some one asks for opinions and this is mine (although every thing I listed above is fact) take or leave it. After reading your post and others I've seen you write I have to kind of wonder do you work for or own stock in the company that made IG? If so tell them to put out a finished quality product not something that looks great and has a good concept but is totally underdeveloped.

[Mongoose]

I noticed that CIV 3 usually get's rated "easy" And MTW is "hard"

http://www.strategyinformer.com/revi...ationiii.shtml

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/medievaltotalwar/

look at "game info"

Difficulty:
Hard
Learning Curve:
1 hour
Version:
Retail

And civ is rated "easy"

[tibilicus]

Try Civ 3 on diety mode. Now thats not easy. The A.I can get stuff x3 faster than you. I have allways found Civ 3 a lot more chlenging. I love both RTW and Civ 3. But Civ3 is cool in the way you get to build your own kingdon and expand beyond borders. Also in the play the world exspansion pack theres some good maps. My personel favourite test of time. Huge map start of in historical locations can play from 20 something empires and can choose to start with or without cities. Civ 3 also gets very interesting later on diplomacy wise with mutal protection pacts e.c.t

[econ21]

I noticed that CIV 3 usually get's rated "easy" And MTW is "hard"

I suspect that refers to the learning curve rather than the ferocity of the AI. So chess would be easy, in the sense that it's fairly easy to learn the rules, but of course very hard to win against a good player or even an AI. Civ is fairly accessible, IMO, but takes some time to master and has a fairly competitive AI. Total War has a steeper learning curve - perhaps just in terms of controlling the camera and keeping up with the potentially overwhelming real time battles - but the AI is not as competitive as in Civ.

I am pretty sure there is a trade off between complexity (or freedom) in games and the strength of the AI. Where there is limited freedom, as in Chess, it is easier to program a formiddable AI.

[Mongoose]

So, which would you consider harder over all?

Also, is it true that a pikeman can beat a tank?

Thank you