To hell with Morrowind Oblivion!

[Lehesu]

Could be, IIRC it's in Morrowinds manual. I guess I'll check.





Unless Bethesda spent all of Oblivions developement time gettin drunk shooting dice and chasing floozies they couldn't possibly scrwe up the game play.

And I didn't think that CA could possibly destroy their own tactical battle system.

[lars573]

And I didn't think that CA could possibly destroy their own tactical battle system.

They didn't destroy it they made it infinitely better.

[Steppe Merc]

Never heard of the Gothic series... I prefer to stick with what I know.

[Lehesu]

They didn't destroy it they made it infinitely better.

I trust that you have played both Medieval and Shogun extensively before making that post.

[King of Atlantis]

I trust that you have played both Medieval and Shogun extensively before making that post.

Rome is much better than shogun. I sent samuri's at basic archers and the archers destroyed my samuri .

[Lehesu]

Rome is much better than shogun. I sent samuri's at basic archers and the archers destroyed my samuri .

You do, of course, understand that Shogun's "basic archers" were actually full-fledged samurai, with katanas? They are, and should be, quite proficient in melee.

[Steppe Merc]

Shogun and Medieval were better (if one just looks at goodness, without comparing graphics or gameplay).

[King of Atlantis]

You do, of course, understand that Shogun's "basic archers" were actually full-fledged samurai, with katanas? They are, and should be, quite proficient in melee.

Yes, but the highest level of swordsmen should still beat an archer in close combat.

[Efrem]

Shogun owns Rome, but medieval is a terrible game.

[Lehesu]

Yes, but the highest level of swordsmen should still beat an archer in close combat.

To many variables involved in this statement. One would need numbers, weather, terrain, etc. However, if you pit a group of No-Dachi and Samurai Archers on a plain and made them melee it out, then the No-Dachi, should have won. In fact, they mostly do.

[lars573]

I trust that you have played both Medieval and Shogun extensively before making that post.

Yes, played them to death. You see for me RTW was the first TW game where I could get better results in battles if I played them myself. In STW I got so fed up with losing half my army (at best) everytime I fough a battle I just stopped al together. When MTW came along it was the same thing. The clunky craptacular controls and interface plus the retarded camera killed the battles for me in MTW and STW.

[Lehesu]

That is interesting...I never thought the interface was clunky in any sense of the word. If anything, I thought the battles were too easy on the normal setting. My particular gripes with RTW focus on the insane speed, as well as the concessions made to the RTS fanboys that haven't played anything more tactical than Starcraft or AoE (which, by the way, are good games).

But that's enough of that; I believe I have hijacked this thread for far too long now. :)

[Mongoose]

The controls are better in rome. How ever, i think that the other games had better over all battles:

1:better AI
2:Bigger battle fields
3:more interesting battle fields
4:better charge bonus

Just my2cents

Back on topic: what do you think of the Morrowind story line? is it linear or can you just kinda do what ever you want?

[King of Atlantis]

In morrowind you can do what ever you want(and theres a ton to do), but there is a solid main storyline too.

In oblivion there will be even more freedom as npc's will actaully live out there lives and make decisions.