Best map!

**Shadow** · 07-25-2005, 09:59

RTW

Better graphics, you can pincer enemy, ambush, disaster shown on map etc

**Ludens** · 07-25-2005, 13:05

Apart from the AI not being able to deal with it, there is another thing bad about the campaign map and that is the number of possible battlefield generated. Each and every land tile that is not a mountain, dense forest, river or swamp has to be a battlefield: there are thousands of possible battlefield and since they are all generated by the same algorithm they are all quite dull.

S:TW and M:TW on the other hand had "hand-made" battlefields with small hills and little forests you could use to hide troops in. Especially the S:TW battlemaps were very good in terms of placement of these features. On the other hand, R:TW battlemaps tend to be dominated by one big hill or one big forest and that's it. Tactically that is very dull, since there is only one feature you can use (and then the AI doesn't use it well either).

Though the 3D map is very beautiful, the 2D map wins for me if it means the battlefields will be more diverse.

**King of Atlantis** · 07-26-2005, 01:31

Originally Posted by Shadow

RTW

Better graphics, you can pincer enemy, ambush, disaster shown on map etc

yes the rtw war map is very pretty, but as the total war bible says,

thou shall not live on eye candy alone

**Oaty** · 07-26-2005, 04:52

@ barrocca

RTW - i tell a unit to flank, and one of it's men gets caught/swipes an enemy and the entire unit stops?

That's been in all TW games. so that is not RTW specific. Been a while but I believe STW was the worst about this occurrence.

Anyways on topic I prefer the RTW style map. Makes it more realistic as far as how an army moves. This is excluding timeline wich was made that way for gameplay purposes.

**swirly_the_toilet_fish** · 07-26-2005, 04:56

Having only played RTW that was my decision.

However, the 3d landscape draws you into the world and gives you a feel of the terrain and the army movements seem to closely mimic real life movements.

I do think that the map should have been a bit larger, but those reasons are for mods and other topics.

**Strappy Horse** · 07-26-2005, 09:13

Absolutely the RTW map for me.
It adds a whole strategic element that was lacking in MTW. I will admit that the AI does not make complete use of that in RTW, but nevertheless it has enhanced my gameplay.

I had a very enjoyable campaign with the Julii in Spain, maneuvering my armies around the map to make sure they ended up on the right spot, giving me the advantage of terrain in the following battle.

**edyzmedieval** · 07-26-2005, 14:09

MTW map rulz.

No question, it does rule. And it's also very modifiable. Just look at BKB's new mod. He made a map of America, which demonstrates that the MTW mod is very modifiable.

**Geoffrey S** · 07-26-2005, 14:57

I enjoy the way the RTW map gives so many more strategic options, it's a shame the AI isn't really geared up to making that kind of decisions. I loved the style of the old maps though, looking like a proper old fashioned map laid on some conquerer's table.

**Midnight** · 07-26-2005, 19:14

It *should* be the RTW map, but right now it isn't. It looks better, and you have a hell of a lot more tactical freedom... but sadly the AI just cannot deal with it.

So the choice is a groovy-looking map on which I can do lots of things but have virtually no opponent, or a sightly-less-groovy looking one which limits my options but which is actually more challenging (and thus fun). Unless BI makes some *serious* AI improvements, it's got to be MTW's map, because of the AI.

**Martok** · 07-27-2005, 05:24

Originally Posted by Midnight

It *should* be the RTW map, but right now it isn't. It looks better, and you have a hell of a lot more tactical freedom... but sadly the AI just cannot deal with it.

So the choice is a groovy-looking map on which I can do lots of things but have virtually no opponent, or a sightly-less-groovy looking one which limits my options but which is actually more challenging (and thus fun). Unless BI makes some *serious* AI improvements, it's got to be MTW's map, because of the AI.

Excellent way of putting it, Midnight. I couldn't have said it better myself. Rome's map would be better, *if* the AI could handle it.

**King of Atlantis** · 07-27-2005, 07:11

man i cant believ rtw is winning. For people who played MTW first which game did you play more?

**Martok** · 07-29-2005, 06:22

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

man i cant believ rtw is winning. For people who played MTW first which game did you play more?

KingofAtlantis, I play Medieval almost exclusively; I haven't touch Rome in months. Medieval is a far superior game to Rome in almost every way--except visually, and this includes the campaign map.

I am in no way saying that Rome is a better *game*, just that it looks better. Granted, its campaign map doesn't have the same old-school charm as Medieval and Shogun, but it does make for a more interactive and realistic gameworld--and frankly, it is more attractive. The main flaw in Rome's map (as you, me, and nearly everyone else has pointed out) is that the AI simply can't handle it. It's so easy for a human player to exploit Rome's campaign map for strategic advantage over the AI factions, that it's absolutely no challenge.

Everything you've been saying is true, except that you're supporting the wrong argument. The points you've been making support the argument that Medieval's AI and overall gameplay are better than Rome's. It's not that Medieval's map is better, it's just that Medieval's AI can handle the map much better than Rome's AI can handle *its* map.

**Csargo** · 08-10-2005, 02:02

I've never even played the game but from what I saw of my friends map off his game it looked alot better than the MTW map. Not trying to diss the MTW thats the coolest game i've ever played but the RTW map is way better.