The History of MTW

[Servius]

While reading some posts, I've noticed several posters who probably started with RTW and never played the first MTW. So, what I was thinking was that it might help the community in general, but folks who've only played RTW (or never played a TW game at all) in particular, to review some of the game mechanics from MTW. If this turns out to be a popular and useful thread, maybe we can get it stickied.

So, for some structure, perhaps MTW veterans could elaborate on some area of the game. In general, try to provide a brief description of how a particular game mechanic worked in the game. For example...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PROVINCES

Provinces in MTW differed from those in RTW in several ways. First, you either owned a province or you didn't, and if you did, you controlled the whole thing, border to border. You could have as many army stacks as you wanted there, but no other faction (ally or not) could leave a stack in your province. Other factions could invade your province, but one way or another, only one army would control the province at the end of the turn. The one semi-exception to this is that, if the defender of a province had a castle, and they lost the battle, a certain number of their forces could retreat to the castle (the rest had to retreat to a friendly neighboring province). In that situation, the retreating defender would be in the province's castle, but the attacker would 'hold' the province until the defenders were killed through siege or assault. The attacker could not earn any taxes or build any units in such a province until the defenders in the castle were utterly wiped out.

In MTW, the province was all their was. There was no differentiation between province and city. Gameplay-wise, there never really were any cities. Battles used a castle map only when someone had retreated to a castle. There were never any city fights like there are in RTW.

Each province had it's own stats: Farm value, trade goods, tax rate, loyalty, zeal, and sometimes Iron.

Each province had a base farm income. Farm upgrades would increase this base value by a given percentage. Therefore, the first farm upgrade would generate more money in a province that had a large base value (like in Flanders) than in Scotland (which had a low base value).

Trade goods were only useful if your province was on the coast and you had a port, a merchant building, and shiping lines to connect your port to the ports of other nations. The start-up cost for building a good trading network was very high. Ships cost a lot of money to build and weren't cheap to maintain either. However, once established, trade networks could rake in the dough. Also, the same ships that acted as your trading fleet also doubled as your troop transport network. Units were never loaded onto a ship. Ships occupied sea zones. If your army started in one province with a port, and you had an unopposed chain of ships between your home province and the one you wanted to invade, the entire army could invade in one year.

Each province had a sliding scale tax rate (Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High). The higher your tax rate, the more money you made (off of farms and trade goods), but the lower the loyalty of the province.

Loyalty could be modified by the variable tax rate, loyalty-improving buildings, the size of the garrison, the Dread rating and vices/virtues of the governing unit, how far away the king was, the presence of agents (spies and inquisitors), the Influence rating and vices/virtues of the king, whether your faction was at war or peace with its neighbors, and the success or failure of active crusades. I know that sounds like a lot, but in reality, it was much easier to control the loyalty of the people in MTW than it is in RTW. The two tower improvments, a friendly spy, and a garrison of 100 men was enough to gaurantee the loyalty of almost any province.

Zeal wasn't very important. It only came into play if you built a crusade. For instance, if I own Wessex, and Wessex has high Zeal, the crusade was more likely to have crusader knights and order spearmen and less likely to have Fanatics (uber peasants). Also, if you moved your crusade through provinces with high Zeal, the crusade would suck up more troops from whatever armies were in that region. But outside of crusading, Zeal was unimportant.

That leaves Iron. Iron was like a trade good, but you couldn't trade it. Instead, if the province had it, it allowed you to build an Armory which could add +1 to every unit's attack value produced there. Each armory upgrade added another +1 to subsequent units produced there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope this is useful. If you think so too, adopt a game feature and tell the uninitiated how it used to be.

[Reenk Roink]

Thank You for this, I am one of those people who you mentioned, and I have gotten some heat for saying that I like the speed of RTW battles.........

Anyway, this helps, and things I would like clarified is the difference of the maps (RTW has a nice lush terrain map, while MTW has more of a Risk style map as I've seen in screenshots).

[Servius]

On speed of battles, both games have a base speed at which units move and kill each other. MTW had a super-simple .txt file which contained all the unit variables (attack value, defense value, walk speed, run speed, charge speed, turn speed, etc.) In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders.

RTW battles are, on average, much faster than MTW battles. Two RTW units can collide and one can wipe the other out in like 2 seconds (depending on units). RTW units break (morale) a lot quicker than MTW units did, which makes the battles even shorter. RTW infantry move at lightening speed, almost as fast as cavalry, whereas MTW units move at more realistic relative speeds. For an easy comparison, you can generally think of RTW units as having much lower morale and armor compared to MTW. They run away quicker and they die quicker.

Also on speed, MTW had this very simple but very cool and handy speed bar. You just slid this little bar to the right and the battle speed accelerated. You had complete control between the standard and max speed. In RTW, that was simplified to like two pre-set speed acceleration rates. So, like in many things, at least in my opinion, RTW was dumbed down and options were taken away from players.

As to maps, the MTW map was very Risk-like. As I said above, you either controlled a province or you didn't. In RTW, there mind as well not even be provinces, since you only 'control' cities and whatever part of the country-side you have a dominant army in. There were no roaving bands of annoying skirmisher rebels in MTW. There were your armies, allied armies, enemy armies, and occasionally rebel units would spawn if the province was pissed off/disloyal.

In RTW, if your army was in a forest tile and a fight ensued, the game used a forest map that roughly approximated the surrounding area. In MTW, you either fought a battle in Flanders or in Normady. The game randomly selected maps from a set (like lush_european_flat_river or desert_hills). While I like the ability in RTW to have a bit more control over the kind of battlefield you'll fight in, I think the actual battle maps in RTW were crappy, because there were hardly any significant terrain features besides rivers and their bridges. In MTW, hills and forests had a much more significant impact on the outcome of a battle than they do in RTW. So, given the choice, I prefer MTW battle maps.

Last thing about maps, if I attacked Flanders from Normady, there's a variable that says whether there are rivers between Normandy and Flanders. If there are rivers, the game pulled up a river map with the appropriate climate. If not, no river. The terrain (lush, arid, hilly, flat, etc.) was determined by the terrain in the defending province.

[Quietus]

More differences:

- Excessive maneuvers in RTW doesn't seem to be penalized.
- RTW units rarely get exhausted.
- Both RTW and MTW campaign map difficulty is the initial expansion phase. However, beyond that, RTW campaign is longer without using the "exterminate" the city function.
- Mercenary recruitment in MTW isn't as important.
- Princesses are useless and unnecessary (other than to spy on neighbors).
- You can groom any general unit in MTW.
- You can only trade with foreign factions in MTW (not perfectly sure of this since I didn't do specific tests). And there's no land trade between your cities.
- Ransoming (was one of the few improvement of MTW over STW).


Some similar aspects:
- Both are easy to build the economy (because building, training and upkeep are relatively low).
- Good players are penalized with economic vices (Aren't good players supposed to be rewarded not punished?)

[Perplexed]

- Both RTW and MTW campaign map difficulty is the initial expansion phase

This is true. In all of the TW games the most challenging part was the initial expansion. However I, like, I am sure, many others here, take challenging to mean more fun. Therefore, I say that the most fun in any TW game is in the preliminary stages of a campaign.

Unfortunately, the preliminary stages of a campaign are obviously only preliminary, so the fun does not last long. One way to fix this would be to create a feature by which empires which have swollen to an unchallenging level go into decline as a result of certain stimuli.

For example, say one empire, controlled by the player, is expanded from one province to twenty, in the reign of one influential king or a short line of influential kings. Under the enlightened rulership of these rulers, the empire is stable, but when a strong king dies and a weak monarch takes the throne, there should be more of a penalty for the empire, such as decreased morale in armies, less income, more unrest in frontier provinces, riots, civil wars, etc. This would work for the computer as well. A computer empire that grows too large will inevitably decline just as a player kingdom would.

Of course, it isn't necessarily only weak monarchs that make this decline possible. A large kingdom that suffers a disastrous defeat in battle should also suffer from the penalties of decline (this would also give crushing victories more of a meaning, as it would not only take away the enemy's fighting men, but would cause unrest in the kingdom as well. Massive victories would be more rewarding and have more gravity). Other examples of decline-causing stimuli include droughts, plagues, remnants of past monarchies who were overthrown by the current line causing unrest and rebellion; the list can go on for a while.

This step (which I expect to be opposed by many on this forum who don't like their hard work to be "destroyed" in such a way) would keep the action fresh nonetheless, and keep the campaign map a colorful and exciting place (less countries annihalated by larger empires, more prolonged conflict, etc.) and it would keep, as is the point of my post, the game more fun with many challenging stages throughout the campaign.

[Servius]

On generals...

In MTW, every time you built a unit, any unit, it had a chance to have general stars. The liklihood was determined by a LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH setting in the massive .txt file that had every unit variable in it (which is also why MTW was way easier and better to mod). So for example, spearmen had LOW but Royal Knights had HIGH.

So you could build Royal Knights and some would come out with one or two, maybe three stars.

Then there were pre-set heroes, like William Wallace, Strongbow FitzGilbert, El Cid, etc. which the game would assign to a unit, again based on their liklihood to get a general, after a certain date. So for the English, the first Royal Knight unit you build after like 1098 will be Strongbow I think, something like that. Strongbow came out with 4-6 stars. Each faction had different numbers of these historical hero units waiting to be spawned after certain dates. Also, in MTW, the characters could die, but the units retained the stats. So Strongbow would die, and random person X would take over that unit, but still have all of Strongbow's Command stars, Accumen, Dread, etc.

Then on top of all that there was a system of assigning governorship. Once you captured a province, a little icon appeared on the game map that looked like a scroll. This was the title of Lord for that region. You could also build certain buildings which created additional titles, like Constable of the Tower or Marshall of the Horse, Warden of the Clinque Ports and so on. Anyway, each of these titles conveyed stat boost to which ever unit you granted the title to. Every title granted some boost to the unit's loyalty. Some granted additional Command stars, Accumen, Dread, and Peity.

EVERY unit in the game has a Command, Accumen, Dread, Loyalty, and Piety stat. So, a common practice was to make cheap 100-man units with at least 4 Accumen the governor of a province. The lordships and other titles that granted Command start could be given to your top commanders to increase their power on the battlefield.

It was an awesome system, very flexible, very realistic too, and very simple. As a king, you could make even a peasant unit the lord or a province if you wanted (if they had high loyalty and high Accumen). Only the king and his immediate heirs could not be granted these titles. However, former heirs no longer in the line of succession could be granted titles. I really hope that system comes back.

[Monarch]

On speed of battles, both games have a base speed at which units move and kill each other. MTW had a super-simple .txt file which contained all the unit variables (attack value, defense value, walk speed, run speed, charge speed, turn speed, etc.) In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders.

RTW battles are, on average, much faster than MTW battles. Two RTW units can collide and one can wipe the other out in like 2 seconds (depending on units). RTW units break (morale) a lot quicker than MTW units did, which makes the battles even shorter. RTW infantry move at lightening speed, almost as fast as cavalry, whereas MTW units move at more realistic relative speeds. For an easy comparison, you can generally think of RTW units as having much lower morale and armor compared to MTW. They run away quicker and they die quicker.

Also on speed, MTW had this very simple but very cool and handy speed bar. You just slid this little bar to the right and the battle speed accelerated. You had complete control between the standard and max speed. In RTW, that was simplified to like two pre-set speed acceleration rates. So, like in many things, at least in my opinion, RTW was dumbed down and options were taken away from players.

As to maps, the MTW map was very Risk-like. As I said above, you either controlled a province or you didn't. In RTW, there mind as well not even be provinces, since you only 'control' cities and whatever part of the country-side you have a dominant army in. There were no roaving bands of annoying skirmisher rebels in MTW. There were your armies, allied armies, enemy armies, and occasionally rebel units would spawn if the province was pissed off/disloyal.

In RTW, if your army was in a forest tile and a fight ensued, the game used a forest map that roughly approximated the surrounding area. In MTW, you either fought a battle in Flanders or in Normady. The game randomly selected maps from a set (like lush_european_flat_river or desert_hills). While I like the ability in RTW to have a bit more control over the kind of battlefield you'll fight in, I think the actual battle maps in RTW were crappy, because there were hardly any significant terrain features besides rivers and their bridges. In MTW, hills and forests had a much more significant impact on the outcome of a battle than they do in RTW. So, given the choice, I prefer MTW battle maps.

Last thing about maps, if I attacked Flanders from Normady, there's a variable that says whether there are rivers between Normandy and Flanders. If there are rivers, the game pulled up a river map with the appropriate climate. If not, no river. The terrain (lush, arid, hilly, flat, etc.) was determined by the terrain in the defending province.

Just a few comments on that post...

In RTW cavalry are not a similar speed to infantry when running, go into a custom battle and give them a race.

I'll give you the fact MTW made more use of surroundings, but still, the ability to generate whats on the campaign map onto the battle map is a great feature, adding realism/ I've even seen a battle fought on the shorline where my navy, floating around nearby, has been generated into the battle map.

Due to the risk style format of mtw, this is obviously impossible, but randomly generating a map from a set pack is hardly wonderful.

Also I think that in ancient times there would have been more 'tribes' rebels/brigands. However in Medieval with united kingdoms there would have been much less. Perhaps this is the reason for more rebels appearing in Rome. Once more, realism.

" In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders."

Heh, comes with the 3d territory imo. MTW engine was relatively 'super simple' in comparison with Rome.

Yes, I agree that the speed bar should be brought back. Run and walk is not enough. Also in agreement that battles should be longer.

Anyhow, good idea for a topic.

Edit: Oh and dont forget the weather. MTW had more realistic 'storms' and such compared to rome.

[Casmin]

Also I think that in ancient times there would have been more 'tribes' rebels/brigands. However in Medieval with united kingdoms there would have been much less. Perhaps this is the reason for more rebels appearing in Rome. Once more, realism.

Hmm. A good thought but I'd have to disagree. Maybe more tribes during ancient times but kingdoms weren't really united until late Medieval/Rennaissance history. Besides Rome eventually became (within the timeframe of RTW) a more cohesive nation than any Medieval country could have dreamed of.

I think in essence the appearance of rebels in RTW was just undertested by CA. I don't think they realized how annoying they were to the gameplay until after the release.