Does this work?

**Bombasticus Maximus** · 07-06-2006, 22:36

Does playing Shogun and MTW make you better at RTW?

I'd say it does myself as it gives you a better understanding of troop numbers, money, and so on. What do you think?

**Csargo** · 07-06-2006, 22:45

I've never played RTW so I don't know.

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 07-06-2006, 22:51

Originally Posted by Bombasticus Maximus

Does playing Shogun and MTW make you better at RTW?

I'd say it does myself as it gives you a better understanding of troop numbers, money, and so on. What do you think?

i never played shogun. MTW yes, i had it first before RTW, and it helped alot. (in battle never played campaign MTW)

**Ludens** · 07-06-2006, 23:17

Playing M:TW was certainly a good preparation for R:TW: I found R:TW easy compared to it predecessors. It takes far more to secure a decisive advantage in M:TW/S:TW than it does in R:TW, both on the battlefield and on the strategic map. Off course it also helps that the R:TW interface is more streamlined. However, R:TW does require a different style of play. The fact that a decisive advantage in R:TW is easy to obtain encourages a blitz-style of play to gain as much as possible of this advantage. However, if you tried this in M:TW or S:TW, you would not achieve as much in the short-term, and the lack of reserves leaves you vulnerable to a counterstrike.

**DukeofSerbia** · 07-07-2006, 10:42

R TW is easier than M TW, especially battles. I never played S TW as I'm not interested in Japanease medieval history.

**The Spartan (Returns)** · 07-07-2006, 14:47

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

R TW is easier than M TW, especially battles. I never played S TW as I'm not interested in Japanease medieval history.

i did the great game: Kessen got me into it. (the first one)

**Taurus** · 07-11-2006, 08:39

Yeah definatly becuase if you'd played one then really you've played them all in a gameplay respect. If you played Shogun then you know what to expect from M:TW and so you are already a good player M:TW player, likewise with playing M:TW and then playing R:TW you know what to expect, how to play it, what to do etc.

**danfda** · 07-11-2006, 21:21

I played Rome first, since it was pretty looking and sounded interesting. It was fun, so I bought Medieval. Gods, the two games were so similar but so different. It seems to me that MTW has more depth and vastly more replayability, but that is a bit off topic. Playing RTW did prepare me for MTW, both in the battles and the campaign map, and RTW does seem easier. IMO, this is due to RTW's better interface, but also due to a vastly-less complex strategic campaign (diplomats aside, though they really don't do much of anything).

**Goalie** · 07-14-2006, 05:00

Well playing MTW helps in campaign in Rome, but it helps very little in multiplayer, they are totally different. Legions are totally different from knights and cav is totally different in Rome.

**caravel** · 07-14-2006, 10:11

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

I never played S TW as I'm not interested in Japanease medieval history.

Neither was I, though I became more interested after playing STW. I am more interested in ancient history, the more ancient the better, though MTW had (still has) me hooked. RTW doesn't do anything for me, which is why I sold it off on ebay a few months back.