What made M:TW superior to R:TW?

[grapedog]

I see a lot of people in this sub forum saying that they didn't like R:TW at all and that it was a step backwards from M:TW. I would just like to know what you liked more in M:TW then in R:TW...or what you liked in S:TW that you liked more than the other two. Looking at the series as a whole, I really like the evolution of the strategy map section...sure, R:TW did have a lot more micro-management, thats about the only thing I would like to see reduced a tad, but overall I like the extra work that went into it. In S:TW it felt like an afterthought almost.

I'm just trying to remember what I liked about M:TW, and I cannot come up with much. I much prefer roads/travel times as opposed to the plop armies here method. I love the forts/watch towers options, and how the forts go away if abandoned. I love the intricate city building similar to a Civ series where you can make choices as to what type of city you have. I just can't remember ever playing more than 2 o r 3 campaigns with M:TW...just didn't feel good...

[The Hun]

Too many battlefield issues that made multiplayer a mess.

[Ciaran]

The battlefield AI in MTW is in my, and many others´, opinion superior to the one of RTW. In RTW, the enemy tends to charge your position, no matter whether he´s defending or attacking, and regarles of the terrain. In MTW the AI tries to get onto higher ground at least in the defences. When attacking they´ll come straight up on you as well, however. Slower battles, both movement- and kill rate-wise also make them less hectic and stronger relying on maneuvering and tactic.
On the other hand, the strategic AI of RTW tends to produce better balanced armies, in MTW you can occasionally encounter armies that only consist of arbalests.

[Myrddraal]

I think the new Campaign map system is generally better than in MTW. Unfortunately, the AI isn't good enough to cope with it.

I think most people's problems with RTW are with the battle AI and battle gameplay rather than the campaign.

[Hermano]

Well, I really tried to like R:TW, somehow I couldn't. On the other hand I just can't stop playing M:TW, now that I installed it again - it's just too much fun.
I suppose my main gripe with R:TW are the historical inaccuracies. The pharaonic egyptians, the three roman factions, german phalanxes, british battle chariots, and all the other fantasy units. While M:TW is far from representing medieval times correct it is much closer to a simulation, R:TW always felt too gamey to me, I'm a history nerd. Of course R:TW has many areas where it is superior, especially the graphics and battle speeches, but it misses something that creates the enjoyment for me. Of course that does not mean that I hate R:TW or don't want others to enjoy it.
There were other things I disliked: the (imho relative to M:TW) weak battle AI, the rebel hunting, the movement of lot's of small armies and reinforcements, there is much more micromanagement involved, playing large empires got tedious. The huge, epic battles of M:TW are rare in R:TW. Thus RTR and BI didn't really catch me either.

I'm curious if it will be like that with M2:TW too, it does look gorgeous, but the visual alone wears off fast for me... Of course I will give it a try.
Cheers,
h


Edit: I just read the CA bashing and part of the 'whining' thread, I haven't been around for some time.
So please don't understand this post as bashing or whining, it's not meant that way. I just tried to explain (also to myself) why I prefer M:TW. I have no gripe with CA, I enjoy M:TW too much for that.

[Darth Nihilus]

Personally, I had aso much more fun playing MTW it wasn't even close. I lived on that game, where I forced myself to like RTW. For starters, in MTW the battle AI seemed a bit better to me, and the campaign AI seemed way better. The new campaign map for rome, while superior, didn't have the AI backing to make it a challenge. The risk style map of MTW was a lot easier for the AI, so it was a lot more of a challenge. I also love the medieval period.

Rome had vastly superior graphics, and some nice options such as choosing your heirs (although that may have been because of the era), pre battle speeches were nice too. Somthings I am dumbfounded why they left out like governors titles, dread ratings, killing prisoners and probably more that I forgot.

In all technicality RTW is a better game overall, but MTW was a lot more challenging and a lot more fun. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

[sbroadbent]

I just started playing RTW for the first time yesterday. Didn't do too well in the Prologue (I was spread out too far with too few troops and I had two huge enemy armies attacking (one in the north, one in the south)). Currently playing the regular campaign as the Julii. Doing better, but I'm running into a wall in the North called the Brittons, and in the west the Spanish and Gauls. It did take me a little while to get comfortable with the campaign map. There are some things I like about it, some things I miss, but nothing that really bothers me.

I like how the terrain plays a factor. There are only so many ways to get to a particular location, and that you can have a good defense setup at the choke points to protect your homelands. Of course with that comes travel times. I miss the ability to drag units from one province and move them half way across the map. Reinforcements can quite a while to get up to the front. Fortunately upgrading your roads can help speed things up. Then come training units and teching up. So much relies on your population level to get to the higher level buildings. Of course, with higher population comes greater squalor.

There is definately increased micromanagement. I like the idea of RTW's rally points. Where new units will then move to a location. It got tiresome in MTW when you have 30 provinces pumping out units to have to manually drag and drop them from one side of the map to the other. Ships work better. Now instead of a single ship blockading your entire chain of ships, the enemy has to send ships to your ports to setup a blockade. In MTW it always felt that you were always disadvantaged by the sea zones than the AI. Of course, ship combat is entirely random, though helped by having superior numbers, or better captains.

I don't particularly like how when you want to queue a building or a unit up, that you have to pay for it upfront, even if it won't be built for years. I would like for it to be easier to queue up multiple units in an integrated interface. For instance if I want to train a unit each of Hastati in each of the cities that I can train them in, a couple clicks should be all it takes to queue them up. It could be as simple as selecting a unit, select a number, and the game will queue them up in as many provinces as you need to. If you have say six provinces that can train Hastati, and you only have the money for 4, you can have the game prioritize where they get trained to say your frontier provinces first. In addition, you should have the ability to prioritize a province for particular units, so if I want Patavium to prioritize Hastati training, then when I queue up Hastati, it will fill up the provinces I've selected first, then other provinces afterwards. Just some ideas.

Another thing I found bothersome is that when you have a scroll open and you have to scroll down through a list, the scroll wheel on my mouse doesn't work. This means that I have to click on the up and down buttons on the window. The scroll window zooms in and out of the campaign map (not something I want or need to do when the entire screen is filled with building and unit description windows ;)

I don't much care for the real time battles. I usually autocalc, unless a particular battle may appear to be close, and I've had far too many where I'll have the number advantage, but just lose too many troops. of course, quality of troops makes a difference, but I've had heavy losses on battles that I might have actually won. That leads me to one thing I have noticed. Cavalry seem to just dominate when it comes to the real time battles. They are fast, and unless they are severely outnumbered by troops that can defend against them, can do quite alot of damage. With that said, I had a couple embarrasing battles at the beginning of my Julii campaign where I charged my faction leaders unit into what I thought would be a soft target, but in the intial charge or shortly thereafter my faction leader got himself killed. That was my very first battle... then two years later in my second battle Faction Leader #2 did the same thing. In any event, my faction leader stays back until after the battle has commenced and I can maneuver him into a better position.

So, for my opinion, I like both games. Unfortunately I have to do alot of reading to figure out the game, whereas I've had MTW for about a year or so.

[DUTCH-BUDDHA]

dit u ply alexsander

[doc_bean]

Battlefield:

-slower, more tactical combat
-more (varied) units for every faction (not just limited to hoplites as infantry for instance)
-bigger maps (that's the way it feels anyway)
-more height effects
-more balanced units (no real super units, besides the jedi generals)
-AI could handle the battles better

Campaign:

-map easier to manage
-risk style map leading to BIG clashes instead of small brawls
-Buildings more focused on war, not all those 'city management' buildings
-AI could handle the risk map better


Other:

I just prefer the medieval period to the Roman one.

[JR-]

i rarely ever played the battles in either M:TW or R:TW, it was the Campaign I was interested in (except multiplayer).

the campaign in M:TW was fabulous, I still play it now four years later.

the campaign in R:TW was dull and tedious, i gave my copy away a month after buying it.

somehow CA got it very wrong.

[caravel]

i rarely ever played the battles in either M:TW or R:TW, it was the Campaign I was interested in (except multiplayer).

the campaign in M:TW was fabulous, I still play it now four years later.

the campaign in R:TW was dull and tedious, i gave my copy away a month after buying it.

somehow CA got it very wrong.

Like myself, you may not have given the RTW campaign a chance. I must admit that when I first started playing RTW I saw the campaign map and was reaching for the sick bag. I hated it. I tried to get into it time and time again and failed. Eventually I sold off my RTW.

Now I intend to give it another go and try out some of the great mods that are out there. I also want to have a go at BI.

The problem with the risk provincial map model is that it was so very limited. The RTW map may not have been the answer to the question, but it does mark at least some improvement. Hopefully the M2TW map can build on this and produce a better campaign game. The main problem I had with the RTW map was it's confusing layout and ugly RTS style graphics complete with animated slow walking giants. It just gave me a headache to look at it.

[Doug-Thompson]

Battlefield:

-slower, more tactical combat
-more (varied) units for every faction (not just limited to hoplites as infantry for instance)
-bigger maps (that's the way it feels anyway)
-more height effects
-more balanced units (no real super units, besides the jedi generals)
-AI could handle the battles better

Campaign:

-map easier to manage
-risk style map leading to BIG clashes instead of small brawls
-Buildings more focused on war, not all those 'city management' buildings
-AI could handle the risk map better


Other:

I just prefer the medieval period to the Roman one.

I can't argue with any of that. I can quibble that the "feel" of a bigger tactical map is because units don't race across it so quickly.

Tactically, M:TW was much better but the relatively slow pace of the battles must have been frustrating to many players.

On the campaign map, the potential of a much better game is there. It just hasn't been realized yet.

[drone]

Tactically, M:TW was much better but the relatively slow pace of the battles must have been frustrating to many players.

There was always the slider bar to fix that though (at least in SP). Implementing realistic speeds, but giving the option of a slider bar would have made everyone so much happier in RTW.

The gameplay was just better in MTW. The AI was better on the combat map, and the risk-style campaign map made it easier for the AI to cope. The RTW campaign map is a nice idea, but gives the AI too many options and the gameplay breaks down into lots of annoying skirmishes. The sequential turn mechanism allowed the player to exploit the AI weakness on the campaign map, this was not possible with MTW's move-at-once scheme (aside from a save/reload "cheat"). Empire management was slow and tedious (a better GUI would have helped here).

Rome just had a half-finished feel to it. There were lots of bugs and inconsistencies in the release version, and it just felt like another 6 months development would have created a much better game. I have higher hopes for M2TW, since this isn't a from-scratch effort.