So what DID you like about RTW ?

[doc_bean]

Since we currently have a thread about why MTW is better than RTW (according to some members) I thought it would be interesting to hear what improvements my fellow Orgahs feel RTW brought to the series.

For me I'm afraid it isn't that much , but some things I'd definitely like to see again/expanded are

Battlefield:

-Graphics, duh
-pre-battle speeches, yes they are corny but I love 'em
-(slightly) faster battles *ahem* This is a double edged sword of course, while MTWs battles were huge tactical affairs, they could also sometimes drag on and become tedious, who didn't auto calc from time to time when you had to fight 3 or more multiple army battles in a single turn ? I think they went overboard in RTW with the ultra fast run/kill speed in Rome, but I feel there should be some middle ground somewhere...

Campaign:

-the map was one step forwards and two steps back imho, but overall the concept is good, it just needs decent AI and some tweaks. Civ games prove an AI can be made that can handle this kind of strategical game. I'd like to see agents removed on the map, I'd rather just pay a fee to establish an embassy, or order an assassination, or employ a spy. I find the agents to fiddly on the new map.

[parcelt]

Nice thread, doc. I agree with your inputs, except for the increase in speed. As you mention, its a 'double edged sword', but I would go even further than that. Yes, MTW's battles could become a drag, but only because you would sometimes spend an hour looking for that last enemy soldier hiding in the woods or chase a routed cavalry unit while all you had left was infantry. Facing multiple stacks in a single battle wasn't a problem IMO as MTW had a true SPEED BAR!

Some additional improvements brought by RTW:
- more sophisticated units: we probably all got used to it by now, but the first time I saw my hastati's throw their pilas before charging... !
- fire arrows!
- how the campaign map determines the type of battlefield.
- mmmmh, let's see, what else is there (I am honestly trying!)....

[Duke John]

Animated 3d soldiers are nice to look at, but since they need to be edited for me to be enjoyable (speed), with a tool that does not work 100% I would rather have kept the 2d sprites. When zoomed out I practically only see sprites anyway.

The right-click to move/shoot/charge was a good improvement.

At first I liked the diversity of battlemaps and how you could see the same features that were present on the strategic map. But after a while the emptieness really started to bother me. Custom made maps are better IMO as it an artist is far better at recreating the beauty of nature than a computer generating something based on algorithms and randomizers.

The large area around the playable battlefield as background scenery was an excellent improvement.

The scripts and other text files which were quite flexible resulting in code being used for things they were never intented to do.

Above all I liked R:TW because it allowed me to create an atmosphere on the battlefield which I couldn't achieve with M:TW (although lighting and weather leaves alot to be desired):

[Myrddraal]

The new controls in battle. The fact that you can click and drag even when your mouse is over another unit is good.

The increased complexity of units is another two edged sword - I love the principal, but the AI obviously doesn't agree.

The campaign map is a great system, with lots of interesting features. Again the AI spoilt it a bit.

Pre-battle speeches

Ancilliaries are good

The fact that the battlemaps are generated by the campaign map is a good thing. Like DJ said the emptyness was a problem, and some wierd features turned up far too often (IMO the generations looks way better in M2TW.

I liked the ageing portraits.

Being able to put men on walls, and cities in general (again the AI was a problem, but the principal is great)

[econ21]

RTW reminds me a lot of Neverwinter Nights. The official campaign - vanilla RTW - is disappointing largely because of repetitiveness and a lack of challenge, but it is capable of sustaining a large number of breath-taking mods.

So what is good about RTW relative to MTW and STW? Four big things:

1. The mods: no disrespect to MTW modders, but I think RTW has attracted vastly more modding work than MTW. In hours of work, I’d hazard the ratio to be at least 100:1, probably even 1000:1 or higher. That’s the inputs. The contrast in outputs is also striking. Mods such as RTR Platinum or Goth’s All Factions mod for BI make RTW a much better single player historical wargame than MTW or STW, or any other commercial computer game IMO.

2. The visuals. Let’s compare:




with:



The latter is with Goth mod. When the SP gameplay is as good as MTW (as it is with Goth mod or indeed RTR or EB), it’s no surprise which game I prefer to play.

3. The campaign map. Yes, the Risk-map gives more of an AI challenge but I suspect that will change (the strategic AI of RTW improved from 1.2 to 1.3 and from RTW.exe 1.5 to BI.exe). The RTW campaign map just feels more realistic and less gamey. Just as the TW battlefield scored by combining a good combat model with making you feel you're there, so the RTW campaign map is starting to make you feel you really are commanding armies on the march.

4. Sieges. These are getting rather good now. Storming onto the walls or repelling an AI assault is rather fun.

In terms of the official campaigns, two big things stand out:

1. Historical armies: Armies feel more historical and differentiated. You have the Roman, the phalanx, the horse archer, the barbarian, the (cough) Egyptian, the hybrid. By and large, these play out in fairly historical ways (the AI struggles with the phalanx). By contrast, in MTW, the early period armies tended to be much of a muchness, with only the ahistorical Byzantines standing out. Even the Muslims could fight with a shieldwall; indeed a more armoured one than the Catholics. I would argue a vanilla RTW battle looks more authentic than a typical MTW one, although I concede it usually does not play as well.
2. The expansion: BI is a very substantial expansion; it could almost be a RTW2. The WRE are probably my favourite faction to play in all of the TW series (especially in Goth mod).

And some smaller things:
1. I liked the Senate missions. The balance of carrot and stick was nice
2. The traits and ancillaries open up a lot of possibilities, especially with the scripting. Playing with Marcus Camillus’s Roman leadership mod, it is great fun to try to climb the greasy pole from Tribune to Consul. Even the vanilla game has some very fun things - e.g. being disgraced on losing an eagle; or just getting Frankie Howerd as an ancillary (titter you not).
3. Horse archers: came into their own with fire on the move and decent AI usage. No longer are they simply fodder for foot archers.
4. Powerful cavalry: While they are overpowered, I do like the way cavalry behave in RTW. Using them in a mod like RTR Platinum is very satisfying: to get off a charge, you usually need to be (a) formed; (b) facing the target; (c) at rest; (d) beyond the minimum distance. This is pretty subtle stuff and it is very rewarding to see your men lower their lances, signifying a devastating charge is about to be pulled off. The fact that you often botch it and jump straight into a messy melee adds to the fun.
5. Avoiding earlier mistakes: RTW avoids some of the things that arguably “broke” the STW and MTW SP games: no peasant hordes a la MTW early period; no overpowering sea trade networks a la MTW; no Hojo horde; no uber geishas.
6. Civil war: this was a very nice climax to the Roman campaigns, largely solving the problem of making the end game fun.

[SpencerH]

The battlefield controls were better in RTW. I cant say how many times I've sworn over a spear unit moving incorrectly and inappropriately in previous versions.

RTW has nuch better handling of reinforcements (ie more than one opponent possible on the battlefield. Although very few in total number, almost all of the interesting/challenging battles I've fought in RTW have involved facing multiple armies coming from different directions. Amazingly, I actually had to have a tactical plan!

[Duke John]

econ21, it's not really fair to compare a R:TW mod with vanilla M:TW. Just compare the Hellinic: Total War mod for M:TW with vanilla R:TW. I don't know about visuals now. Those H:TW cavalry certainly look better IMO.

[sunsmountain]

The new 3D battle map, all new graphical content . The fact that the terrain on the campaign map shows up in the battle map, though some extra road design and AI flags wouldn't hurt. The campaign map in all its glory and content, though armies take more turns to get from settlement to settlement than before, clashes are more realistic. The historical feel, though I liked that in STW and MTW too. The diversity of armies, how they suceeded in giving a distinct feel to each of the 8 playable factions. Music and sound are also wonderful, especially during battle which I also heard during Time Commanders. Love those tunes. The new character traits system, though some traits were never triggered and others too often or illogical.

On the surface a beautiful game, rich in content, which lacks tweaking and thus destroyed its own lastability. Few people I know still play it, while many have bought it. Whereas almost everybody I know who has MTW still plays it (the ones who don't typically play RTW).

I would be satisfied with MTW2 if they would just increase its lastability (campaign and battlemap AI, multiplayer balance).

[grapedog]

the older TW series games campaign maps just felt tacked on to the game, not really a part of it. I really like R:TW has spent a large amount of time making that part also strategic...though some of the micro-management can be a bit much. Towards the end game I lose focus on the battles and tend to be managing my cities more, which i don't really like...it takes the focus off the focus of the game..the battles.

So, yes, i really enjoy the new campaign map...a LOT more than either of the previous two titles.

I like the various army compositions, the distint feel of the very different factions.

fantasy fiction is one of my favorite genres for reading...but sometimes i get burned out on the medieval setting since it is portrayed so much in so many different mediums. Rome, really save HBO recently and the history channel, doesn't get a whole lot of attention from any media. It feels fresh and interesting...while to me, Medieval feels old and done to death.

I love and hate the traits...they are a great addition to the game.

To mimic plenty of others, I love the pre-battle speech's...

[drone]

Graphics, of course.

The campaign map is a definite step forward, regardless of the AIs inability to cope with the vast array of options now presented.

Sieges. Again, there were problems and bugs with the implementation, but a step in the right direction.

Battle map controls.

A little more character development with ancillaries.

Special unit formations. Bugged again, but a good addition.

Moddability. Seemed easier for a beginner "mod" to alter things in the game, which was fortunate considering the bugs. Kept player1 entertained for months!

[Tamur]

Diplomacy.

*hides*

OK, so the AI is quite unable to maintain a consistent policy, at this point that's a well-proven fact. But the reason I was drawn to RTW at all was the expanded diplomatic/agent model and campaign map options. The war is not "total" unless one has valid and useful peace-time options as well. Yay for getting a few into the game.

[Vuk]

MTW had horribly un-realistic range damage. RTW does a h@ll of a lot better.

quote
7. Fire projectiles. However, their effect is extremely overdone and they work in rain.


1). Their effect is not overdone. Burning pitch, tar, and oil was heated so hot that it would set any clothe on the persons body aflame, and some times even skin.
2). With the exceptions of the Romans (who some times used cloth dipped in olive oil wrapped around their shafts ) most people used pitch and tar which burned in pouring rain.

[Bob the Insane]

1). Their effect is not overdone. Burning pitch, tar, and oil was heated so hot that it would set any clothe on the persons body aflame, and some times even skin.

Seriously? Men when struck with a flaming arrow would burst, head to foot, into flames and colapse in a blacken heap?

Why in the world did we ever start using firearms???

Seriously I don't have a problem with the in the rain thing, but small explosion and immediate buring to a blackened husk of the target is a little overdone...

Now personally I really like and still actively play RTW and BI especially with the latest patches. After a bit of introspection I even gave up using the mods (other than Player1's bug fixer) and returned to the vanilla game after I figured out I was not really having more fn with the mods, just a slightly different experience...

For me the difference between MTW and RTW is two folder (and a little obvious). It is the visuals on the battlefield and the campaign game. The visuals are great especially once you patch up and it actually draws details in the outlying tiles.

The campaign game, there is just some much "more" that I find it a little boring in the MTW campaign. More management, more manouvering, more (if somewhat illogical) deplomacy...

I do think MTW had a little more character, and despite the variety of units in RTW there was more distinct experience in playing the different factions in MTW. Hard to quantify that one, just a feeling really...

I tried some MTW recently, but I found myself simply wanted to play BI instead...

And just to let you know, I was nut about MTW when it came out and palyed it and VI incesently...

[Hermano]

I would add those points.

The family tree, especially that sons of the rulers can have children (unlike MTW, where only the king would produce heirs).

Appearance of armies on the battlefield according to their positions on the strat map, it's nice to be able to get some troops in the enemies back or flank right from the start.

Swimming units (BI), I never liked rivers to be absolute barriers.

h

[Myrddraal]

The family tree, especially that sons of the rulers can have children (unlike MTW, where only the king would produce heirs).

Appearance of armies on the battlefield according to their positions on the strat map, it's nice to be able to get some troops in the enemies back or flank right from the start.

Two very good points

[screwtype]

There is nothing in RTW I liked better than MTW. Okay, maybe one thing - zooming right in to see individual soldiers fighting it out.

[TB666]

Better graphics- Always nice
Fighting was more interesting to look at
Chariots and Elephant-So much fun seeing those ravage the enemies lines
Family tree- So much better then in MTW and you can name your heir
3D map
Horse archers are actually useful and can fire on the move
Seiges were alot better
Sound, music and pre-battle speeches

Overall better game then MTW(after the patches)

[The Spartan (Returns)]

jeez i keep mis typing letters by mistakingly typing the lerrer next to it....

[SirGrotius]

First off, I liked the graphics.

I liked the click and drag option.

I liked the city populations (if only they made more sense).

I liked the campaign map.

[The Wizard]

The concept of the campaign map. Like the doc said: one step forward and two backwards, but I loved the idea. I'm hoping they finally put the polish onto it that it so desperately needs to reach its full potential. If they could pull that off in MTW2, I'd wager we'd get an enormously more interesting game, with the introduction of strategy into the mix at long last.

[sunsmountain]

That polish (read Polish the first time ) takes time and effort. During the past two years, they have been busy programming:

- RTW: Barbarian Invasion (new content and slightly improved AI)
- RTW: Alexander (mostly content)
- 2 big patches for Rome (both improved the AI, though 1.5 did so better than 1.2), 2 minor.
- MTW ideas: Princesses, religion, pope, nobles and all their missions, crusades, recruitment pool, debugging for new content, improving campaign map AI (though we have no proof of that yet, BI already seems to show it).

That still leaves quite some time for an improved battlemap AI, and getting multiplayer balance right. I hope they get it done before October/November, but I'm a little sceptic. That's already in 2 months, and the battlemap is just very, very complicated.

[JR-]

not a great deal, nothing that sticks in my mind.

*starts re-installing MTW*

[Darth Nihilus]

One thing that quickly came to my mind was the fact that towards the end of the game in MTW, you would have major cash problems because you couldn't trade between your own provinces, in RTW you can. I'm playing a long campaign at the moment and I almost have the whole map so I just had to post this as it came to my mind.

[sbroadbent]

Having played RTW for almost a week now I have to say that I've been converted. I'm mostly interested in the single player game, but here is a short list of things I liked about RTW.

At first it took a bit of time to get used to the campaign map, and how units move. I like it in the sense that it is less abstract, though I don't like the limit of one stack of 20 units per tile.

I like how the terrain that your units are on will determine the layout of the battlefield. Many complain that the battlefields are too small. I agree. I really think that the battlefield should've been made up of not only the tile that the battle will take place on, but also the eight tiles surrounding it. Each army would start on it's particular tile. What annoys me is that there is a chance that if you have reinforcements that they simply don't show up. I had a battle that I was easily going to dominate the computer. I overwhelmed the computer in numbers with a couple separate armies, but the army that I used to initiate the battle consisted of a general (13 or 14 cavalry) and one unit of wardogs. I had atleast a dozen cavalry as reinforcements. I faced off against 2 peasants, 2 warbands, and a cavalry general. I was fortunate that the AI wasn't very skilled as I managed to route all but the cavalry. Unfortunately I was down to 10 cavalry vs 22 light cav. My general died.

Carrying on, I much prefer RTW's ships, and the less frustrating ship combat. In MTW one fast enemy ship would have no problems blockading your trade routes, and cutting your general off from your distant colonies/expansions. It still takes time for your ships to travel from one port to another.

Trade, both land and ship based is so much better. Your merchants decide who they want to trade with, and you have to negotiate for trade rights. I also like trading for map information, so I can figure out who owns what (or who owned what at the time the map information was received), without spamming units and sending them to different provinces.

I also like how you can send armies out through your allies and enemies territories without having to fight a battle to decide who controls the province, although I was somewhat nervous when the Spanish (who were my allies) sent a force through my provinces to hang out with Germania.

When it comes to province happiness, income, and population growth, I like how it breaks it down to explain what factors go in to the various levels. I don't particularly like that there is no Very Low level for taxes. Squalor is also bothersome, and only gets worse as the town grows.

I also enjoy sieges and the fact that the units that handle the siege equipment are your regular troops and that once the wall has been breached, they can drop the equipment and join in on the battle.

As others said, the diplomacy options are a good addition, though M2TW's diplomacy should be a big boost. Knowing beforehand that an offer simply wouldn't be accepted will be nice to know. After all, your agents are trained to identify what your rival might be interested in, and what is the best thing to offer to get a particular result. Knowing that I have to offer a huge sum of money in order to entice the AI to do some action for me makes things interesting. I have one interesting story about something that happened in my current Julii campaign.

I was allied with Germania and they had the settlement of Iuvavum. I had Patavium. They came down through the pass, and struck with a large army. They sieged Patavium breaking our alliance, and I managed to bring some reinforcements to relieve the siege. Not only did I devastate their force (none remained), but I lost relatively little. It was something like 600 of theirs to 150 of mine in losses. The following turn I got organized for an a move north. Before I could send them north, they sent their diplomat asking for a ceasefire. Knowing I didn't want to give them that, I changed the terms.

They gave me:
- Iuvavum
- 200 Denarii for 4 turns (something small)
- Map information

In exchange I gave them:
- Threat that I would attack

They accepted. Try that in MTW! I think there might've been a ceasefire thrown in there as well. I subsequently moved a force north, built two forts (one northwest of the settlement and one to the east at the borders). They had another army of troops near Iuvavum, which they subsequently withdrew. They haven't returned, but a few game years ago they asked for that province back. What they probably don't realize is not only did I eliminate the Gauls, but the Britons in the north, and then more recently the Spanish. I also took Palma from Carthage which even though they had one last province, the faction was eliminated. I've been told numerous times that I have the greatest military and have the best tech. Once the last rebels have been dealt with I shall have to deal with them.

Anyway, back on topic. I'm quite enjoying RTW right now. I loaded MTW to show a friend, but I found it hard to return to the abstract risk style campaign map, the horrible ship combat (even if both games have autocalc for naval combat), atleast in RTW one fast ship doesn't cause complete frustration

My final note is that I like RTW's two turns per game year, though I thought STW's 1 turn per season (4 per year) was the best. I like really long games in which I can play for as long as the game will go. It'd be interesting to play/mod M2TW to somehow have 4 turns per year instead of the supposed 225 turns over 450 years. Imagine, M2TW with 1800 turns

In all seriousness, in my MTW games I felt rushed in early when I would try to tech up (primarily focusing on building my trade network and fleets that by the time I would start on a land based invasion force, I'm already well into the High era, meaning that I mostly miss out on the early units. I tend to build slow at the start and turtle when possible until my financials are stable and I can start producing for larger military actions.