Early TW days

[blahblahblah]

So which areas are MTW better at than STW, other than graphics, they ain't important.

[doc_bean]

So which areas are MTW better at than STW, other than graphics, they ain't important.

Shogun is a very focused game, MTW is a very 'broad' game: it offers (more) different civilizations, more regions, more units, more upgrades and generally just more.

[Puzz3D]

Shogun is a very focused game, MTW is a very 'broad' game: it offers (more) different civilizations, more regions, more units, more upgrades and generally just more.

More isn't necessarily better.

[caravel]

As I see it:

STW Pros (vs MTW):

-Atmosphere

-Ambience

-Better definition of the spears/swords/cav system

-More difficult campaigns

-Better balanced battles

Cons:

-No V&Vs for generals

-No statistics apart from command for generals

-Hojo Horde effect (one faction dominates central and/or eastern Japan, leaving you, if you're playing as one of the western factions, facing a huge opponent, or lots of rebels.)

-Geishas

-Suicide Daimyos(sp?)

-Small unit roster


Personally none of the cons for STW really bother me. For me it was and still is the original and best Total War game, that has yet to be entirely surpassed. Sometimes a huge range of hundreds of different units is not needed, and detracts from the gameplay. STW was all about strategy, with the underlying Sun Tzu thing. With MTW there are units that upset the balance. There is also this culture of building up a certain 'uber unit' and just fielding it exclusively using bumrush tactics. STW didn't really allow for this style of play. I've often read threads about MTW MP and seen remarks about not using any spear type troops at all. This indicates a serious inbalance and shouldn't be happening.

I also feel that STW was better before MI. The Kensai and Battlefiled Ninja (complete with cloaking devices, since ressurected as 'hashishin' in MTW {And guess what? it looks likely that something similar may emerge in M2TW in the form of "Battlefield Assassins".}) feel a bit 'kiddy'. The mongol campaign was also lacking. A pity the developers didn't allow the mongols to construct buildings this would have made the campaign at least half worthwhile playing.

[doc_bean]

More isn't necessarily better.

I said STW was more focused, that's a big plus

[Puzz3D]

I said STW was more focused, that's a big plus

I agree, and if the focus had been maintained, the series would have been better. The strategic and tactical importance of the weather system and the seasonal economics was eliminated in MTW so that the game could have a bigger tech tree by covering a longer time period. I think original STW demonstrated that you could successfully impliment a satisfactory tech tree over a shorter timespan. Now, because it's been deemed that 450 turn campaigns are too long, there is the additional distortion of character aging by the decision to go to 225 turns and still cover 450 years. Where does this development path end? Will each turn eventually cover 10 years so the game can have a tech tree spanning 1000 years?

CA had, in the Total War system, the potential to model many specific 80 to 100 year time periods keeping seasonal turns and strategic importance of weather in the game with realistic character aging. Each period could have been a saleable add-on emphasising the weapons, economic and political systems of the period. The potential was immense, but now what they've done is put themselves into a situation where they have to come up with huge expanses of history for each version of the game which means longer development time. That then requires that they capture a massive customer base and all the compromises to gameplay that implies which we now see in the Total War series. I know they made the Alexander add-on to RTW, but the system now no longer fits a short timespan.

From a multiplayer perspective, the large number of units and factions is a disaster. It's not possible to balance the game within the developmental timeframe. From a single player perspective, the game has become too complex for the AI to handle. In STW, the AI could handle most situations because the game was simpler. I remember playing a game called Lords of Conquest. You had to conquer a random map. As I recall, there were three resources: gold, iron and wood you could accumulate to build three things: a weapon, a horse or a boat. The weapon was stronger than the horse, but the horse could move two provinces in a turn while the weapon could only move one province, but you could put a weapon on a horse. You could also put a horse or weapon on a boat and sail to a province. The game was simple, but the interaction between these few elements was complex, and the AI was very good. As a result, the game was very challenging. You had an option to set the amount of uncertainty in the combat in several steps ranging from completely deterministic to highly uncertain.

[Duke John]

That was the good thing about Sengoku Jidai; it all happened on one island, inhabited by one culture. If you move to medieval Europe there would have been plenty of conflicts upon which CA could have remained focus; Wars of the Roses, Hundred Years War, Burgundian Wars, Reconquisita (?), Crusades, etc. Viking Invasion was a good move, but it was suffering from using an engine not tailored for the period.

Countless games cover WW2, a period of just a couple of years. But when a game covers the European medieval times they usually try to cover the whole period with all its conflicts and cultures. CA has gone now even further by also including the discovery of America.

I tried to keep my mods focused on small periods, but there are loads of modders (and of course players) who see more as better and the most as best. The number one modding question for M2:TW is wether the faction limit is higher or gone.


Anyway, this thread was a good read, thanks for the memories

[Drisos]

More isn't necessarily better.

I fully agree about that. After having played Rome and Shogun. Shogun 'had' enough, and 'having more' doesn't really make Rome 'better'.

Totally ontopic, I can't think of anything that isn't already said. It's just the coolest game I ever played. Nice posts, people.

[Gregoshi]

I agree with the "more isn't necessarily better" as it pertains to the battles in the TW series. I do think that the strategic part of the STW single player campaign needed "more" to make that aspect of the game more exciting. The battles were brilliant but the campaign needed more depth. I think the popularity of STW MP as compared to SP attests to that.

[econ21]

So which areas are MTW better at than STW, other than graphics, they ain't important.

As Doc Bean said, the main advantage of MTW over STW is scale and variety. Plus I find the STW campaign a little too gruelling - it's literally total war, less or no scope for building, turtling, diplomacy, crusading, glorious achievements etc. And I really don't like the STW bridge battles (they are more avoidable in MTW) and the Hojo horde. Kamikaze generals were also more of a problem in STW - it was not uncommon to find you've destroyed all your neighbouring factions due to decapitation - conquering a rebel Japan is just dull. On the plus side you do get nice sad poems when it happens.

Addendum: I originally wrote the following because I thought you asked in which areas STW was better than MTW:

Some multiplayer gamers, e.g. Puzz3D, seem to prefer the STW setting because it is more balanced: there are fewer units so they can be more easily baalnced and all sides have the same unit roster.

In terms of the single player game, STW is better in terms of immerison and chrome. The movies, the voice acting, the feel of it is just more engaging. MTW has less personality and had less work put into these areas - MTW even kept the units shouting a Japanese "hi!" when you pull them out of an army stack.

The SP STW campaign is also much more challenging, IMO. The strategic AI cheats more by anticipating your simultaneous moves. The economy is much tighter. The AI does a better job of teching up than the early MTW AI (you will not face massed peasants - more likely massed upgraded high tech troops when you hit the Hojo horde). The map is much more claustrophobic and so you are more forced into conflict.

[Quietus]

So which areas are MTW better at than STW, other than graphics, they ain't important.

If you ask me (in terms of single player), just two:

-capture/ransom.
-reinforcement system.

there were some very minor improvements such as:
-ships (more of a detriment to the AI really).
-titles (borderline cosmetic).
-unit variety:
(they just stuck in new weapon unto units....)
peasant with shield = spear
peasant with polearm = urban militia
peasant with sword = gallowglasses
etc. etc....


Never played Glorious Achievement, though. One hundred years on normal pace gets 60 provinces and any province can be teched as high as possible.

Princesses were just free spies really.

Siege engine? Just use spearmen. Charge-halt, charge-halt and gates are broken in a snap. (Although catapults are great in the open-field defense).

[matteus the inbred]

Mostly I agree, Quietus, but princesses can also be married off to disloyal generals, my main use for them...obviously this was not a feature nor a problem in STW, where all generals were loyal until bribed.

I would have liked a basic naval feature in STW, if just to prevent the AI (and particularly Shimazu) from launching silly attacks via the sea routes against (usually) provinces in central Japan, and also because there were significant naval battles in pre-modern Japanese history (although not often during the SJ period, I admit). The chance to command or hire a 'John Blackthorne/William Adams' would be quite good fun!