Org Mobile Site
Hey guys,
Sorry if this has been done before.
Logically, Rome would be the best of the games, followed by Medieval and then Shogun.
However, I found Rome to be lacking in many areas and Medieval to be the better game. From what I have read, a lot of the hardcore fans agree with that sentiment.
Also, I remember there has always been a bit of a Shogun vs Medieval argument as well.
So in your opinion, which of the 3 released titles is the best?
Sorry if this has been done before.
Logically, Rome would be the best of the games, followed by Medieval and then Shogun.
However, I found Rome to be lacking in many areas and Medieval to be the better game. From what I have read, a lot of the hardcore fans agree with that sentiment.
Also, I remember there has always been a bit of a Shogun vs Medieval argument as well.
So in your opinion, which of the 3 released titles is the best?
Medieval is the greatest. Ten times better than Rome could ever be.
Rome is ok. Good Graphics and such but you just can't beat Medieval. 
Without a doubt, Rome. It was the fist game that attracted me to the totalwar series, (ive now gotten started on medieval and shogun). I like it the best because of the time period. I find the Roman timeframe extremely interesting, and its the only one that I have a fair amount of knowlege about.
However, I can see what you mean when you say that it was missing some components from mtw that made mtw such a great game. However, I think the revolutionary graphics and new features that came with Rome put it over the top.
I can assume that the gamers who started to play the TW series before RTW came out might favour medieval or shogun. However, neither of those time periods really interest me as much as the tme of the Roman Empire......so even if Rome didn't have the best graphics/features of the three games, it would still be the best game to me.
The only thing that might make Rome slightly worse as an overall game is the two expansions (especially BI). IMO, these expansions quite frankly sucked compared to Rome, whereas stw and mtw had interesting and fun to play factions and scenarios in their expansions. In order from best to worst: Rome, Medieval, Mongol Invasion, Shogun, VI, Alexander, and BI
However, I can see what you mean when you say that it was missing some components from mtw that made mtw such a great game. However, I think the revolutionary graphics and new features that came with Rome put it over the top.
I can assume that the gamers who started to play the TW series before RTW came out might favour medieval or shogun. However, neither of those time periods really interest me as much as the tme of the Roman Empire......so even if Rome didn't have the best graphics/features of the three games, it would still be the best game to me.
The only thing that might make Rome slightly worse as an overall game is the two expansions (especially BI). IMO, these expansions quite frankly sucked compared to Rome, whereas stw and mtw had interesting and fun to play factions and scenarios in their expansions. In order from best to worst: Rome, Medieval, Mongol Invasion, Shogun, VI, Alexander, and BI
Rome, my WORD.
I must side with CaesarA and choose Rome above all others. Sure, there is some stuff that was better in each of the games, each with their unique flair, but Rome has some great aspects that set it above the rest. I find the battles more interesting, the factions more varied and gameplay more fluid.
Of course, other's mileage may vary.
Your ob't servant,
Aaron
HOLD THE LINE!
Of course, other's mileage may vary.
Your ob't servant,
Aaron
HOLD THE LINE!
Medieval is certainly the game I've played and enjoyed the most, but I've only recently gotten Shogun and can definateely see its appeal. Rome just didn't do it for me.
I'm going to go with medieval because I feel the strategic layer is a little more interesting and the battlefield AI is slightly better. Shogun does have more atmosphere however.
I'm going to go with medieval because I feel the strategic layer is a little more interesting and the battlefield AI is slightly better. Shogun does have more atmosphere however.
didnt play Shogun so i say Medieval.
RTW does have better graphics but Medieval ai and battles is soooooooo good.
RTW does have better graphics but Medieval ai and battles is soooooooo good.
Didn't get a chance to play Shogun, so Medieval it is.
Nice to see the newer members adding Gah! to polls (or did a Mod do that?).
Nice to see the newer members adding Gah! to polls (or did a Mod do that?).
I Chose Rome, as I've only played that Shogun and BI.
Since Med 2 is out soon I'm going to stick to playing Rome, and have my first Medieval experience with the new game.
We will see after that huh !!
Since Med 2 is out soon I'm going to stick to playing Rome, and have my first Medieval experience with the new game.
We will see after that huh !!
I like Rome, I dont played Medieval or shogun.
Medieval is the best of the series. It had it's weaknesses, not to mention lack of patching, but on the whole it was very good, although the battle AI was not hard to beat compared to online players. After that I'd say Shoggy and Rome are a pretty close matchup, Shoggy was lacking in some things, but Rome had horrid AI.
Rome!!
I would say that as a whole, Medieval remains my favorite. Shogun comes in a very, very close second, however. (Rome comes in a very distant third.)
Shogun had far and way the best atmosphere, the best AI, and the best overall balance; but I find the medieval period to be more interesting. In addition, MTW's campaign map allowed for greater strategic flexibility, as there are far fewer chokepoints to bottle up your enemies. (It's relatively easy to conquer Japan as the islands are rarely more than 2-3 provinces wide at any point.) It also had a far greater variety of factions and units, plus religion played a much more significant role in the game. Unfortunately, Medieval was not nearly as well balanced as Shogun as a result, but I still enjoy the game somewhat more than its predecessor due to the time period.
As for Rome....well, it looks nice. And it has a good soundtrack.
Shogun had far and way the best atmosphere, the best AI, and the best overall balance; but I find the medieval period to be more interesting. In addition, MTW's campaign map allowed for greater strategic flexibility, as there are far fewer chokepoints to bottle up your enemies. (It's relatively easy to conquer Japan as the islands are rarely more than 2-3 provinces wide at any point.) It also had a far greater variety of factions and units, plus religion played a much more significant role in the game. Unfortunately, Medieval was not nearly as well balanced as Shogun as a result, but I still enjoy the game somewhat more than its predecessor due to the time period.
As for Rome....well, it looks nice. And it has a good soundtrack.
Medieval as well. Shogun has the best atmosphere and the best balance, but every faction is the same. Medieval had more variety and just a bigger scope. I actually like Rome's campaign map better, once CA fleshes it out.
People talk about gameplay over realism all the time. However, I feel that most of the times CA reduced the realism in Rome compared to Medieval actually detracted from the gameplay, instead of making it better. The AI and pathfinding is a lot worse, especially in sieges. I'm not a fan of the extremely fast-paced and arcade style pace of the battles. Too many battles ended up in a charge and mass rout 5 seconds later, especially if I bring lots of extremely overpowered cavalry. I felt there was something lacking in the atmosphere and gameplay that just reduced the fun factor of the game.
People talk about gameplay over realism all the time. However, I feel that most of the times CA reduced the realism in Rome compared to Medieval actually detracted from the gameplay, instead of making it better. The AI and pathfinding is a lot worse, especially in sieges. I'm not a fan of the extremely fast-paced and arcade style pace of the battles. Too many battles ended up in a charge and mass rout 5 seconds later, especially if I bring lots of extremely overpowered cavalry. I felt there was something lacking in the atmosphere and gameplay that just reduced the fun factor of the game.
Shogun simply had the best emersion of all the series IMO.
I really can´t say, I like both Medieval and Rome, each has its highlights. While the battlefield AI in MTW seems to be better and the battles themselves are slower, some of MTWs battles tend to get rather tedious, since only sixteen units per side can take part at any time, which means that the big battles are usually one massive attack and then an endless tickle of reinforcements. But at least the battles are decisive (i.e. if you win, you´ve got the province under your control and just have to siege out the castle). The matter of sieges is similar - in MTW, they tend to get rather dull, but what potential they had in RTW (due to the siege engines) got a bit wasted for pathfinding reasons, a poor AI that undermans its cities and the fact that it´s possible to starve out a city without a single loss.
However, I prefer the strategic aspect of the RTW battles, choosing the terrain and the possibility to make use of multiple stacks fighting in one single battle (despite the lag that causes). On the whole I do prefer the RTW strategic map, though army movement by ship is a real pain, I believe even back then it was possible to go from Londinium to Alexandria within half a year.
City building in RTW is much more streamlined than in MTW, which I believe to be good, as it gives the AI access to high-quality troops eventually and makes for better balanced AI armies. It does, however, limit the need for strategic planning from early on which is so crucial in MTW (where it is even even more focussed due to the regional valour boni).
On the other hand, while RTW has way more diplomatic potions, it´s almost impossible to utilize them properly, due to the AI faction behaviour (often I was offered an alliance only to be stabbed in the back the next turn, it seems like there´s a hardcode that demands a backstab).
Finally, the game goals, I think RTW has the better solution, and BI does improve that even more. In MTW you either have to conquer the whole map (conquest) or wait till 1453 (GA) where especially the end-game phase tends to get a bit dull - no enemy can stand against you, the few real challenges are the faction re-emergences (which are a great plus of MTW - I like them a lot), while in RTW you have at least the civil war against the other Roman factions (if you´re so lucky that you can anger the Senate to the point of outlawing you while you don´t have the fifty provinces already, something I´ve never managed
).
So, in the end, both games have an equally well-deserved place on my harddrive and I tend to play them interchangeably.
However, I prefer the strategic aspect of the RTW battles, choosing the terrain and the possibility to make use of multiple stacks fighting in one single battle (despite the lag that causes). On the whole I do prefer the RTW strategic map, though army movement by ship is a real pain, I believe even back then it was possible to go from Londinium to Alexandria within half a year.
City building in RTW is much more streamlined than in MTW, which I believe to be good, as it gives the AI access to high-quality troops eventually and makes for better balanced AI armies. It does, however, limit the need for strategic planning from early on which is so crucial in MTW (where it is even even more focussed due to the regional valour boni).
On the other hand, while RTW has way more diplomatic potions, it´s almost impossible to utilize them properly, due to the AI faction behaviour (often I was offered an alliance only to be stabbed in the back the next turn, it seems like there´s a hardcode that demands a backstab).
Finally, the game goals, I think RTW has the better solution, and BI does improve that even more. In MTW you either have to conquer the whole map (conquest) or wait till 1453 (GA) where especially the end-game phase tends to get a bit dull - no enemy can stand against you, the few real challenges are the faction re-emergences (which are a great plus of MTW - I like them a lot), while in RTW you have at least the civil war against the other Roman factions (if you´re so lucky that you can anger the Senate to the point of outlawing you while you don´t have the fifty provinces already, something I´ve never managed
). So, in the end, both games have an equally well-deserved place on my harddrive and I tend to play them interchangeably.
I voted for MTW, because I like the STW/MTW style combat speed. RTW out of the box is too frenetic. I prefer MTW to STW as it has more variety and scope. The campaign map in STW is rather an unrelenting slog, whereas MTW you have more freedom to stay at peace, turtle, pursue GAs, launch far-away expeditions etc. Plus the STW factions are ultimately rather similar, whereas many of the MTW factions give very different play experiences.
However, I think RTW is the best game of the lot after modding - RTR Platinum, EB, Goth's all factions mod for BI etc manage to combine STW/MTW paced combat with RTWs better graphics and more realistic campaign map (the Risk style one allows more competitive AI, but is less immersive).
However, I think RTW is the best game of the lot after modding - RTR Platinum, EB, Goth's all factions mod for BI etc manage to combine STW/MTW paced combat with RTWs better graphics and more realistic campaign map (the Risk style one allows more competitive AI, but is less immersive).
I have to say that I voted for Medieval.
If only Rome was Medieval with Rome graphics, it would have been as near perfect as we could get.
One point I have to applaud CA for. Making all the games in the series so Modable, hats off guys - realisation that you'll never please eveyone all the time means that they allowed those "not pleased" to make what they wanted of the game.
Well done.
If only Rome was Medieval with Rome graphics, it would have been as near perfect as we could get.
One point I have to applaud CA for. Making all the games in the series so Modable, hats off guys - realisation that you'll never please eveyone all the time means that they allowed those "not pleased" to make what they wanted of the game.
Well done.
All in all Medieval total war, the expansion and the XL mod have kept me entertained longer than Rome did, even with mods and PBM's.
So Medieval get's my vote. Rome ,however, does get an honorable mention for getting me involved in the series, and I do love the game - albeit with a couple of mods installed.
So Medieval get's my vote. Rome ,however, does get an honorable mention for getting me involved in the series, and I do love the game - albeit with a couple of mods installed.
Medieval always wins these votes it's just a better game I guess. I love it by the way.
Originally Posted by King Henry V:
Medieval is the greatest. Ten times better than Rome could ever be.
Agreed.Medieval is the greatest. Ten times better than Rome could ever be.
Originally Posted by King Henry V:
Medieval is the greatest. Ten times better than Rome could ever be.
Just wait til mtw2 then it will cast rome into the shadows.Medieval is the greatest. Ten times better than Rome could ever be.
what is Gah? I cant figure it out. I feel so stupid. And i call myself a fan.
"Gah" is basically a generic "Other / Don't Know / Undecided / Don't Care" coverall option.
Originally Posted by dacdac:
what is Gah? I cant figure it out. I feel so stupid. And i call myself a fan.
It's an Org-specific reference. A veteran Org member, Vanya, often writes things like "Gah, good fun!". I guess it's a general term of exclamation, like "Bah!" or "Pah!". Using to cover the "other" category in a poll may signify that people not choosing any of the "proper" options disapprove of or don't care about those options. Or are just sounding off meaninglessly. what is Gah? I cant figure it out. I feel so stupid. And i call myself a fan.
ahhh, thanks for the info. Another thing, how do you put the smiley faces to the side on. For me, it looks like this:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...gc/gc-wall.gif
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...gc/gc-wall.gif
oh wait, never mind. you just dont see it when posting. Well why did the website still come up?
By game time alone......
STW....Played for about three months. Very good game but the cutframes got a bit repetative. (have to dig that back out by the way
)
RTW.....Three weeks....ho hum.....back in the box (no need to find it again
). Graphics were very good but I'd rather have a game that has more dimention. If I want to just look at pretty things I can always turn on the tv.
The winner.....MTW.....Two years or so.... (with different mods) and still learning more. Incredible depth. No other game, and there have been many, has captured my attention and held it anywhere close to this game. IF MTW2 combines the gameplay, moddability (sp?), and graphics that it purports then it will be gaming Nirvana.
STW....Played for about three months. Very good game but the cutframes got a bit repetative. (have to dig that back out by the way
)RTW.....Three weeks....ho hum.....back in the box (no need to find it again
). Graphics were very good but I'd rather have a game that has more dimention. If I want to just look at pretty things I can always turn on the tv. The winner.....MTW.....Two years or so.... (with different mods) and still learning more. Incredible depth. No other game, and there have been many, has captured my attention and held it anywhere close to this game. IF MTW2 combines the gameplay, moddability (sp?), and graphics that it purports then it will be gaming Nirvana.
Rome is rubbish and inaccurate, but it has decent graphics (so you can see what happening with reasonable realism) and EB is for Rome, so I think I like Rome the best for those simple reasons.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO