Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

post what u think

[Veho Nex]

I think your on some *BAD STUFF* but considering the fact that STW is the very first of the total war series its extremely good. rome was kind of lame. and MTW still doesnt compare to STW at least in my book but if your going to diss a game at least give reasons instead of

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

Like i dont like RTW because

A| Rome sucked(my opinion)
B| You dont get the full access of what happened in rome and why it truly fell
C| no composite bows Devoloped by romans which made roman auxilia powerfull

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Hi,
I am sorry to point this out, but this is not an especially constructive thread, is it...

I can see the emerging any moment.

Please justify your opinion and back it up with valid reasons so we can understand what you dislike about S:TW and explain/help you get the best out of your game. Thanks.

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

I'm sorry

[Gregoshi]

Hey Quintus, you don't have to like STW to post here, but if you are going level criticism (or praise), it helps the discussion if you state some reasons for your opinion.

So...why do you say STW is the worst of the series. What is it about the game that you don't like? What prevents STW from being more enjoyable for you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

[Ninjak]

I was playing RTW earlier,and i was thinking about all the other games in the series like MTW and RTW well duh lol

I think STW is the worst, thats pretty harsh tho, its not as good then as te other games in the series

post what u think

This game is what started it all. It boosted Creative Assembly, a small company that was mostly developing rugby computer games for EA. I first played this game since 2002 when GTA3 first came to the PC (I bought both games that day). I myself am not a tabletop grognard, I was a flight simmer that was playing Combat Flight Simulator 2 Pacific Theater when I first got this game. I was interested in Japanese military history and military aviation. Playing the demo is what got me hooked into Shogun Total War in the first place along with some other strategy games. The worst game in the series has got to be Rome Total War where foot infantry runs as fast as cavalry, where there is no real penalty or bonuses for attacking downhill and uphill in steep terrain or firing volleys of arrows and artillery in the middle of a rain or sandstorm, and where a player can easily beat an A.I. enemy army. Only “fan-bois” that like pretty graphics think RTW is the best because it’s 3D. In MTW, when you occupied the Caucuses and Asia Minor or in STW in southern Satsuma Provinces as the Hojo Clan, your troops would be pissing and crapping in their pants when they saw the sight of the massive “Hordes” invade. It took hours to defeat them in M1TW.

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

I Disagree completely with RTW being the worst. I have wrote back that I have appologised to all those whom i have offened. IMO RTW is the best (aprt from M:2TW which i have not yet played) because, the campaign is simply astonoshing, the way you can employ assasins to go and kill your enemies faction leader, and general. Also the way, they can sabotage main buildings like Govonors palace. Spys are great for going to see what a neighboroing city that might invade has forces and buildings wise, and if it is worth invading to spendalot of money to keep the town up to date with the other cities and towns. So i disagree with you there my dear friend

Quintus

[Gregoshi]

It seems that we are looking at it differently. Quintus is looking at the campaign level while many of the STW fans look at things more from the battle level. The STW campaign cannot campare to RTW from the standpoint of variety. I still think STW's campaign had little touches that are lacking in RTW (throne room and video spring to mind) but it is still a very simple campaign. Some prefer that simplicity, but many of us asked for more and CA has done well with the campaign in that regard by significantly beefing up the strategic aspects of the campaign.

However, many of us old guard were drawn to the game because of the battles in STW. It was like playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own. The campaign was a means to deliver the battles and give them significance. I think most of us wanted a better campaign game than STW delivered but the game still boils down to the awesome battles as the main event. This is where the discontent of RTW comes from for many of us who have been around since STW. The battles, while looking great, are just lacking in too many ways. And because of this, even the greatest campaign map in the world will not overcome the deficiencies of the battlefield.

Thanks for explaining yourself better Quintus. A couple of questions for you if you don't mind. What other TW games have you played? Do you like the RTW battles and for what reasons? Your reply above only talks about the campaign level of the game.

[Quintus Of Pompeii]

It seems that we are looking at it differently. Quintus is looking at the campaign level while many of the STW fans look at things more from the battle level. The STW campaign cannot campare to RTW from the standpoint of variety. I still think STW's campaign had little touches that are lacking in RTW (throne room and video spring to mind) but it is still a very simple campaign. Some prefer that simplicity, but many of us asked for more and CA has done well with the campaign in that regard by significantly beefing up the strategic aspects of the campaign.

However, many of us old guard were drawn to the game because of the battles in STW. It was like playing with hundreds of the plastic soldiers we had as kids except they moved and fought on their own. The campaign was a means to deliver the battles and give them significance. I think most of us wanted a better campaign game than STW delivered but the game still boils down to the awesome battles as the main event. This is where the discontent of RTW comes from for many of us who have been around since STW. The battles, while looking great, are just lacking in too many ways. And because of this, even the greatest campaign map in the world will not overcome the deficiencies of the battlefield.

Thanks for explaining yourself better Quintus. A couple of questions for you if you don't mind. What other TW games have you played? Do you like the RTW battles and for what reasons? Your reply above only talks about the campaign level of the game.

I have played STW and MTW. I do enjoy the RTW battles for many reasons. For a person who is quite rubbish at stratedgy and just goes all in with simple Peasants, there is the arcade mode, which enables (simple and dumb people like me) to rely on the fact there is no stratedgy. But, i have long since used the arcade and i am now learning to fight using my brain (it hurts quite a bit), and i am settling with this for now.

Oh, if there is any RTW people who are like awesomely good, please help me but it dont matter if you dont it was just a general plea.

Yeah, back to the fighting ways. The lay out is good. Also the detail the men have is great, and the way i can zoom in and check on my skirmishers (i tend to use samnites). So yeah, i do like the fighting and battles.

Quintus

[caravel]

I've been continuing my Greek Cities campaign for the last few days, to the detriment of the mod I'm working on in fact. I've managed to get into the campaign game some more, but I'm not seeing the advantages. Firstly, progress is slow and unrewarding, naval combat is tedious with a captial T. I'm presently playing Bireme Pinball. This involves bouncing the enemy fleet around the mediterreanean until it sinks without a trace. I've also played this bouncing game with enemy armies as I've said in the previous post. The only good thing about this campaign map, is some of the traits, retinues and family tree system. I'm not sure as to the point of naval fleets. In MTW they protected your coasts, now they don't. An enemy can still land and disembark on your lands and walk into your province bold as brass. This, for me has taken away any semblance of naval strategy. I'm finding that I'm leaving my fleets in small groups of about four ships, then when attacking I'm bringing one fleet up close to the enemy fleet, then attacking with the second. This is how I'm doing it every time, because numbers seem to be much more important than quality most of the time. (I'm winning 99% of naval engagments like this). Also as these ships have no more impact on trade apart from when they're used to blockade ports, they have been reduced to becoming ocean going predators and transports. With blockading, I had found that when blockading a Scipii port in southern Italy, the AI would send one ship every year just short of the location of the blockade. I would then sink this ship every time it arrived. The AI made no other attempt than that to break the blockade. Similarly the Brutii are building a ship in Sardinia every year and sending it in my direction, at three fleets I have positioned in waiting for it. In the Boshporous Pontu are behaving similarly sending a fleet against my fleet there, every few years without fail... predictable. Also Pontus are desperate to get to my city in Phrygia (I can't remember it's name). I have a single army of 1000 men defending the bridge there that has so far massacred 1000's sent by Pontus. They had taken the city sought of this, near the Mausoleum, but had lost it due to their concentration on taking the northern city. They now look set to lose alot more, of their gains from the Seleucids.

In terms of battles, my men are valouring up rapidly. I still have the same Spartan Hoplite unit I started with. My faction has been the most advanced faction for years now and the Egyptians are always the strongest, mine being the second strongest. The Phalanx units are the most overpowered killing machines on the battlefield... or are they? In one particular assault against Pontic Sardis (I think), my forces rammed the main door, then shot the enemy to pieces up the main street (my two units of peltasts and one unit of archers) After this I advanced the Hoplites (two units of militia, one unit of regular and another of armoured) up the main street and the other street to the left. The enemy, mostly cavalry types, and some eastern infantry, outnumbered my forces about two to one. I expected to have to surround them and wear them down with missile fire prior to engaging them. The reality was, that the enemy commited mass suicide on the phalanx formations dying at a frightening rate, and handing me yet another easy victory. This happens in nearly every battle. The enemy are so easily outmaneouvered and so often miss flanking opportunities. I can surround them with ease, draw them out and pull the out of formation. If they do deploy their own phalanx capable units they waste them. In another battle against the macedonians their Hoplites were thrown away when they attempted to rush my Archers. Bringing my own hoplites up quickly stopped them in their tracks. They were disorganised, out of formation, and my general's bodyguard finished them off charging their rear.