Least favorite TW game

[Xehh II]

What are your least favorite TW games.(multi choice)

[Noir]

Easy answer for me: the Alexander expansion

as a friend put it "the greatest general in history and they've turned it into a rush game"; very true..

Noir

[Warmaster Horus]

Shogun, Mongol Invasion and Alexander.
Shogun and MI: I came in after RTW, so it was difficult to enjoy the board style, etc. At least MTW was in an interesting era, IMO.
Alexander: see Noir's post.

[Xehh II]

I put MI and BI: Mongol Invasion because I thought the Mongol campaign was boring and BI because I don't like the period, I like the rome period and I like the Medieval period but not in between.
I haven't played alexander but from what people tell me, I don't think I would like it.

[macsen rufus]

Well, I haven't played them all, so I'm a bit selective anyway, but I have to say "Rome" - I started in MTW, went "back" to STW - although a bit more 'primitive' than MTW, it still has great atmosphere and playability. After buying a new computer specifically capable of running RTW, I tried that and ended up disappointed. I also got BI which was a minor improvement. After that I didn't bother with Alexander (after seeing some feedback from those who had) or M2TW. Due to my graphics card I need different drivers installed to play STW/MTW and RTW, so I'm afraid I rolled back to the old ones for MTW use. I will be revisiting RTW though, but only to install Europa Barbarorum

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I'll have to say Rome: Total War - I can't really cast an opinion upon M2:TW, Kingdoms or Alexander. Sorry.

I entered the series like Warmaster Horus, purchasing Rome in March last year. I found it a very interesting experience, although, compared to some other games I had played, I felt that it lacked depth and immersion. Europa Barbarorum cured some of this for me, although eventually I played that to exhaustion.

Then, I bought Medieval: Total War in January. I was rather shocked at how different it was to Rome at first - I was just expecting a less technologically advanced version of the game which brought me in. The playability and re-playability of the game was perfect, and, in addition the many options and features added a new dimension to the experience. The only downside for me was the clumpier controls - being used to RTS games, left clicking to instruct my troops to move felt rather awkward.

After the fun I had with Medieval, I decided to buy Shogun in March. It wasn't quite as entertaining, but I enjoyed the era and the quality of the atmosphere all the same.

After purchasing two new PCs, both seemingly incapable of playing either of the older games, I turned back to Rome and soon realised that it was poor quality compared to the two classics. The battles now seemed to be lightning fast, not providing enough time to manoeuvre my armies and perform any decent tactics. The balancing also felt atrocious and the campaign map lacked any unique or interesting details.

[Xehh II]

Hey Macsen, is there anywhere I could find out more about your mod?

[macsen rufus]

Hi Xehh - the best place is the "forum thread" link in my sig - it's not very organised though, I'm afraid, it's what's happened throughout development. One day I'll have to sit down and write a proper description/guide etc, but as for now I'm currently working on an expansion campaign for it, so that is taking all my time.

@Omanes - quite agree about the tactical depth to RTW battles - I see the typical pattern of ten minutes marching, 5 seconds of melee, then 10mins of running away or chasing routers. I am looking forward to EB, though, sounds like they've done a lot to improve matters

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

can't stand RTW,and Alexander expasion. BI made it easier to play. STW/MI/MTW/VI are the best, though I prefer STW/MI first.

[naut]

Where's "GAH!!!", this poll really needs a Gah! option.

There all good in their own ways, they're diverse and all have their merits. So I refuse to vote and dishonour any of the hard work of CA.

[Ramses II CP]

Rome got such a bad rap at release that I refused to buy it and stopped following the game completely; I didn't come back until MTWII came out... Which also got a terrible reputation in the community, but I stuck with following the forums it until the patches fixed the most egregious problems and I now find it very enjoyable.

Shogun has the blush of first love or something, I recall it fondly. MTW I played extensively, but only after VI came out. The VI campaign was, IMHO, the most interesting of them all so far.

[ciprianrusu]

First game i have played was MTW. It was the best game i have ever played until then. After that i bought Shogun and i was also impressed, although i didn't like it as much as MTW(because of the time period and the fact that in Shogun you were limited to only one nation-but let's remember that it was the first game of the series). Then i bought the VI expansion for MTW and was again in the 7'th heaven:. Great game, great atmosphere. When Rome came out, i didn't had a graphic card good enough to let me paly the game, so i bought a new one. I was impressed by the new graphic, and the controls, but i was disappointed by the fact that the battles were so short - in MTW i had battles that ended after more than 4 hours. In RTW, 20 min. tops and it's over. When they released BI i evidently went out and bought that. A bit better than RTW, but i didn't liked the era. When Alexander was out, i thought to myself, this time they surely got it right, right? Wrong! It was the worst expansion of the series. Why do you have to rush things like that? No diplomacy, no nothing. Just a continuous dash to the finish line.

PS: I voted Alexander as the worst expansion of the series. Don't get me wrong. Is not a bad game, just that compared to the others in TW, is the last in my preference list. Compared to other strategy games is very good, but not if you compered it to the others.

[caravel]

RTW/BI/Alex is the same game, so I voted for all three. If the game is bad, expansions rarely fix it. RTW had all the building blocks of a good game but CA seem to have failed to get it all together for the release day. It's a "fun" game for a few of the high speed arcade like battles but is so severely imbalanced that that's about it. It's a very "gamey" game if that makes sense? With STW/MTW it didn't feel like you were playing a game at all, more of a "simulation"/strategy. I haven't bothered with M2TW as I didn't like RTW's campaign map, this pretty much rules me out of all future TWs as well.

[Martok]

RTW had all the building blocks of a good game but CA seem to have failed to get it all together for the release day. It's a "fun" game for a few of the high speed arcade like battles but is so severely imbalanced that that's about it. It's a very "gamey" game if that makes sense? With STW/MTW it didn't feel like you were playing a game at all, more of a "simulation"/strategy.

Well said. The first two games (particularly Shogun) have always felt more "real" to me, with great atmosphere and replaybility.

On the other hand, RTW just feels like a game -- it quite simply lacks the depth and immersion of its predecessors. I can't rate Rome's expansions, having never played them. As Caravel pointed out, expansions only rarely fix the original title, so I've never bothered with them.

I've not played Medieval 2 enough to really get a proper feel for it. My impressions thus far is that it's at least marginally better than Rome, but still nowhere near its older brother (MTW). I've not played the game since before the 1.2 patch was released, however, so perhaps it's significantly improved since then.

Regardless, I voted Rome.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Caravel
RTW/BI/Alex is the same game, so I voted for all three. If the game is bad, expansions rarely fix it. RTW had all the building blocks of a good game but CA seem to have failed to get it all together for the release day. It's a "fun" game for a few of the high speed arcade like battles but is so severely imbalanced that that's about it. It's a very "gamey" game if that makes sense? With STW/MTW it didn't feel like you were playing a game at all, more of a "simulation"/strategy.

I have the same opinion and yet.. try Alexander just once.. you won't be...dissapointed

[Bootsiuv]

I'm surprised at how many people voted Rome...

I think the engine was an improvement, as was the campaign map. Vanilla Rome sort of sucks, but mods like EB and XGM have fixed the fast battles problem.

I did thouroughly enjoy M:TW.

I haven't played much of M2:TW, but, due to it being so buggy and few, if any, full conversion mods, I have to vote for it. Once mods like Medieval Arcturoso and EB2 come out, my answer will likely change to M:TW. I'll always love Rome with EB, but I prefer classical history to medieval.

[Graphic]

I never really found the Viking campaign itself to be that interesting. I did appreciate it's additions to the main campaign, however.

[Vlad The Impaler]

for PC, there is no such thing

[Kraggenmor]

Because of the inclusion of SecuROM - Kingdoms pole vaulted to the top of my list. Before that, I didn't have a least favorite.

[magnum]

My vote was perhaps not completely fair as I never played Alexander so didn't consider that one. Of the others my least favorite was Viking Invasion. Loved the patch to MTW, but Viking for some reason left a strong 'yea, whatever' impression on me after a few campaigns. Never was able to get into it.

[FactionHeir]

Alexander campaign was too easy although the historical battles were somewhat decent difficulty. Also, it felt rushed and didn't give any sense of accomplishment when you won it. More like rush across the map.

Never played STW so can't rate it, as I started with MTW.
Of all thus, I would rate RTW:Alexander and M2TW as well as M2TW:Kingdoms as least favorites, mainly due to being bugridden, having no real replay value due to units being recycled across the factions and lack of decent patches/support.

[Soulflame]

Personally I disliked Barbarian Invasion most. In fact, it even took me a long time to even get past the first few turns, since I just didn't find any of the factions appealing somehow.
A small bit after that is Med 2 for me; I dislike how many units and stuff there is on the campaign map. It's cluttering and I personally don't find that princesses and merchants add that much to the game. Shogun, Medieval 1 and Rome I all played very extensively and all completed at least one long campaign. With Med 2, I always lost interest after some time.

I haven't bought Kingdoms yet, and never played MI (although my little brother did buy it and thought it was too hard... I was playing some other games when that was released).

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Alexander sucked.

[caravel]

Alexander sucked.

What Alexander got up to in his free time is not what is being discussed here. The poll was: "Least favorite TW game"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ok I'lll get my coat...

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

[Martok]

[groans at the uninentional pun] Bad Caravel! Bad!

I would normally never do this, but you leave me little choice: You've just earned yourself two days of stable duty.

[Kekvit Irae]

Shogun.

[The One Who Knows]

I voted Alexander,it wasa round grahm cracker that happend to run in my drive. Utter crap

[Martok]

Shogun.

Kek, you surprise me! Why is that one your least favorite?

[Drisos]

Shogun: 10

Rome! Crap!