New player questions about MTW

[The Wandering Scholar]

I made the mistake of buying Rome first then thinking that for the price of them I might as well have Medieval and Shogun. I have had Rome for around 1.5 years and not got bored of it yet. Shogun I first played arund 1 month ago and although it does not match up to Rome it was like a grand-scale game of chess trying to out play the AI. Lots of fun. Now after reading this i'm definately going to load up Medieval. It was the time periods and the ages of the games that put me off but for this forum to be so active for a game from 2002 it must be good. Nice work up there lads!! very good read.

[nara shikamaru]

I made the mistake of buying Rome first then thinking that for the price of them I might as well have Medieval and Shogun. I have had Rome for around 1.5 years and not got bored of it yet. Shogun I first played arund 1 month ago and although it does not match up to Rome it was like a grand-scale game of chess trying to out play the AI. Lots of fun. Now after reading this i'm definately going to load up Medieval. It was the time periods and the ages of the games that put me off but for this forum to be so active for a game from 2002 it must be good. Nice work up there lads!! very good read.

Tom0, all I can say is, even if you might not like the period, if you want a real challenge, then by all means fire up MTW. As I can say from experience, playing both it and RTW, the ai is a lot more fickle in MTW, and sometimes odd, as I've had moments where I go from allied to at war to neutral to allied again within a 10 year or less time period. And though the graphics aren't the best, the battles can be very exciting, and invigorating. Watching th AI actually use a smart battle tactic, taking away any advantage you had, and beating your army to a bloody pulp.

Plus there are also the great number of mods for MTW. If you have the expansion VI, then I'd suggest, The XL mod, BkB's supermod, as well as the AoW. Wes's Medmod, or ancient total war. Each brings their own enjoyment to the game, making it an even more fun experience.

But it'd probably be better to wait for a more learned member of the .Org to give reasons to play MTW, as I doubt I could've convinced anyone with my little bit.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Tom0, all I can say is, even if you might not like the period, if you want a real challenge, then by all means fire up MTW. As I can say from experience, playing both it and RTW, the ai is a lot more fickle in MTW, and sometimes odd, as I've had moments where I go from allied to at war to neutral to allied again within a 10 year or less time period. And though the graphics aren't the best, the battles can be very exciting, and invigorating. Watching th AI actually use a smart battle tactic, taking away any advantage you had, and beating your army to a bloody pulp.

Plus there are also the great number of mods for MTW. If you have the expansion VI, then I'd suggest, The XL mod, BkB's supermod, as well as the AoW. Wes's Medmod, or ancient total war. Each brings their own enjoyment to the game, making it an even more fun experience.

But it'd probably be better to wait for a more learned member of the .Org to give reasons to play MTW, as I doubt I could've convinced anyone with my little bit.

So is diplomacy an issue? I also quite like the graphics, kind of retro and smooth. yes I do have VI, about a fiver from Tescos so i'll look into them mods.

[Martok]

So is diplomacy an issue? I also quite like the graphics, kind of retro and smooth. yes I do have VI, about a fiver from Tescos so i'll look into them mods.

Well diplomacy is *always* an issue in the Total War games, so it really depends on what you mean by that question. Diplomacy in MTW is fairly simplistic when compared to Rome and Medieval 2, but it's still more elaborate than in Shogun.

MTW has princesses, which you can have alliances-via-marriage. It also opens up the possibility of being able to claim lands from a faction that dies out and/or fractures into civil war, which is always interesting.

In addition, Catholic factions must deal with the Pope. And love him or hate him (usually the latter ), he can be -- and often is -- a major factor in the game's political-diplomatic arena.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Well diplomacy is *always* an issue in the Total War games, so it really depends on what you mean by that question. Diplomacy in MTW is fairly simplistic when compared to Rome and Medieval 2, but it's still more elaborate than in Shogun.

MTW has princesses, which you can have alliances-via-marriage. It also opens up the possibility of being able to claim lands from a faction that dies out and/or fractures into civil war, which is always interesting.

In addition, Catholic factions must deal with the Pope. And love him or hate him (usually the latter ), he can be -- and often is -- a major factor in the game's political-diplomatic arena.

Yeah, it's basically "pick your poison" in regards to diplomacy in Total War games.

MTW had it's own set of problems...same with RTW, and so it goes with M2TW...Empires will no doubt have it's fair share of issues.

That said however, I personally really always did regard MTW:VI diplomacy as...well, maybe not the "best" as I don't really know how that title would be assigned, but my favorite.

All of the complexities of diplomatic strategy are in place...and they tend to matter more in MTW than any fellowing editions of the game (read in my thread from September "Original MTW Lives On!!"...regarding coalitions and superpower alliances). Yet still, the diplomacy is extremely straightforward: Allied, at war, neutral.

From what I've heard from some people who play M2TW like 5 hours a day on average since the holidays, a newly patched/expanded M2TW has now reached the point of easily having the most in depth/least fickle diplomacy yet in a Total War game. Still though, for every new layer of depth it adds, that's only one more layer of problems that do occasionally surface.

Bottom line though- I don't think you'll have any glaring issues with the diplomacy. The simplistic nature of it in MTW can be rather deceiving...as this only leads to a higher level of importance being placed on the diplomatic decisions you do make. Example: You want to "make nice" with the Almohads so you try to form an alliance. If you are doing this to avert war, you really need them to accept that alliance. You can't simply gift them with money and hope this makes them happy, you need to form a full blown alliance or keep relations at entirely neutral (or less than neutral if things were already going down hill, so to speak).

Either way, welcome to Medieval: Total War. From what you've written, I'm almost positive you'll enjoy the game tremendously. This forum is unbelievably active and helpful for a game this dated (probably more so than any other game 5+ years old at this point...really) so certainly don't hesitate to make it a regular stop for yourself on the internet. It's always worth it. Additionally, if you have a high level of interest in warfare in general, or even just specifically pre-modern warfare...I don't think you'll find a better group of people to chat with on the web. Just check out the new battle strategies thread put up here in the past week or so and you'll see what I mean.

Welcome...

[caravel]

Diplomacy in MTW doesn't make any grand claims. The RTW diplomacy has the framework of a good diplomatic model, it certainly has all of the features but fails due to the detachment between the diplomatic and warfare sections of the campaign map game engine and due to the immobility of diplomats.

(i.e. sending a diplomat across to the other side of the map involves walking him there turn by turn or using ships where available and by the time he gets there he'll probably be old and grey! That is if he doesn't get bribed away or you don't forget about him entirely and leave him to die out in the steppes!)

At least in MTW your emissaries can move much more freely and thus can cement alliances more easily then return hom to strip titles or bribe rivals' armies.

Diplomacy in MTW is all about buying time and gaining influence, it's never about gaining real and lasting allies, as allies will surely stab you in the back when you expect it least.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
IIRC it was Lusted (could be else) but a CA rep -reportedly- posted at the .com that the diplomacy engine had been developed by a different team, separately from the military/political one up to Empire. As a result, the military/political engine disregards the diplomatic stance on making decisions. Based on this, I've named diplomacy in Total War an unfeature. It's good only for role playing.

I hope they integrate the engines in Empire and also add some effective penalties when you or the AI backstabs, similar to the stability drop in EUIII, and make it mandatory to break alliance before waging war.
.

[Heidrek]

Welcome to the MTW community!

I am a veteran of many many real time and turn based strategy games and love them all, but I do have to say that MTW has gripped me very tightly for a long time now and shows no signs of letting go. the depth and variety of the game is huge. there is no "right" formula.

The key skill is adaptation and in depth knowledge of both yours and your opponents forces. Diplomacy is important, even more so in the XL mod but what is truely great about MTW is the sheer depth of the game and it's ability to capture the feel of a real campaign. So many units, so many factions with unique strengths/weaknesses and balancing factors.

the Danes for example start with only a single isolated province giving them limited income and troop production ability but they have access to cost effective infantry and navy - if they can survive long enough to get a foothold they can become a real force depsite their humble origins.

The Germans on the other hand start out with sizeable holdings in central europe and have access to some of the most purely powerful units in the game long term, but often find it hard to expand to the point that they can utilise them. For them the difficulty is getting access to sea trading routes and defending their larger borders.

Your strategy has to change to fit the situation your are faced with. In my current campaign, France was rapidly becoming unstopable so my small empire came to the defense of my spanish allies that were being mercilessly crushed by the French. together we forced the french from spain and most of western europe beacuse other nations to the east took the opportunity to renew their efforts against the French. slowly our 4 or 5 smaller nations brought down the french like a wolf pack attacking a stag. just as I was celebrating the French fall from power, my Spanish "allies" decided that I was weak enough for them to retake some of the land they'd lost to the french and I'd driven them from......With the wounded but still strong french on one side and my one time allies the Spanish on the other the tides of war shifted again, my weakened army had no chance to recover it's strength and I had to fight a war of attrition against the Spanish while retaining enough strength on the french border to deter an attack by them....a delicate situation indeed!

Situations such as this happen all the time in MTW and I love it. As the saying goes - "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" the trouble is telling which is which though!!

In MTW you really have to THINK.

To me MTW is pretty much the yard stick that other games are measured by now. the only areas where it's let down is the sea combat and the CTD problems that are so prevalent.