BTS and Medieval II Total War

[Hoggle]

To start things off, I'm new to these types of games. I actually picked up Civ4 when it first came out, but was put off from being completely lost...(sad I know). I recently reinstalled it, and I'm starting to grasp it, and am really enjoying the game...I wish I gave it more of a chance before. I also picked up Gal Civ2 and I'm starting to get into that as well.

With that said, I'm torn right now. I'm debating between picking up BTS, or Medieval II Total War. I realize that they are completely different games, but in some ways they look loosely similar. I realize this is a Civ forum, but I'm very impressed with the community here, and I'm just looking for some opinions from those that may have played both games.

Thanks in advance for any info or opinions, it is appreciated.

 

[Vietcong]

like u said thay are very difrent, but i whould go with rome total war gold pack, or total war:war chest. if ur put off by playing as rome, ect, then go for m2tw.
i whould get bts later on once u fully grasp civ 4..
a word of warning, u play on the map in turns, and battles in real time in total war. allso, units will route, turning and running from battle if thay are not well trained or battle hardend.

 

[toby82]

I never liked Rome TW, but the pack with Medieval and Shogun is really good. Those two are worth getting. I got both when they originally came out, but the pack is good because you can play Shogun on XP now, original doesn't run, or doesn't run without patch in a stable way.

 

[Thorbal]

I own both games . If I had to choose between the two, I would... die, I think. I cannot live without both of them.

They are more different than it looks at first. While you can construct buildings and conduct diplomacy etc. in MTW/RTW, it is not *really* needed to put too much effort into it ( and it is not that rewarding, either... in the end, you end up conquering half of the map anyway and the AI generally attacks you as soon as you share a common border) . The Total War series is really focusing on the tactical battles. I tend to think of the world map there as a kind of battle generator . But it is a very good game nonetheless! It comes down to personal preference I think - MTW is good when I want to have strategy with a bit of action ( it is not as deep as Civ or GalCiv imho ) and the rest of the time I play Civ. I think you should try MTW2 out, as Civ and GalCiv supply you with enough "deep" strategy and with MTW you can get a bit of variety in your gaming .

 

[Peng Qi]

Medieval 2 Total War basically requires a user-made AI mod to be fun and challenging, but with said mod it is VERY fun. If you're in a hurry, I'd buy Medieval 2 and get the Ultimate AI Mod. If you are patient, I'd wait for the next BTS patch and buy it instead.

 

[Fookison]

For me, I would purchase the following in the order listed:
1. Europa Universalis 3 (Paradox Games)
2. Medieval Total War 2
3. Beyond the Sword
Each have their own style and each are excellent games......

 

[Ruler]

If you haven't played Total War series before I could go for M2TW right off and wait for M2TW: Kingdoms.

 

[lionheart]

The thing I always advice people if they want to try out the Total War series; download the demo from somewhere.. I downloaded the Rome: Total War demo some time ago and was completely blown away (and immediately addicted).. The Medieval II: Total War demo is very nice as well..

As for BtS, if you've just started playing CivIV it might be a little overwhelming, but I think, in the end, BtS is going to be vital to your enjoyment of the series.. (I know I already love it!)

 

[Spearthrower]

I've got all the games mentioned above and I have to say that Civ BtS is the most polished of all of them.

I know, I know.... all the whinging "it's broken" crew probably just had to be admitted to hospital, but the fact remains that ALL of the listed games have a lot of problems.

M2TW is a fantastic game for the battle elements - so far above and beyond civ that I always laugh at warmongers here - civ doesnt hold even an unlit candle to it..... however, M2TW doesnt have any of the excellent empire building that Civ offers.

Galciv2 is a fantastic game with a lot of diversity and original material. It's a game you can keep going back to - if nothing else just to design your ships!

Europa Universalis 2 plays like a board game - it's only for the hardcore strategist..... there's very little empire building and very little in the way of controlled war - it's all abstracted. It can keep you occupied for many hours though due to its ongoing time (rather than turn based, where you can say STOP now!).... but really, it's a pretty shallow game compared to the others mentioned, no matter how much I enjoy it.

 

[Smidlee]

I haven't played M2TW but I played all the rest of the Total war series. This series is all about real time tactical battles with a civ-lite empire building. So the strategy part of the TW game is weak which is the whole focus of Civs games ( no tactical battles). I would go for now the cheaper Rome TW or the first MTW to see if you get hooked on TW battle system then later get M2TW.

 

[phungus420]

Get a Total War title first, before getting BTS. Though RTW and MTW2 are both very buggy, and diplomacy is non existent. Still excellent game, and the tactical warring is awesome. My dream game would be CIV economic engine, with the RTW (or MTW2) war engine. Anyway, since you haven't played the total war games yet, and already own CIV, you should check out MTW2 or RTW. They are strategy gamer crack, much like CIV. BTS though is far more polished, and improves CIV alot, so get it definatly, but if it's an either or thing right now, I'd say check out the total war series, hell download the demo, I'm sure it'll be enough to hook you to buy it.

 

[Peng Qi]

I know, I know.... all the whinging "it's broken" crew probably just had to be admitted to hospital, but the fact remains that ALL of the listed games have a lot of problems.

It is broken for some people. It's not unplayable for me, personally, but it was annoying enough under 3.03 that I rolled back to 3.02. My wonder movies still didn't work under 3.03 anyway, and I still can't complete one of my games because it crashes at the same spot every time. Plus, if you're a Marathon-speed player, you can just forget about getting BTS until the spy actions are fixed (fortunately I play Epic).

Europa Universalis 2 plays like a board game - it's only for the hardcore strategist..... there's very little empire building and very little in the way of controlled war - it's all abstracted. It can keep you occupied for many hours though due to its ongoing time (rather than turn based, where you can say STOP now!).... but really, it's a pretty shallow game compared to the others mentioned, no matter how much I enjoy it.

EU2? Shallow? You must not have been playing it right.

 

[Angst]

I would go for Medieval first, but it's kinda hard to learn initially, just like civ.

 

[Napo981]

I think I'll repeat somewhat what others have said, but I'll say it!!

I think MTW and Civ are completely different games. The only thing they have in common is the are strategical/tactic games.

Civ, well you know, is more empire-building oriented. I think there are many warmongers who think Civ is a wargame but it is not. Wars and units are pretty simplified and only superficial planning/strategy is required. Wars in Civ is just something that happen because Civs didn't evolve without wars.

MTW ( and the like ) is a real wargame. Your ONLY focus is war and everything you do will impact how your wars will be fought. There is effectively a empire-managing task in the main screen, but only war-oriented. ( well some diplomamcy... that'll end in wars!! ). Your only goal is to conquer the world. On a tactical level, (when you decide to launch an offensive ), you'll have to place and move your men. Think about how the fights are in BraveHeart, this is the same thing in MTW.

If you love wargames, MTW is a definitively a must and will offer a far different play than Civ. As other people said, you can try a less expensive version and try the genre.

 

[Spearthrower]

It is broken for some people.

Software can't be broken for some (unless you genuinely have a bad disk) - it must be for all. What CAN be broken is people's computers, be it hardware or software conflicts.... of course, they'll ignore their responsibilities and blame something else because whining on fan forums is the internets favourite pasttime!

EU2? Shallow? You must not have been playing it right.

Please do enlighten me!



I've managed to create empires with S.E. Asian and African nations.... I've even got a 200 territory Aztec empire..... please do instruct me on what I am doing wrong!

Especially in a game without any victory conditions, I'd really like to know.

The reason it is shallow is because of the lack of human interaction with it. You basically get to tweak around your government over the course of years, you build armies which you then move into a territory and watch as the numbers move down, you occasionally build stuff in your territories.

C'mon, are you really going to argue that it's deep? Maybe for the strategically challenged!

 

[Roland Johansen]

I've played both Rome Total War and all versions of civilization.

I really liked Rome Total War, but it's the type of game that blows you away the first two weeks that you play it and then starts to diminish in appeal. Once you learn the mistakes of the battle AI and AI in general, you'll go searching for AI mods to get some challenge. After a while the battles also got a bit repetitive for me. But I must say, there are few games that are as appealing in the first 2 weeks of play.

The civ games series has a more long lasting appeal (for me). It is not the type of game that you'll master in 2 weeks if you haven't had experience with the civ series. But it is the type of game that you might still be playing in 2 years and still find new tactics to beat your opponents.

The total war games series are war games. The diplomacy system and empire building system is not very important and doesn't have a lot of depth. The war system is very detailed and you will personally command your armies. The strategy in this game is more as a strategic commander of armies on the world map and as a tactical commander of those same armies on the battlefield.

The civilization series is an empire building game. As empires have borders, there might be some wars if those borders meet, but the game is not centred around those wars and you will typically spend far more time thinking about the strategy to develop the economy and technological development of your empire than the strategy to conquer an enemy. The war element isn't very deep at all if you compare it with the Total War series.

In the end, I prefer the civilization series, but the Total War series is also nice and I'm happy that I've played it.

 

[Spearthrower]

If you get some of the mods you mentioned and also tweak settings in game (larger unit sizes), then you can have some truly epic battles.

I had a couple of great gaming moments with Rome:Total War...... the setting? 200 Spartan hoplites taking on a VAST army from Rome and crushing them.

There are some really professional mods out now for R:TW, they'll keep you going for months - for the easy tactical battles, just use Auto fight and save your interest for the harder ones.

 

[Roland Johansen]

If you get some of the mods you mentioned and also tweak settings in game (larger unit sizes), then you can have some truly epic battles.

I had a couple of great gaming moments with Rome:Total War...... the setting? 200 Spartan hoplites taking on a VAST army from Rome and crushing them.

There are some really professional mods out now for R:TW, they'll keep you going for months - for the easy tactical battles, just use Auto fight and save your interest for the harder ones.

Is this post directed at me? It seems to be as it has to do with what I wrote, but you didn't quote me, so I'm not sure.

I've played RTW with some mods, especially the Total Realism mod in various incarnations. In the normal game and the total Realism mod, the AI doesn't handle huge unit sizes well because they will totally drain their lands of citizens for their armies and thus drain their economy of money and future manpower for their armies. This will happen even faster if you set the difficulty slider at a higher level so the AI has more money for creating armies. It also happens the fastest to the barbarian nations which have small provinces with low growth rates to replenish the citizens.

The Spartan hoplites were really ridiculously strong in the unmodded version of Rome Total War. That while Sparta was already way beyond their prime in the time period of RTW. It's still fun to slaughter a huge army with a small elite one of course. At least, it is fun to do it once, but in the end, I will go for challenge instead of the 'cool' factor.

 

[Peng Qi]

Software can't be broken for some (unless you genuinely have a bad disk) - it must be for all. What CAN be broken is people's computers, be it hardware or software conflicts.... of course, they'll ignore their responsibilities and blame something else because whining on fan forums is the internets favourite pasttime!

If a developer makes a game that doesn't operate properly on video cards it claims to support, it's the developer's fault for claiming to support that video card when they really don't.

I've managed to create empires with S.E. Asian and African nations.... I've even got a 200 territory Aztec empire..... please do instruct me on what I am doing wrong!

You're not playing multiplayer. You're relying on an AI that simply isn't up to the task of managing such a complex game making mistakes. Honestly, Civ is way simpler, especially if you compare EU2 to Civ3 (which came out the same year), in which a friend of mine makes a regular practice of simply founding cities almost adjacent to enemies and taking over their entire empire by culture. I mean, what makes Civ3 so complicated? Convoluted rules that are easy to take advantage of? Wars that essentially boil down to spamming your best offensive and your best defensive units with some siege thrown in depending on which patch you're on? Europa Universalis forces you to manage actual diplomatic relations and stability, which is simple enough against the nigh-braindead AI but becomes much more complex when you need to worry about actual human opponents.

Also, the Aztecs are one of the easiest nations to play as since they have no competition at all for a few hundred years. You're a lot more hard-pressed as a small European nation next to a behemoth.

 

[Wingman357]

I own both and have been an enormous fan of both franchises for a while.

What I found as I played the newer total war games (Medieval 2 & Rome) is that they tend to get unsatisfying and repetitive. This is especially true of Medieval which contains a number of what I think are very crippling bugs: your units don't charge right, don't scale walls right, and don't move around in cities right.

The campaign mode is also rather flawed especially if you're used to Civ: rivals will attack you for no reason even with good relations and are usually totally unprepared for war when they do so, offer ridiculous terms for any type of agreement, move small armies through your territory and sometimes park themselves near your cities for no reason. There are some other things I can't think of from the top of my head.

Basically the game makes it really hard to suspend disbelief and prevent you from getting annoyed at it. If you're set on trying a Total War game (which you defiantly should!) pick up a copy of Rome, which if it's patched has far fewer of the bugs mentioned above, especially pathfinding related ones, and it's probably a great deal cheaper now. You can also probably get it in a pack with the old Total War game like Medieval I and Shogun, which I still believe are the cream of the franchise.

Hope that helped.