Rome VS Medieval II

[Jolly Rogerer]

For some reason I could never get into MTW2 as much as MTW1. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but perhaps its because the units tended to look alike or something. I love the strategic map game, but the battles lacked.

For that reason I prefer Rome, despite not liking the era as much from a tactical standpoint.

 

[shadowplay]

I'm having a hell of a time launching Rome: Total War. I launch it but then immediately it minimizes itself to the task-bar like it's frightened or something and just won't open. I click on it in the task-bar but 99% of the time it simply won't open up. On the rare occasion it actually does open and fills the screen, the game runs fine at maximum settings with no trouble. grr. Anyone else had this happen?

EDIT: It seems this is only happening when something else is open in the task-bar, such as Firefox. Still, this has never happened before with any other game. Is this a Rome TW thing? Anyone else getting this?

 

[Maniacal]

Its just you though I don't think I've ever tried launching it with Firefox open either.

 

[sendos]

Both M2TW and RTW are very good games so I'll evaluate both of them:

RTW:
- Can be played on older computers such as my 5 year old laptop.
- Religion: temples actually GIVE you something rather than just happiness for your citizens, such as unit XP.
- Chariots and elephants (ftw!) - Selucid Empire
- Unique units (unlike M2TW, where just about every western faction has exactly the same knights and spearmen)
- 0% chance of losing a whole army to desertion. That's happened to me too many times in M2TW!
- No pope to worry about.
- Warrioresses (Scythians and Germans)
- Hard level really is hard.

M2TW:
- Better detail/graphics. Natural landscape and architecture look real and beautiful. RTW natural landscape looks very ordinary and plain, if you know what I mean.
- Faster unit production (up to 3 compared to 1 in RTW)
- More challenging rebels/pirates (Same with BI to some extent)
- Better fortifications - level 3-5 castles is what I'm referring to
- Crusades! Tripled movement rate, but increased chances of desertion
- Looks more historically accurate (I would say), compared to RTW. How the hell did the Armenians, the Selucids and the Numidians get Roman legions? I haven't seen any evidence that German women were cheerleaders for the Germans during Caesar's glorious days.

I think I can add a bit more, but that's about it for now. Both games are pretty good. It's hard to choose which one is better. I've also got the expansion to M2TW and the RTW expansions BI and Alexander (I only played it once and I lost interest after that).

 

[Dachs]

- Looks more historically accurate (I would say), compared to RTW. How the hell did the Armenians, the Selucids and the Numidians get Roman legions? I haven't seen any evidence that German women were cheerleaders for the Germans during Caesar's glorious days.

The Seleukid "imitation legions" kinda sorta existed. Units called thureophoroi and thorakitai, very similar in armament to Roman legionaries, were heavily employed by not just the Seleukidai but the Maks, Ptolies, Attaloi, and Baktrians. These weren't imitation legionaries, though, but units with their own evolutionary history in Greek warfare stretching back to Iphikrates at the turn of the fourth century. The Seleukidai and Ptolemaioi further altered their thorakitai units in some well-publicized reforms (well-publicized due to Nick Sekunda) in the 170s and 160s BC. They still weren't just copycat legionaries, of course, but they were designed to fight and defeat legionaries. Due to the Pahlavan wars in western Iran, the incessant Seleukid/Ptoli/Hashmonayim fighting in the Levant, and Rome's general shift in attention away from Anatolia, they never really got the chance.

Really, both games play fast and loose with history, but M2TW is somewhat better about it; the screaming German women, the "imitation legionaries", and the Mummy Returns Egyptians have no real equivalent in the newer game.

I think I can add a bit more, but that's about it for now. Both games are pretty good. It's hard to choose which one is better. I've also got the expansion to M2TW and the RTW expansions BI and Alexander (I only played it once and I lost interest after that).

One of RTW's best aspects is its expansions; Barbarian Invasion was legitimately fun and added enough new features to justify its existence, while Kingdoms was a cobbled-together piece of junk that had to be modded in order to apply its gameplay changes to the original game. Alexander was basically pre-DLC DLC, and about equivalent to a single Kingdoms campaign in terms of added content.

Until EB II comes out, RTW will still have a decisive edge over Kingdoms as far as the modding community goes, because not even Broken Crescent or Stainless Steel measures up to EB in terms of quality.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Hey! I enjoyed the kingdoms expansion pack!

Well, at least the Mesoamerican scenario. I could care less about both the crusade ones.

EDIT: Also buying M2TW with the Kingdoms expansion pack oddly allowed me to save about 10 dollars over the regular version on Steam.

 

[Maniacal]

EBII isn't even in beta yet, by the time its out and more or less done RTWII will be released.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

M2TW could have been a lot more interesting if they had taken the idea of Hero units like Coeur de Lion and Saladin were in Kingdoms and found a way to utilize them in the regular campaign. Perhaps as something extra for your king, or a quality that a general can acquire after performing certain tasks: winning x number of battles, winning a certain type of battle (outnumber 2:1 or bridge battle or against large numbers of cavalry or something), or performing some other type of task, or even as a learned or borne attribute.

 

[Dachs]

EBII isn't even in beta yet, by the time its out and more or less done RTWII will be released.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd still play it over R2TW though.

 

[sophie]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd still play it over R2TW though.

Agree'd

Mostly because I would be able to play it :3.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

why would we need another Rome total war? are they running out of Ideas?

 

[Maniacal]

A remake of Rome was the most voted for in several polls on fan forums I saw and is next in the series to get remade (since they already did Medieval and Shogun).

 

[Dell19]

I never really got into MTWII and since then I haven't brought another TW game whilst I'm occasionally tempted to go back to playing Rome. I think the deciding factor for me is that the Rome map has more cities on it and larger empires so its actually possible to have front line and interior cities rather than every city being on the front line.

 

[sendos]

The Seleukid "imitation legions" kinda sorta existed. Units called thureophoroi and thorakitai, very similar in armament to Roman legionaries, were heavily employed by not just the Seleukidai but the Maks, Ptolies, Attaloi, and Baktrians. These weren't imitation legionaries, though, but units with their own evolutionary history in Greek warfare stretching back to Iphikrates at the turn of the fourth century. The Seleukidai and Ptolemaioi further altered their thorakitai units in some well-publicized reforms (well-publicized due to Nick Sekunda) in the 170s and 160s BC. They still weren't just copycat legionaries, of course, but they were designed to fight and defeat legionaries. Due to the Pahlavan wars in western Iran, the incessant Seleukid/Ptoli/Hashmonayim fighting in the Levant, and Rome's general shift in attention away from Anatolia, they never really got the chance.

Oh. Thanks for the information though.

One of RTW's best aspects is its expansions; Barbarian Invasion was legitimately fun and added enough new features to justify its existence, while Kingdoms was a cobbled-together piece of junk that had to be modded in order to apply its gameplay changes to the original game. Alexander was basically pre-DLC DLC, and about equivalent to a single Kingdoms campaign in terms of added content.

I actually liked Kingdoms (that's the name, I forgot the name ). The Britannia one is a bit hard when it comes to finances though. The rest of them were pretty good. I played as the Mayans in the Americas and I crushed the Spanish simply by killing their viceroy, who was in a neighbouring Spanish town next to my towns...and the whole faction crumbled!
With the Teutonic campaign, I tried out the Danish (best position ever!) and the Teutonic order. Very nice units, gameplay and Teutonic architecture.

With the Crusades, I tried out the Byzantines. Now that was a good campaign. And I found a bug when I did a bridge battle somewhere in central Turkey. Basically, a cliff cut off the whole pass to get to the enemy and I lost some units before the battle map loaded.

But yes, BI was fun. What I didn't like about it was that some units were nerfed (a lesser number than the units nerfed were buffed as well).. Lombard beserkers FTW as Alemanni! I managed to clock the game being the Franks, Alemanni, Saxons, Eastern Romans and the Huns on medium difficulty.

 

[Maniacal]

I'd love a mod like EB or something similar for the BI campaign.

 

[sophie]

I never really got into MTWII and since then I haven't brought another TW game whilst I'm occasionally tempted to go back to playing Rome. I think the deciding factor for me is that the Rome map has more cities on it and larger empires so its actually possible to have front line and interior cities rather than every city being on the front line.

Front line? What do you mean front line?! RTW and M2 were just a long series of sieges with maybe a large battle in between. There weren't any battle lines to speak of!

Now M1 on the other hand, there was a game with an institutionalized battle line.

I'd love a mod like EB or something similar for the BI campaign.

I think they have this, or at least something similar to it.

 

[Dachs]

I actually liked Kingdoms (that's the name, I forgot the name ). The Britannia one is a bit hard when it comes to finances though. The rest of them were pretty good. I played as the Mayans in the Americas and I crushed the Spanish simply by killing their viceroy, who was in a neighbouring Spanish town next to my towns...and the whole faction crumbled!
With the Teutonic campaign, I tried out the Danish (best position ever!) and the Teutonic order. Very nice units, gameplay and Teutonic architecture.

With the Crusades, I tried out the Byzantines. Now that was a good campaign. And I found a bug when I did a bridge battle somewhere in central Turkey. Basically, a cliff cut off the whole pass to get to the enemy and I lost some units before the battle map loaded.

But yes, BI was fun. What I didn't like about it was that some units were nerfed (a lesser number than the units nerfed were buffed as well).. Lombard beserkers FTW as Alemanni! I managed to clock the game being the Franks, Alemanni, Saxons, Eastern Romans and the Huns on medium difficulty.

Yeah, but unit nerfs/buffs aren't a systemic problem, they're easily fixable. Kingdoms' campaigns had deeper issues, only some of which were fixable (KoJ in the Crusader campaign, anyone?).

I'd love a mod like EB or something similar for the BI campaign.

Look at Invasio Barbarorum and its many many submods. Same basic idea.

 

[Maniacal]

I barely touched the campaigns, I mostly just used it for Stainless Steel.

 

[markdienekes]

I use Europa Barbarorum, which - for me anyhow - makes Rome the best! It is my favorite historical period - which certainly helps!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Front line? What do you mean front line?! RTW and M2 were just a long series of sieges with maybe a large battle in between. There weren't any battle lines to speak of!

Stainless Steel largely fixed the spacing problem for M2 by drastically enlarging the map. There are both larger provinces and more of them.

Now M1 on the other hand, there was a game with an institutionalized battle line.

M1 was such a fantastically great game, if only it wasn't so buggy.