In the end I've played RTW a lot more although that was partially because of the custom mods for it. I think my disappointment with M2TW was that I was hoping they were going o improve the gameplay over MTW however in reality with the removal of the three different starting ages and too many agents meant it was actually less fun although admittedly the graphics were much better. I don't think I'll be gettin Empire Total War as it sounds as if they've moved further away from my ideal.
Which game is more fun: RTW or M2TW?
- Thread starter Dida
- Start date
Bringing this thread back up, I'm reading it for the first time, there was a lot of hope towards Empire Total War; have many of you turned back to M2TW or RTW?
Empire Total War is my first Total War game (surprisingly!), and I'm enjoying it quite a lot. I'm reading a whole lot of valid complaints about it though, so I'm thinking of trying either M2TW or RTW. I'm not sure which to try. I'm always reluctant to go backwards in a series with games that I haven't played because I tend to see glaring annoyances with the interface or the gameplay that have been solved with the newer game I first became familiar with. When things become streamlined in a new version of a game, I usually go back to an older game and go "ugh, well I can see why this was changed in the new game". Like the apparent gazillion of agents you have to deal with in M2TW for example. But that's just stuff I've read.
Are there people who play vanilla M2TW or RTW or is it a given that you have to download mods?
Also, I put a lot of importance on variety and flavour (units, factions, etc), which game had it more?
Empire Total War is my first Total War game (surprisingly!), and I'm enjoying it quite a lot. I'm reading a whole lot of valid complaints about it though, so I'm thinking of trying either M2TW or RTW. I'm not sure which to try. I'm always reluctant to go backwards in a series with games that I haven't played because I tend to see glaring annoyances with the interface or the gameplay that have been solved with the newer game I first became familiar with. When things become streamlined in a new version of a game, I usually go back to an older game and go "ugh, well I can see why this was changed in the new game". Like the apparent gazillion of agents you have to deal with in M2TW for example. But that's just stuff I've read.
Are there people who play vanilla M2TW or RTW or is it a given that you have to download mods?
Also, I put a lot of importance on variety and flavour (units, factions, etc), which game had it more?
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
I prefer Rome, but Medieval was fun too.
The Europa Barbarorum mod is AWESOME, but I quite enjoyed The 4th Age, and DarthMod.
For Medieval 2 with Kingdoms you need the Stainless Steel mod.
The Europa Barbarorum mod is AWESOME, but I quite enjoyed The 4th Age, and DarthMod.
For Medieval 2 with Kingdoms you need the Stainless Steel mod.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
EB for Rome was only finished last November, EBII will take a couple of years.
JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
I liked M2TW, but I love RTW, especially with the mods.
Akka
Moody old mage.
RTW has much more dynamics and energic battle engine ; MTW2 has sluggish and soporific ones, with huge inertia and a total lack of feeling of power in charge and mélée.
MTW2 keeps many of the options in RTW that don't make any sense in a medieval world (the adoptions for example, in a world ruled by bloodlines).
But RTW has the "clone syndrome", while MTW2 is just beautifully rendered. The idea of castles and cities is not too bad too.
And RTW has still the horrible bug making ranged units using their ranged attack as mélée (which means that forester warband will butcher anything it enters in hand to hand fight with).
Also, RTW had good pre-battle speeches. Keeping with the sleepy general mood of MTW2, the speeches in here are horrible and don't feel immersive at all.
All in all, RTW is quite better, but the eye-candy of MTW2 is strong enough to make it hard to see clone armies again.
MTW2 keeps many of the options in RTW that don't make any sense in a medieval world (the adoptions for example, in a world ruled by bloodlines).
But RTW has the "clone syndrome", while MTW2 is just beautifully rendered. The idea of castles and cities is not too bad too.
And RTW has still the horrible bug making ranged units using their ranged attack as mélée (which means that forester warband will butcher anything it enters in hand to hand fight with).
Also, RTW had good pre-battle speeches. Keeping with the sleepy general mood of MTW2, the speeches in here are horrible and don't feel immersive at all.
All in all, RTW is quite better, but the eye-candy of MTW2 is strong enough to make it hard to see clone armies again.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
I like M2 better than Rome. The abundance of agents doesn't bother me and I like the inclusion of merchants and princesses. I like the choice between city and castle. I like the appearance of gunpowder later on. There's a true sense of growing more powerful as the game progresses, unlike Rome and especially Barbarian Invasion where even in the late stages of the game your armies and cities aren't that much different. In M2 cannon towers and gunpower units make your armies perform completely different and require totally different tactics. In Rome you go from triarii to urban cohorts. It's more powerful but not different.
I like how sieges aren't so easy to win they're boring, like they are in Rome. I LOVE how siege towers don't have ballista, which in Rome meant the larger your walls the more troops would die.
I love how the pope and the papal states play a large role in the game. SPQR is similar but not nearly as important. Going on crusade kicks ass too.
Adoptions don't bother me. When I'm low on generals and it tells me the adoptee is actually dead it bothers me
M2 just has more for me than Rome, and I love Rome. I actually lost my first M2 siege because I was still using old Rome tactics, and was pleasantly surprised to see the AI send reinforcements onto the walls. I never used to knock down walls in Rome, or use ladders or even rams. Siege towers let me win every siege with very few losses. I'd get on the walls, kill the defenders there, go capture the towers, take my time while the towers killed off more defenders below, then kill the few remaining defenders in the square. Easy and methodical. M2 changed all that for me.
I also prefer the time period of M2.
The one thing I dislike most about M2 compared to Rome though is the strange battle mechanic where two large units fighting each other won't fully engage, but will instead fight a few units at a time. It's worse when you have, say, 3 units of armored swordsmen vs 1 unit and they stand around waiting instead of surrounding and enveloping them, and you have to force them to run to a point past that 1 unit to get most of them to engage.
EDIT: I play no mods either. It's all vanilla. I only bought M2 last week so maybe after I've played it a while I might try some mods, but I generally don't like altering things until I've fully experienced what the original developers had in mind.
I like how sieges aren't so easy to win they're boring, like they are in Rome. I LOVE how siege towers don't have ballista, which in Rome meant the larger your walls the more troops would die.
I love how the pope and the papal states play a large role in the game. SPQR is similar but not nearly as important. Going on crusade kicks ass too.
Adoptions don't bother me. When I'm low on generals and it tells me the adoptee is actually dead it bothers me
M2 just has more for me than Rome, and I love Rome. I actually lost my first M2 siege because I was still using old Rome tactics, and was pleasantly surprised to see the AI send reinforcements onto the walls. I never used to knock down walls in Rome, or use ladders or even rams. Siege towers let me win every siege with very few losses. I'd get on the walls, kill the defenders there, go capture the towers, take my time while the towers killed off more defenders below, then kill the few remaining defenders in the square. Easy and methodical. M2 changed all that for me.
I also prefer the time period of M2.
The one thing I dislike most about M2 compared to Rome though is the strange battle mechanic where two large units fighting each other won't fully engage, but will instead fight a few units at a time. It's worse when you have, say, 3 units of armored swordsmen vs 1 unit and they stand around waiting instead of surrounding and enveloping them, and you have to force them to run to a point past that 1 unit to get most of them to engage.
EDIT: I play no mods either. It's all vanilla. I only bought M2 last week so maybe after I've played it a while I might try some mods, but I generally don't like altering things until I've fully experienced what the original developers had in mind.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I like the battle screen more in M2TW, and the strategic game of RTW more. A Rome mod for M2TW would be ideal.
Basically, though, I think my ideal game would be set in the Roman or Medieval era, but with the Rake agent from Empire, the ability to promote generals from Empire, but the capability to have generals of any type of unit, from the original Medieval. Preferably with the in-depth building system of EB, and a map of similar size to EB's.
Basically, though, I think my ideal game would be set in the Roman or Medieval era, but with the Rake agent from Empire, the ability to promote generals from Empire, but the capability to have generals of any type of unit, from the original Medieval. Preferably with the in-depth building system of EB, and a map of similar size to EB's.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I would also like to see the return of provincial titles from M1. It'd probably need a bit of reworking, but I liked the flavour it added to the game, as well, if nothing else, allowing you to keep easier track of significant generals. It was easier to keep a mental list of generals like the "Prince of Wales" and "The Duke of Northumbria" than "Henry Bosworthlingtonshire" and "Edward Poslethwaitletonson", who generally end up as "Harry-Who-Has-That-Hat-On" and "Beardy Bloke" in my head.
Akka
Moody old mage.
How can you endure the lethargic fights of unmodded MTW2 ? :x
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
They're lethargic? I find them a lot of fun and more challenging than RTW, especially sieges. The one problem I have is the insistence of my troops that they only fight 1v1; if you outnumber the enemy unit surround them! Get in there and wipe them out! My ancient RTW units used to do it!
If you can recommend me a mod that improves the AI without adding units or anything else though that would be great. Too often now the AI just stop what they're doing when besieging me, after I give most of them a good ass whoopin'.
EDIT: I do notice an almost total lack of cavalry units in use by the AI. Milan throws hordes of genoese crossbowmen at me, HRE and France throw dismounted knights, Spain uses chivalric knights, etc. etc., and they all use a mix of siege artillery. No cavalry.
If you can recommend me a mod that improves the AI without adding units or anything else though that would be great. Too often now the AI just stop what they're doing when besieging me, after I give most of them a good ass whoopin'.
EDIT: I do notice an almost total lack of cavalry units in use by the AI. Milan throws hordes of genoese crossbowmen at me, HRE and France throw dismounted knights, Spain uses chivalric knights, etc. etc., and they all use a mix of siege artillery. No cavalry.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
There are AI mods for both games. I don't recall the names though. Lusted's BAI and CAI is one.
sophie
Break My Heart
I've always preferred R: TW (EB, more specifically). The 2-handed bug, and the shield bug, as well as just how frustrating besieging was in the game killed M2 for me.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I think sieges are one of the things M2TW got spot on! The only thing I would change would be to allow you to occupy the lower rings of a castle whilst still besieging the upper rings, and to allow the besiegers to take over towers and gates.
sophie
Break My Heart
Really? Because I can't tell you how many times my siege was ruined because a force of peasants beat my dismounted feudal knights. Usually the most practical ways to beat the enemy were either to methodically mow the enemy down with archer-heavy armies (Takes forever) or wait them out so they don't have the ridiculously overpowered wall defense multiplyer (also takes forever). I know it's realistic for the Middle Ages (there are stories of Welsh castles holding out against an army of thousands with 10 or even 11 archers), but it's just frustrating. I really prefer R: TW sieges which were in essence a question of heavy infantry.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Which is precisely why M2TW sieges are better than RTW sieges. I held off successive Mongol armies in Tbilisi as the Russians when I would've been massacred if it were RTW, simply because I lacked appropriate amounts of heavy infantry.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
What's the 2-hand and shield bug, and are they fixed in Kingdoms 1.5?
RTW sieges were ridiculously easy to win, as either attacker or defender. I never lost one. I even held off a Hun horde.
I find M2 sieges a lot more difficult. I may win all my attacks now and only lose a few defenses when I'm hopelessly outnumbered, but I lost my first few due to using my old RTW tactics (which were simple: siege towers to the walls, heavy infantry up top, capture the towers, and slowly and methodically kill the defenders who are too stupid to send reinforcements onto the walls).
M2 sieges when I'm the defender of a citadel with cannon towers, however, are very easy. And fun! And in M2 I find it necessary to use siege artillery, which I never used in RTW to attack the walls, one of the reasons being if I was a faction that couldn't build the more advanced walls I could never repair them.
So there's a wall defense multiplier for defending infantry units on walls? That would certainly explain why my attacking units don't perform nearly as well as I expect them to. How does that multiplier work? How do you reduce it?
sophie
Break My Heart
Shield bug: Bug in which the shield's defense bonuses weren't taken into account in fighting (essentially making the defense values of dismounted knights worthless, especially against archers.)
Two-Handed Bug: The animation for two-handed weapon units (such as English Billmen and Zweihanders) was bugged meaning the units were never very good. This was most disappointing specifically with the billmen who were basically worthless, in sharp contrast to their godliness in M: TW.
As for the Defense multiplyer. Defending units get defense, morale and attack bonuses while on walls. There is no way to remove it, but it only works on walls. Because of this, trying to perform R: TW tactics (i.e. take the walls with elite infantry, and then slowly whittle away the defenders) no longer worked as you could throw gobs and gobs of Dismounted Chivalric knights at an division of 2 peasants and it wouldn't change a bloody thing!
. I don't care how much more challenging it makes a game, that's just plain stupid!
Don't quote me on this, but I believe the two bugs were fixed with Kingdoms.
Two-Handed Bug: The animation for two-handed weapon units (such as English Billmen and Zweihanders) was bugged meaning the units were never very good. This was most disappointing specifically with the billmen who were basically worthless, in sharp contrast to their godliness in M: TW.
As for the Defense multiplyer. Defending units get defense, morale and attack bonuses while on walls. There is no way to remove it, but it only works on walls. Because of this, trying to perform R: TW tactics (i.e. take the walls with elite infantry, and then slowly whittle away the defenders) no longer worked as you could throw gobs and gobs of Dismounted Chivalric knights at an division of 2 peasants and it wouldn't change a bloody thing!
. I don't care how much more challenging it makes a game, that's just plain stupid!Don't quote me on this, but I believe the two bugs were fixed with Kingdoms.
Similar threads
