Is this game worth the 24 bucks on the site, despite the graphics

[Robertclive]

anyone

[Axalon]

Well it depends… If you like the level of micromanagement as found in RTW and onwards. In short; no….

On the other hand; if you like battles, tactics and world-class battlefield simulators…. Yes… Hell-yes!!! It is likely to kick the crap out of RTW and all later TW-games when it comes to battle-simulations. And it is the only TW-game that ever had any real years and seasons! Old and rusty GFX perhaps, but you probably won’t care once you do battles! To this day, it is the tightest, smoothest and best TW-game ever produced by CA in my mind and I have tried them all (and yes, I am kind of into battles myself)…

The youngsters of the TW-family (RTW and later) really don’t stand a chance as battle simulators – everything is so ridiculously inferior short of cosmetics. The only one that ever could seriously compete with STW as a battlefield-simulator is MTW1.


Enough said….

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

it really has atmosphere it was the 1st of the TW's and is a true orginal of corse the grafics arn't amazing tho.

[Martok]

What Axalon and ETGU said: Shogun has loads of atmosphere, and the battles remain second-to-none. The AI is also generally quite a bit better than in the other TW games, so this is definitely one to get if you want more of a challenge.

[SonOfCrusader76]

It depends. Can you put up with having to fight the same battle over and over again (one battlefield per province)? As well as extremely dated graphics, of course. Personally, that's what I hated about all TW games pre RTW: only one battlefield per province!

Hold on a minute, are you saying 24 bucks just for Shogun? That's around £16!! No way is it worth that much. Get this instead:

http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/webstore/...Eras_-_DVD_Rom

It'll cost you a lot less and it has Shogun, plus all the other TW games up to (but not including) MTW2! If you want older TW games, it's a no-brainer.

[Axalon]

CORRECTION: In STW there is indeed only one basic battle-map per province. Not counting all castle-maps of course....
------------

It depends. Can you put up with having to fight the same battle over and over again (one battlefield per province)? As well as extremely dated graphics, of course. Personally, that's what I hated about all TW games pre RTW: only one battlefield per province!

I’ll be plain here… This is just a load of B.S and has little to do with the actual circumstances of STW (or MTW1 for that matter). Either your memory is on vacation or you have never played the game properly - if at all.

There is no such thing as one single battle-map for each province, there are several and if you bother to check that up thoroughly you will soon realize that such a claim is simply not true or even close to be true. There are in fact several battle-maps for almost each and every province just like in RTW and onwards. However, the system in STW is different and it is based upon the principle; one region, one battle (and even that is not true since there is the castle-exception to that rule). Of course you are still entitled to hate STW and MTW as much as you like, that’s your privilege - but stick to the truth when you sneer at STW. Now, the plain facts are that RTW and onwards can only compete in few and limited regards with STW essentially ….

1. Level of strategic micromanagement.
2. Cosmetics, improved GFX…

In pretty much everything else it will be very hard for RTW and later games to compete with STW, if at all possible in almost all other regards. The fact is that usually stands as inferior in various degrees to STW, sad but true. And while we are on the subject of the “superior GFX”-cliché – I just want to say this;

1. Our man, Alexander of Jordan, already stated that he is aware that GFX is not going to be the primary factor for STW – which kind of makes your GFX-remark fairly redundant and misplaced here…
2. “Extremely dated GFX” compared to what? RTW hardly strikes me as impressive in a GFX-sense. Or did you have ETW in mind? Was that it? Well, it depends on what you compare it with, now doesn’t it? ETW vs. STW in GFX - of course STW is dated! It is almost a decade of GFX-development on a commercial basis that separates them! So that hardly comes as a big surprise, now does it? But "extremely dated" strike me as going way over board with this. I would only apply such term on Pac-Man and Space Invaders – not STW which has ok enough GFX, it’s just a bit rusty and old, that’s all…

Now, if GFX truly were a primary factor here - why even bother with any TW-game at all? I mean, there are plenty of games on the market that easily can compete with or kick the crap out of ETW as far as GFX go. And that’s how things have always been ever since STW was released back in 2000! TW-games never were that impressive if you compare ‘em with the truly GFX-primary games on the market – now and back then.

RTW and later games might have been made with an ambition towards looking more impressive GFX-wise - but since it is so easy to find just as good or superior games in this limited sense one can hardly argue with any credibility that this is a decisive factor for people playing RTW (and onwards). Thus we can’t claim that RTW/M2TW/ETW is excellent or fun to play in various degrees because of GFX. If GFX ever really was a critical factor here, well I for one, would never ever play any TW-game at all if we were to apply such logic. I would constantly play other games because of superior GFX! So, why can’t we apply the same logic and excuses we have for playing RTW, on STW as well? Why?

Thus your two one of your arguments against STW obviously will not hold much credibility here since they it is unable to survive some closer scrutiny…. However, there is nothing here that excludes the possibility that you and others can still like and prefer ‘ol RTW in spite of all its obvious weaknesses and flaws (or perhaps later games based upon that). After all, it’s your privilege and headache - but don’t try to smear STW with stuff that is simply not true. RTW (or later) has a really hard time competing with STW in almost every regard short of cosmetics/GFX and levels of strategic micromanagement - that fact won’t change just because you happen to like it more than STW!


Finally, I do agree with the latter part of your post – let supply and demand have its course; there is no reason to pay extra money for STW if we can get a decent enough copy of it cheaper. Especially since CA are doing pretty poor job in supporting that game these days…. Personally I believe that even with the price tag of 24 bucks, it still would have been money very well spent on STW. The same can not be said for all other TW-games.

- Cheers

[SonOfCrusader76]

That's odd. I could've sworn I had to play on exactly the same battlefield every single time I tried to take a particular province in MTW, no matter what my direction of attack was. And I'm not the only one either; in PC Gamer's review of Rome, one of the things they pointed out as a great big step forwards is that there were now practically limitless battlefields for each province. I did start with RTW admittedly, but found going back to MTW a massive step backwards, not just graphically, either. And I stand by what I said: MTW and STW graphics are extremely dated! Look how old the games are, for God's sake; it's impossible that they wouldn't look very dated compared to MTW2 (let alone ETW).

To be fair, even going back to RTW's battle engine, compared to MTW2's grates with me, let alone any earlier than that.

[Xerrop]

That's odd. I could've sworn I had to play on exactly the same battlefield every single time I tried to take a particular province in MTW, no matter what my direction of attack was.

wasn´t it for every bordering province a different battlemap?

[Jingles]

Yeah, much like Imperial Glory, there's one battlemap assigned to each province. It can be tiresome, especially in Shogun where you would find yourself fighting over a particular province many times as some factions.

[Garnier]

It isn't quite a different battlefield for every direction, at least in MTW1 I've modded the map and you set the parameters for a battlefield for each direction into each province, but if you have the same parameters for each direction, you can have the same battlefield.

[Axalon]

Somebodys memory had a vacation to the Bahamas alright - it turned out to be mine!

In STW there is indeed a “single” map allocated to each and every province and a test I did proves it. What do change in STW are the seasons but not the basic battle-map. Thus in STW you are indeed right on this one SonofCrusaider76. MTW is a different story and you are still wrong about that, however that is another story, for another place....

Technically of course, it is possible to argue that I still was right – considering the various castle-maps (at a minimum +1 map at least) but that would just be feeble and indecent of me, since I realize that this was not what you had in mind in your statement here. So…. I’ll be decent enough to say that I was wrong in this regard and in fact, it was my memory that had a trip to the Bahamas and did the sipping on margaritas!

I have thus now corrected at least my mistakes made here. However, all the other things I said before still stands and remain as valid as ever and I still hold STW in high regards in spite of such circumstances….

Garnier: Yes, that is indeed possible, but hardly to be considered as a general rule – but it is possible, yes. I can confirm that as well.


- Cheers
------------
This “re-discovery” means also that I will have to agree with SoC76 in two further aspects here….

1. More battle-maps per province would have been desirable/preferable in STW….
2. In this particular and limited sense, other TW-games could indeed be regarded
   as superior in this particular regard – I do agree with you on that.

[zzzms]

Obviously, this is an opinion based thread, so, here's mine:

4 units of auxillaries, 2 Legionary cohort, 1 of slingers and a general (2 star), (all had the first level of armour/weapon upgrade and no experience) standing on a hill, in a horse-shoe formation, take on 3 full stacks of Egyptians - if I remember rightly there were at least 2 Royal phalanx per stack, many more standard phalanx, heaps of Royal archers and a few chariots... very few Egyptians returned home! Mind you, there weren't many Romans left either.

Don't get me wrong, I still play Shogun every now and again, but, Rome was a massive leap forward, and battles, like the one I mentioned, never happen, unless you use Kensai, which are (imho) ridiculously overpowered 'fantasy' units, I say fantasy in regards to how they behave, and look, not that they didn't exist (I don't know if they did or not!). The armies in Rome and Medieval2 are by far more flexible on the battlefield, allowing for far more experimentation. It's not just about graphics, either, I still play CSS wargames on my ZX Spectrum (emulator!), it's all about gameplay! I'm going to start getting nostalgic, I best leave...

There is a Shogun mod being worked on for Rome, which may, if it's ever completed, go some way to prove a point.

Also, $24 is way overpriced! Undoubtedly you would get your moneys worth, but, there are cheaper places, check out Amazon, in the UK you can get it for £1.29, I don't know the exchange rate, but, it's probably around $2!

[Martok]

4 units of auxillaries, 2 Legionary cohort, 1 of slingers and a general (2 star), (all had the first level of armour/weapon upgrade and no experience) standing on a hill, in a horse-shoe formation, take on 3 full stacks of Egyptians - if I remember rightly there were at least 2 Royal phalanx per stack, many more standard phalanx, heaps of Royal archers and a few chariots... very few Egyptians returned home! Mind you, there weren't many Romans left either.

See, that quote right there highlights for me one of the major reasons why I find Shogun (and MTW) to be generally superior to the newer games: You won that battle despite approximately 4-to-1 odds....which is something I too was able to do with depressing regularity in Rome. The computer in that game is such a poor opponent that that there's simply no challenge for me.

On the other hand, I don't believe I've *ever* managed to win while that badly outnumbered in STW or MTW. I have on extremely rare occasions -- not more than 3-4 times IIRC -- managed to prevail at approximately 3-1 odds, but that's it. Indeed, I'm lucky if I manage to win whle outnumbered by "only" 2-to-1. When the AI factions bring a large army to battle (even if it's only a horde of mostly scrub troops), I usually have good reason to start sweating. Not that I'm claiming the AI in Shogun or Medieval is perfect -- it's not -- but I can at least generally rely on it being a reasonably competent opponent. The same cannot be said for the newer games, however.

[zzzms]

See, that quote right there highlights for me one of the major reasons why I find Shogun (and MTW) to be generally superior to the newer games: You won that battle despite approximately 4-to-1 odds....which is something I too was able to do with depressing regularity in Rome. The computer in that game is such a poor opponent that that there's simply no challenge for me.

On the other hand, I don't believe I've *ever* managed to win while that badly outnumbered in STW or MTW. I have on extremely rare occasions -- not more than 3-4 times IIRC -- managed to prevail at approximately 3-1 odds, but that's it. Indeed, I'm lucky if I manage to win whle outnumbered by "only" 2-to-1. When the AI factions bring a large army to battle (even if it's only a horde of mostly scrub troops), I usually have good reason to start sweating. Not that I'm claiming the AI in Shogun or Medieval is perfect -- it's not -- but I can at least generally rely on it being a reasonably competent opponent. The same cannot be said for the newer games, however.

Whilst I agree that in Rome/M2TW such battles can happen a little too regularily, the thing that kills Shogun for me is pretty much what you say, it seems that outnumbering the enemy is all that needs to be done, how many times did I see my very experienced, armoured, elite army totally overrun and wiped out by little more than a very large number peasants, even when tightly wedged into a corner.

Of course it's all down to personal preference... Horses for courses, as me Granny used to say.

If you like to sweat before going into battle, and want a mighty challenge, may I suggest you try the Europa Barabarorum mod for Rome. I can be a bit of a gung-ho, aggresive type player, that was until I played EB, it's turned me into a hesitant bean counter! It's what Rome should've been in the first place.

[Xerrop]

24 Dollars for Shogun is nowadays clearly to much.

But you can waste even more money - I have searched some books at the german Amazon-website yesterday (www.amazon.de) and there I found the games Shogun for 36,95 Euros and the expansion Mongol Invasion for 39,95 Euros.

Combined 76,90 Euros for a nine year old game !!

[caravel]

Whilst I agree that in Rome/M2TW such battles can happen a little too regularily, the thing that kills Shogun for me is pretty much what you say, it seems that outnumbering the enemy is all that needs to be done, how many times did I see my very experienced, armoured, elite army totally overrun and wiped out by little more than a very large number peasants, even when tightly wedged into a corner.

Outnumbering the enemy is certainly a good strategy, as it was historically and still is, but it's not the only strategy. It is very possible to win battles when outnumbered in STW/MTW but it takes skill, tactics and patience.

RTW is very different. Like Martok, I could win battles when vastly outnumbered. The Roman units are stupidly overpowered when compared to other faction's units so it's not surprising that you can win so easily - though I could win pretty much every battle when playing as Gaul, Egypt, the Seleucids etc. Also the AI in RTW is as thick as a plank of wood with another plank nailed to it. The AI does not sieze the high ground and charges it's cavalry into phalanxes etc, etc. It simply rushes head on an is very easily outsmarted. Factions are also heavily imblanced on the campaign map itself - some factions are pathetically weak and poor with few decent units available where others start out with rich lands and overpowered units.

In a nutshell this is why some of us prefer the old games. I have played RTW a lot, but it has limited replayability value due to it's glaring design flaws, poor AI and bugginess. EB looks nice but it's too much of a self indulgent "history lesson" for my tastes.

[maxlurifax]

The game is realy great. imo the greatest total war game, I've had more fun with it than any other game!

however I agree with Xerrop that 24dollars is too much. I mean, it's so old it's almost a wonder they charge for it at all. especialy 24dollars . Its a great game thought so perhaps it's worth it.

[Kissaki]

24 USD is perhaps a bit much, but then I've seen Diablo and Starcraft pushed for similar prices. A quick search yields Shogun, warlord edition, for £4.99 (9 bucks, maybe?). This was at play.com, and they have free delivery.

STW has atmosphere. MTW balanced the game by giving different types of units different numbers of men, and so STW may feel awkward and unbalanced as every single unit - with the exceptions of kensai (1) and battlefield ninja (12) - comprises 60 men. Archers? 60. Warrior monks? 60. Heavy cavalry? 60. Though truth be told, I don't remember thinking it unbalanced until after I had gotten used to MTW.

I think my biggest objection is that they changed the icon of the naginata unit in Mongol Invasion. Naginata in the game are heavily armoured defensive units, and the original icon looked the part. I think they changed their models on the battlefield, too.

[joelph]

anyone

yes it's definatly worth it, but i didn't buy it for $24


i payed $100australian for all the games including expansion and latest updates (not including napolean though ) but some cool art work.

[strategist.com]

I don't think so. It's not as popular as the Final Fantasy 7, which is 24 euro here in Ireland for some reason. One day I was going to buy Gears of War for PC after it was released years ago, and it's still expensive, 25 euro.

It is about popularity when it comes to pricing games.