you should buy it, there are some truly great mods for m2tw
Some of them are nice yes, and I will give it a go at some point, but none of them I tried had that completeness I wanted. Admittedly that was over a year ago now.
A thing the RTW engine has over the M2TW engine (although they might have changed that not) is seeing the strat map on the battle map, if you fight in ithilen you can see morgul vale, in Undun you can see the teeth, at umbar you can see the bay.
that being said, most of the mods for medieval 2 have greatly improved the cobat and the Battle AI.
i always thought Rome was an all round better game though, which would mean that most mods for Rome are just by default better then those for medieval 2 unless someone actually tried to make them worse.
"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great compassion. Your delight is not in horses, nor Your pleasure in warriors strength..."
All I can Say is that FATW has the amount of depth and class that few other mods can match. Am speaking of course in the RTW realm. Haven't tried any MED2TW mods as my laptop cant run the game smoothly although in the future would give TATW a try.
P.S. Well at least the conversation here has been civil - check this out to know what I mean
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380802
(although The guy starting the thread could have put his thoughts across a little better)
*Rofl*
Reading this thread I'm under the impression that TATW players are made up out of a bunch of stupid fanboys who think that "The Lord of the Rings" is a movie originally and some dumbass wrote a bad book about it.
Seriously, those arguments are but plain stupid. TATW has better graphics and that's why FATW sucks. FATW is less developed than TATW because the map is incomplete. Oh my gosh, people can be so dumb.
I would rather have a memory that is fair but unfinished than one that goes on to a grievous end.
I agree, starting with "Rohan in TATW is a fail" is not a way to start a productive argument.
Don't be mean, it is a mod based on the movies, there is nothing bad about that, Tolkien himself wanted other hands to make art in Arda.Reading this thread I'm under the impression that TATW players are made up out of a bunch of stupid fanboys who think that "The Lord of the Rings" is a movie originally and some dumbass wrote a bad book about it.
Although the idea that TATW is more loyal to lore that FATW is just ridiculous.
Dominion of the Sword video maker
Its just personal preference. They want to play during the War of The Ring time period then they can go to either the Lord of The Rings: Total War mod or Third Age Total War. If they wanna play a time after, then FATW. Also there are some people that haven't tried out FATW or just prefer TATW over FATW because of minor things, etc, etc. Kinda like how some like a videogame cause of graphics, good for them then, its just their opinion. So you have to expect these kinds arguments.
But that's precisely what I find retarded about it. TW games are almost comically imbalanced and geared towards war and genocide, which leads to a misrepresentation of actual history, let alone the nature of mankind. What really needs to be implemented in a good geo-strategic game are diplomacy, more economic features, shared control of provinces (e.g. via businesses, colonies, ...). I like playing war games, but if you're going for realism (which is one of the goals of TW games compared to, say, Warcrap and Starcrap), war isn't the only option.
Maybe it's because it's an American game. While Americans make excellent war games, they tend to forget about a realistic economy or realistic ambient sounds/graphics. The latter results in RTW having American nature sounds (birds, frogs, etc) in the background, which I find annoying.
I think they are an important factor. Though I hear that Éorl has done much to include a more realistic landscape, so that one of my main complaints about RTW doesn't apply to this particular mod.graphics in M2TW usualy are better but I am not kind of player who values game or mod only by its graphics, and as for sieges, I dont like them anyway do I disagree that sieges are better in M2TW
It's all personal preference. Like I said above, diplomacy, ambient, realistic unit looks, and economy are really important for me. The battle map performance, not so much. Yeah and I too wondered why they jettisoned the lethality parameter. Doesn't make that much sense.
The Elves of TATW look really sweet and have a somewhat more coherent design than current FATW Elf units. I'd be really happy though if you took some of the beautiful Elven units from Middle-Earth Total War, especially those axe guys and the ambushers (Noldor would probably not fit into FATW, unless as an Easter-egg). Some of the customized UI is also great.Being based on a supposedly better engine is not a gameplay feature of a mod though. If all a mod has to show gameplay-wise is the fact it's based on engine X, then it's no different than vanilla.
When I asked the question, I meant it. I'm not looking for an excuse to bash TATW, I am actually interested in knowing in what ways exactly, if any, people who have played both think it's better than FATW gameplay-wise.
Otherwise, TATW contains too much random fantasy for my taste.
I can guess the intended direction of the complaint. Rohan has very nifty units in TATW, which are also graphically well done, but they have one fault: their faces look absolutely retarded. That's why I stopped playing that faction. Also, if AI controlled, they always get nuked because the evil jihads always target Edoras (it is programmed to be ingame "Jerusalem" for whatever funny reason - dunno why they didn't choose MT instead).
But TATW gets a bigger share of idiots too; it's not their fault, it's just that their mod attracts the more mainstream audience and among those a lot with less than educated opinions.
Last edited by athanaric; March 13, 2011 at 07:15 AM.
As I said, this is but my first impression reading this, and only this, thread.
Of course being based on the movies is not bad per se (although the films have big flaws), but there are indeed people who think that the films were before the book; and this is but ignorant.
Way to rash. Maybe ask wether I have ever visited the TATW forae first and then patronize me. Most of the folks who posted in this specific thread are everything but certainly not wise and also certainly do not represent the majority of TATW players or TWC members.
Someone said something against "their mod" (admittetly in a somewhat straightforward and undiplomatic way) and they start flaming and would beat the crap out of him. Seriously, this reminds me of the Stoning in "Life of Brian", or some whine threads in some MMORPG forae.
Of course it's their personal preference. And it's ok when graphics are more important and therefore they prefer TATW over FATW. But plainly saying FATW sucks because being on RTW engine with worse graphics is a dumb argument (yeah, it's again personal preference, but things are not that easy). And people regarding FATW as unfinished because the map is incomplete are not only dumb but lazy, too, for they didn't even bother to have a look at FATW. Or they tried it "several years ago". What, the "Battle at Poros" demo that was published in 2003ish before M2TW was even released? Yeah, you can compare these two mods based on this. *LMAO*
And if they haven't even tried out FATW they shouldn't jugdge it. I admit, I haven't played TATW and I prefer FATW but this is simply because I dislike the movies so much. But I'd never state that TATW sucks, or is worse than FATW, because of this. It is a great mod in regards of being a well-done conversion as is FATW, as is EB as is RTR and quite some more.
I would rather have a memory that is fair but unfinished than one that goes on to a grievous end.
sure I agree that Total War needs better diplomacy, to add trade negotiations and stuff, all of this is greatly improved in ETW and NTW but RTW/M2TW almost dont have any sort of diplomacy and rule is that who ever you border with, you will go in war with
and there is nothing mods can do about this
British, actually. And I don't think that's the reason TW is so simplified campaign-wise. ShogunTW, according to CA, was intended to be a battlemap-simulation game, with a very thin campaign layer simply to give battles some meaning. The problem is that the series have been stuck at this 'thin campaign layer' level since. The only thing constantly improved in each title is the battlemap visuals, and that says a lot.
I'm not sure how M2's economy system is different to RTW's. Last I checked they were identical, except the (very silly) merchants addition. The only way to have better economy is to create a pseudo-economy through scripts, but again this is something only the player can understand and use effectively (giving blind bonuses to the AI doesn't count obviously).It's all personal preference. Like I said above, diplomacy, ambient, realistic unit looks, and economy are really important for me. The battle map performance, not so much. Yeah and I too wondered why they jettisoned the lethality parameter. Doesn't make that much sense.
Diplomacy is marginally better in M2, but still quite lacking. I also don't know of any M2 mod that has AI-specific permanent alliances or 'prohibited' alliances like DoM will have.
Ambient realistic looks is a matter of preference, agreed. I don't quite like the blurry environments of M2 or the hunchback, bulky units, but I do like the improved lighting and shading a lot. But you can see (eg RS2) that RTW isn't as far behind M2 as vanilla RTW suggests. The RTW engine does have potential and Eorl has made a lot of effort to make FATW's environments as nice as possible.
I believe you'll find FATW's new UI just as good or better. Cedric37 (whose UI is the one used in TATW 2.1, I think?) has done a wonderful job on it.Some of the customized UI is also great.
There are always exceptions to the rules.
Med2 AI can be improved and is now ok since last version:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=257970
Med2-TA submod can (this one is why I prefer TA):
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=257051
These 2 submods of Med2-TA are included in the RC+R one.
I prefer TA with RC+R submod, as I don't like 'all vs all' games.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=259833
Last edited by Vifarc; March 14, 2011 at 07:32 PM.
> > Divide&Conquer submod user, playing RealmOfLothlõrien (ThirdAge mod). < <
My small products here.
TATW's main benefit comes from the fact it is based off of the movies (who doesn't want to refight Helms Deep or ambush Haradrim in Ithilien) and the stellar graphics. It really suffers on the campaign map. We expect certain things to happen in the War of the Ring, but those don't happen on the campaign map. As Rohan you keep getting invasions called against Edoras, as Gondor you have to keep fighting endlessly spawned Mordor stacks, and the Elves have to do the same, but with Moria orcs (which is less fun as their morale is weaker. Simply sit on a hill with archers and wait until your Eldar Lancers have a good charge line).Originally Posted by Aradan
While FATW, for me, is a little less immersive on the battle map (simply because the graphics aren't quite as good, not due to any balencing issues) it takes the campaign map level by storm. Here, I can rebuild the Kingdom of Gondor without any qualms about declaring war on Rohan. FATW wins due to flexibility on campaign while TATW suffers because it is impossible to follow the book closely enough.
"Oh no! Uzbeks have drunk my battery fluid!"
Wait so TATW suffers b/c it doesn't follow the book as closely enough? That's not really a good reason if your talking to someone who would want to decide between the two mods and has never read the books or even seen the movies. So what is the actual truth as to why FATW wins?