Fourth Age beter than Third Age?

[Achea]

IMO, The Fourth Age is the best modification around.

[Stark1]

I have played TATW, and haven't got through a single campaign. I HATE the M2 engine. Units don't move right, they are slow and don't maneuver that well, also, I feel that horsemen fail on it. They charge, but it does nothing, no impact, feels more like controlling fish.

I installed M2TW a few weeks ago, after playing only Rome for years, and I have to agree with this. I couldn't pinpoint what was exactly wrong with combat, but your explanation sums it up pretty good. Units just react wrong, it reminds me on some games with lousy mouse sensibility (like Oblivion), they simply move wrong, charge doesn't feel good, everything is weird.

I like some new campaign options though (especially recruiting). But that division beetwen castles and cities annoys me a lot.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

In M2 I have seen peasants kill a unit of knights just because those retards won't fight back.

[TheDarkKnight]

Can't comment on LotR:TW - they seem to expect us all to have got Alexander, effectivly killing a wider user base. Wish they'd just done it on the Rome Barb Invasion platform.

I am impressed with RTW's AI - after years playing many M2TW mods. It just feels like a broader, deeper, wider game. M2TW remains unfinished in my opinion.

Downloading FATW now... I feel a strong desire to mod again... :o)

-- El Tok

While I agree with you that using Alexander could alienate a lot of people, they used it so they could make custom generals like Aragorn.

[Webba]

They're all good, play whatever one you like most, or play all of them if you like them all. Honestly, any sort of rivalry is completely unnecessary.

[Darth_Revan]

they are all great mods in their own respect.

[Rovernic]

Third Age Total War is a great mod but M2TW does do it no justice at all.

For M2TW I liked the idea's of merchants and multi-level castles but like said before units do not move well. I find defensive siege deployment to be terribly difficult. The units do not like to listen, while trying to outflank an enemy with my cavalry instead of getting behind the engaged spear units they charged into the side rather then completly flanking them. Flanking does help but does not have the same effect. Rome total war was better in everything other than multi-level castles. Heck if it wasn't for Third Age Total War and Secession Civil War I would have returned M2TW.

I have played both mods and since this is not a complaint thread about medieval 2 total war I will get back to the topic at hand. I do have to say I like both. They are both well done mods that have very skilled and dedicated mod teams. I can not say I really liked one better than the other. However the small differences that matter not too much to me are: Fourth Age has Rome Total war's engine which was better. It lacks in well working multi-level castles. Third Age Total War has easier custom settlements (which will be released in version 3.0) and slightly better graphics (no not a huge difference) but takes a hit from the M2TW engine to a degree.

While I agree with you that using Alexander could alienate a lot of people, they used it so they could make custom generals like Aragorn.

I heard it was also easier to build custom settlements like Helms Deep on Alexander.

[intel]

Third Age may be aesthetically unchallenged by any other existing mod (save for Roma Surrectum 2, that is IMHO much superior as a game), but it does have awfully vanilla gameplay. Which is obvious disadvantage. It's campaign is very vanilla. Building trees are shallow and too simple. Scripts are focused more on making it (again) an eye candy (cutscene events), but add little to the depth of the game. With mods like Real Combat/Real Recruitment in hiatus, depth in battle mechanics is gone as well.


I want to give each mod justice. TATW looks pretty, but offers little compared to refined, deep mods that RTW offers, FATW amongst them. At this point I'd like to thank all modders for their hard work that made me never really abandon RTW since it was released. I never ceased to play it, it was is always my top choice.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

It WAS???


BLASPHEMY!

[intel]

Oh damn, IT IS : 0

[Durnaug]

RTW battles beat the M2TW battles. And I have no idea why. M2TW has pretty graphics but the units always feel like they are wading through mud. TATW is a fantastic mod but the game engine just does not feel right.

In fact after the M2TW expansion, I stopped buying the Total War games and went back to RTW. RTW battles are more immersive and the reason is frustratingly out of reach. And I prefer the RTW graphics aswell. Maybe I am simply afraid of change :/

Is Shogun II any good?

[CountMRVHS]

I'm in the same boat - haven't bought any TW games since Kingdoms. I return to M2/Kingdoms every now and then, but it's always in spite of the battle engine, rather than because of it. The strat map seems to offer a bit more nuance (in terms of diplomacy) than RTW did, but that's the one area it has an advantage IMO.

I think M2 battles feel weird because of the way individual soldiers behave in the units. Order a unit to march, and they'll move forward, but only after a slight hesitation. When a unit charges, you'll often see that most of the guys hang back, while only the first row runs forward. When they do connect, there's not a feeling of impact. The exception to this is correctly-executed cav charges, which, at least in the early M2 versions, were extremely devastating.

But there was also the very irritating behavior of units trying to chase down routers - bunching up, then spreading out into an amorphous blob of a formation.

Trying to execute group maneuvers was practically impossible, because unlike in RTW, units that are grouped together will not choose individual targets in a reasonable way, but all charge together at the single enemy unit you click on - so it wouldn't be possible to have a nice, satisfying charge of a line of Riddermark Spears unless you give each unit an individual order.

Plus you've got all the fancy animations, which get in the way of effective combat. In theory, it might be neat to zoom in and watch the little guys swing their swords above their heads before making a dramatic slash, but in practice it just means they're attacking more slowly, which is (if I understand it correctly) the whole reason 2-handers were screwed up.

When I play a battle sim, I'm mostly interested in having to make good tactical choices. If units behave unpredictably and don't react appropriately to my orders, it's going to be an unsatisfying experience no matter how pretty they look.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Exactly. Medieval II provides the ultimate underwater combat experience.

[dannyalex]

Fourth Age beter than Third Age?

Not in this life time

[intel]

Yet it is. Strange.