Rome Total War vs. Medieval 2

[jjames89]

Which one is better.

[Stingray970]

Rome, hands down

[Entropy Judge]

Better in terms of what? That said, I prefer Rome; M2 isn't bad by any means, but the combat isn't as smooth as I'm used to from EB. I've had consistently better diplomacy in M2 (which matters a lot to me), and the AI is reasonably competent, particularly in comparison to Rome's AI.

[tudor93]

Better in terms of what? That said, I prefer Rome; M2 isn't bad by any means, but the combat isn't as smooth as I'm used to from EB. I've had consistently better diplomacy in M2 (which matters a lot to me), and the AI is reasonably competent, particularly in comparison to Rome's AI.

uhmmm, Medieval2 diplomacy is up too you know ... you've been allied for, let's say, 100 turns with them and they suddenly betray you just because you left a city poor garisoned

and back OT, it really depends, in fact it's a matter of tastes; if you post this question in the Medieval2 Total war general discussion they will say M2 is better, if you post it here you get answers such as Stingray970's
I played both of them, first Rome in 2007 (I think ....) then I switched to M2 in 2008-2009, I switched them constantly but since ~november I play only Medieval2 ; Oh yeah, I only played vanilla for both games (retrofit for M2 but it's vanilla with fixes + all the units from Kingdoms expansion)
So the choice is yours .... M2 has better graphics but it feels so slow after you play Rome (but you will get used to it, like me) , Rome is very fun too, play both of them

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Better in terms of what? That said, I prefer Rome; M2 isn't bad by any means, but the combat isn't as smooth as I'm used to from EB. I've had consistently better diplomacy in M2 (which matters a lot to me), and the AI is reasonably competent, particularly in comparison to Rome's AI.

The "Diplomacy AI" in medieval is better for a single reason - it shows what they think of you. It's still retarded. It's more or less a prettier, but retarded version of Rome in every way.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

In Med2, the diplomacy at least allows you to have allies. Yes, it does. Everyone who says it doesn't is lying. They just don't know how to use it.
Not saying the diplomacy is *wonderful* in Med2; to have allies, you still need to do stuff which is just illogical, but it's at least possible.

Anyhow, Rome's better. Don't really know why.

[DualKatanas]

Rome is better. For me, at least. At least I KNOW the diplomacy in Rome. I KNOW that if I share a land border with someone they're always going to attack me even if I've been allied with them since the start of the game. Yes, the diplomacy system in Med2 is more developed, but that doesn't necessarily means it's better.

As for the battles, after playing Rome, in Med2 it feels like all your troops are arthritic tortoises. For the same reason, Rome MP is far superior to Med2 MP. So, yes, Rome is far better overall, in my opinion.

[Xerrop]

Medieval2 offers more gameplay elements. E.g.
- Different religions and priests converting the provinces
- Crusades and Jihads as well as the Pope
- Assassination videos
- Invading factions from outside the map to spice things up

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

- Invading factions from outside the map to spice things up

Exact same mechanic as BI; the mongols just emerge on the edge of the map, making it look like they come from off-map.

[Entropy Judge]

uhmmm, Medieval2 diplomacy is up too you know ... you've been allied for, let's say, 100 turns with them and they suddenly betray you just because you left a city poor garisoned

I've left cities (Vienna, specifically, when allied with Hungary) garrisoned with 1 FM and 2 Spearmen for the entirety of the game and was never attacked by them (allied). Heck, even in one game where Poland took the Hungarian city next to Vienna (not allied with Poland), I didn't increase the amount of defenders and I *still* didn't get attacked. This was after the Mongols arrived, don't know the turn number.

The "Diplomacy AI" in medieval is better for a single reason - it shows what they think of you. It's still retarded. It's more or less a prettier, but retarded version of Rome in every way.

Oh, I agree it's still not terribly great, but it'st still better.

[Tidybeard]

Medieval 2 - just. Both work similarly but with the obvious graphical overhaul and features such as merchants, the Pope, Crusades/Jihads, M2 wins by a nose. Rome, though, is still awesome.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Sadly, I've found myself enjoying RTW much more than MTW despite the better graphics. The battles, especially the infantry vs infantry ones seem much more stable and enjoyable in RTW.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

That's not sad, it shows that you're not cheap.

[tudor93]

troll

[herne_the _hunter]

flaming pigs versus artillery elephants...?

I like the Papal dimension in the game play as the Catholics. The Pope can be annoying but he's equally good at being used if you spoil him with regular tributes and the occassional gifts.

The diplomancy is an improvement from RTW but not flawless but a big improvement never the less. But you have got to make the effort in putting some work in it I find to make them work.

The Chivalry/Dread aspect.

In M2TW you can play at a much slower rate of conquest if you want to eg I finished the Scilly short campaign requirements at turn 224

Still like RTW and it's mods its just that I haven't had M2TW too long and therefore the novelty hasn't worn off yet.

One thing to consider is that RTW and M2TW were released in 2002 and 2006 respectivly so being based on the same game engine no wonder there are improvements.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The pope is simply a modification of the senate.

[eXistenZ]

Medievall II diplomacy is the worst ever seen in any TW games, including empire. Makes the campaign only annoying to play, not fun.

Rome had problems with squalor, but at least there was a fix for that, purge the cities. In medievall, there is no fix, the pope even makes it worse

[Pharoah]

One of my favorit features is in the diplomacy scroll in med 2 the diplomats have voices

[Nosjack]

M2 by far

1)Diplomacy/ CAI, while M2 isn't leaps ahead of Rome, it is better
2) BAI while still stupid, trumps Rome
3) Crusades/Jihads
4)more depth to religion and culture differences
5)the late game does not consist of burning your own cities because they rebelled, instead you get cool units like musketeers.
6)Kingdoms expansion
7)units do not move at the speed of light
8) cavalry are much stronger
9)graphics (minor, but still important)

*readies anti-flame shield*

[dacder]

M2 by far

1)Diplomacy/ CAI, while M2 isn't leaps ahead of Rome, it is better
2) BAI while still stupid, trumps Rome
3) Crusades/Jihads
4)more depth to religion and culture differences
5)the late game does not consist of burning your own cities because they rebelled, instead you get cool units like musketeers.
6)Kingdoms expansion
7)units do not move at the speed of light
8) cavalry are much stronger
9)graphics (minor, but still important)

*readies anti-flame shield*

romes mp and mods are both far better