Why are you still playing MTW or Shogun?

[Imperator of Rome]

Anyone,if anyone came up with a mod improving the traits/title aspects of MTW,I would play it all over again because M2TW does not handle that well. Deus Lo Vult does a decent job but the family tree in M2TW just place sucks.

[Martok]

That's the AI being broke it does not take away the fact the new maps and movement system are better.

Strictly speaking, you're correct. However, if the AI isn't able to properly use the movement system and other features of the 3D campaign maps, then they're effectively no better -- and in many ways, they're actually worse -- than the 2D maps of STW/MTW.

When it comes to strategy games, it's been my experience that new features are only as good as the AI that makes use of them.

It is utterly ridiculous that the only reason nations declare war on me is to ninja siege my castles,because it takes more than one turn to get to them.

Not to get too far off-topic here, but: "Ninja-siege"? I'm not familiar with the term (although I have a vague idea of what you're referring to).

[Imperator of Rome]

Strictly speaking, you're correct. However, if the AI isn't able to properly use the movement system and other features of the 3D campaign maps, then they're effectively no better -- and in many ways, they're actually worse -- than the 2D maps of STW/MTW.

When it comes to strategy games, it's been my experience that new features are only as good as the AI that makes use of them.



Not to get too far off-topic here, but: "Ninja-siege"? I'm not familiar with the term (although I have a vague idea of what you're referring to).

The computer 80percent of the time are able to siege and take your castle/town without your reinforcements arriving in time because the movement range for armies is so damn pitiful.

[Axalon]

Hi All...

Andalus….

Two good and interesting posts, the fact that you provided solid and traceable reasons for your stance I particularly like. You spotlighted several things I forgot all about – excellent. I’m a bit rusty on RTW and M2TW for the moment but are you sure about the decade’s part? Regardless, you do raise valid and interesting points there all the same. Also, is it really 4 turns per year in M2TW now? - If that is the case, it sure is news to me…. None the less, you do raise several good points and I basically concur with most of it, contrary to most of the “Romans” that seem to frequent this thread - no offence intended guys....
...


War lord….

That's the AI being broke it does not take away the fact the new maps and movement system are better.

No offense intended, but your perspective in this statement strikes me as rather screwed up. The poor and dysfunctional AI will certainly not erase those traits but it will surely influence the overall assessment of that model. It is just ridiculous to disregard various or selected factors while we examine the overall qualities of the RTW-stratmap model as a whole and if it indeed can be considered as better than the STW-stratmap model. As everything else, we evaluate it measuring benefits and drawbacks and then we draw conclusions whether or not it could be with any credibility considered as better or not. Preference is not a factor any longer, we are dealing with a public claim now (you made it too if I am not mistaken here; “... system are better.” I see no “for me” or “to me”-clause anywhere in that sentence so it’s rather difficult to interpret it otherwise).

People are entitled to like and prefer whatever they want, utterly regardless what others think of it and regardless what can with decent enough credibility be considered as superior or not, but in public claims all that ceases to have any bearing since we are not discussing these things on a personal level any longer.... This is now elevated to a public and collective level – different terms apply for that. We have thus now entered the domains were facts, reasons and basis are the only stuff that counts.... These are the only means we have to provide strength to our positions. The claims will thus be the subject of scrutiny to determine whether or not the presented basis (made up by reasons and facts) will survive that treatment or not. If it does, it is a serious claim (good claim), if it lacks or holds little basis, it is unserious (false claim) and nobody will take seriously, nor should they....

At this point, I and as far as I can tell, Andalus question the claim of the RTW-stratmap model being in fact better than the STW-stratmap model (also in MTW1). While you and Muagan_ra apparently advocate this claim.
...


Henry X....

Both have their advantanges.

As I have said elsewhere (not in this thread); it is possible to find strengths and weaknesses in both models – a similar statement, but not the same in effect. While I am not totally unsympathetic to this idea to a limited degree, I think it is critical to also forward the general perspective in which such a statement are made. Splitting heirs perhaps, but I do believe that its meaning heavily dependent on what kind of perspective we actually apply here. Anyhow, it seems like the issue now is whether or not we can determine if the RTW-model as a whole, can be regarded as better then the STW-model as a whole in a general sense. The claim is there anyhow. I’m inclined to put it to the test and find out if it is a good or false claim.
...


Muagan_ra....

Loose the crappy attitude... It will not do you, me or anybody else here any good. You and I have nothing to gain by sustaining these seemingly poor relations between us. Let us forget all previous crap and start all over, and now solely focusing on the issues at hand here instead? How about it? I personally have nothing to gain by making you unfriendly towards me and pretty much everything to gain by making things friendlier between us (I would imagine that the same thing goes for you). Let’s do this honest and straight up and friendly instead? As far as the issue goes, let’s put our trust in reasons, facts and basis from now on and let that alone provide strength and foundation to our different positions. Making it easier and more interesting for all here?


Now (and by all means do correct me if I am wrong here), as far as I can tell, you have made a public claim (accidentally perhaps? Anyhow, the safe borders and privileges of personal preference is long gone with any public claim) stating that the RTW-stratmap model is in fact better than the older STW-stratmap model. This is how I understand it. The reasons you have provided which make up the basis for this claim are apparently threefold....

1. The RTW-model offers additional strategic depth to the game due to the fact that it offers strategic positioning in the game with various pieces (armies, ships and agents).
2. The RTW-model offers an increased level of movement realism.
3. The STW-model does not, and can not, offer these two features thus it stand as inferior to the RTW-model....

It is pretty important that I get the basis right and straight, before I can proceed any further here. Sorry to be a bit strict and formal about it (I’ll try to do better later) but none the less is it summed up correctly? Y/N? Anything missing?


- Cheers
------------
In short Muagan_ra, I question this claim because I don’t find the basis (as I understand it, point 1-3.) for it to be convincing enough to make me agree with it - without a ton of reservations (totally regardless if the claim were made by you or anybody else). I do this in spite of the fact that I do indeed agree with point 1 and 2 to some degree. Once I have your basis clear, I will later on forward my reasons as for why I question the claim and, unless something drastic happens here, in the end probably provide yet another reason as for why I personally still play STW/MTW – thus matching the topic of this thread.

[caravel]

Perhaps I don't have as much faith in your omnipotence as you do The new maps are better, far more realistic and with more strategic depth. The superiority of the original Medieval is in tone, victory conditions, and a few little touches (like titles and offices of state, rebellions...)

The superiority of the original medieval is in true tactical battles. Later games have been lacking in this department and the standard of AI has worsened if anything.

[War lord]

The superiority of the original medieval is in true tactical battles. Later games have been lacking in this department and the standard of AI has worsened if anything.

I have Medeivl TW.

The battles consist of dark blobs fighting dark blobs and whoever has the most blobs wins.
While MTW has better political stuff the battle related stuff is much better in RTW.

Some of the complaints about RTW and med2TW here is fanboy bull.

[Muagan_ra]

Once I have your basis clear, I will later on forward my reasons as for why I question the claim and, unless something drastic happens here, in the end probably provide yet another reason as for why I personally still play STW/MTW – thus matching the topic of this thread.

I don't mean to offend, but, no thanks - I'm not interested in long-winded exchanges, my position is clear.

The superiority of the original medieval is in true tactical battles. Later games have been lacking in this department and the standard of AI has worsened if anything.

Absolutely, the AI was much better in Medieval I - but I've been dealt some truly cunning blows in Medieval II and Rome, just not as often. So, to summarise, I think the benefits of the superior maps and terrain goes some way to mitigating that shortfall - for example, in my current M2 Venetian campaign, I've discovered that I can use ships to block the land crossings across the Bosphorous around Constantinople, lessening my need for a standing army in the city. This is a subtlety impossible in the original.

[Andalus]

The battles consist of dark blobs fighting dark blobs and whoever has the most blobs wins.

The graphics in MTW are a lot better than often presumed, including by you who owns the game. There are clear details on the units, and are at least equal to many sprite-based RTS games. Even in Shogun there were no 'dark blobs'; there were defined features, even if the detail of them was not great. It was not nearly as bad as you suggest.

[caravel]

I have Medeivl TW.

The battles consist of dark blobs fighting dark blobs and whoever has the most blobs wins.
While MTW has better political stuff the battle related stuff is much better in RTW.

Some of the complaints about RTW and med2TW here is fanboy bull.

[War lord]

The graphics in MTW are a lot better than often presumed, including by you who owns the game. There are clear details on the units, and are at least equal to many sprite-based RTS games. Even in Shogun there were no 'dark blobs'; there were defined features, even if the detail of them was not great. It was not nearly as bad as you suggest.

I agree some units(The royal Knights are amszing for 2002) are good but others are fuzzy blobs.

[Xerrop]

The battles consist of dark blobs fighting dark blobs and whoever has the most blobs wins.

Beside from graphics (obviously better nowadays) how is that different to the following games?

While MTW has better political stuff the battle related stuff is much better in RTW.

What exactly is better in RTW-battles?

[War lord]

Well there isn't a ton of buttons that you don't need for one.

[Martok]

Well there isn't a ton of buttons that you don't need for one.

Such as? (I'm not being sarcastic, btw, I'm honestly asking.)

[War lord]

Such as? (I'm not being sarcastic, btw, I'm honestly asking.)

Rout and the wedge.

[Martok]

Rout and the wedge.

Really? Personally, I always found both buttons rather useful.

There are certain units in STW/MTW (such as No-Dachi Samurai and Ghazi Infantry) that are generally most effective when in wedge formation. And there's definitely something to be said for having a single button which allows me to tell my army to get "the hell out of Dodge" and off the battlefield!

[Andalus]

Yep, wedge is very useful, particularly for cavalry. In contrast, the wedge of RTW/M2TW is utterly useless. I also find wedge to be a great formation for archers who are out of ammo. Rather than having to reform them into a more manouevrable box for fighting, you can just order them to wedge and get them going.

[Axalon]

Hi guys,

Inspired by the ”dark blob”-remark of War lord concerning MTW battles, I decided to put up some screens for actual reference here. Also there were some voiced concerns about interface in MTW battle-mode, “too much buttons” or something along those lines – these screens will set that in into a healthy perspective as well I think. Find out and decide for yourselves what to make of such remarks and concerns. All screens were taken on a 1280x960 resolution with maximum GFX settings applied and then resized to 800X600 to function with this thread. All screens are from the original and unaltered games, both in MTW or RTW. They are also taken on fairly equal terms, distance and practical operational view as we would see it – as if we really played the games....


MTW....


Well, as far the interface goes it is pretty straight forward, but hardly pretty in any way. However the mini map and how it functions is still more functional and useful than in RTW – that’s my opinion anyway. In fact I actually use it quite regularly my self. BTW this screen was taken at maximum close up.


RTW....


Concerning the RTW-interface then, well the right section is ok enough and can hardly be regarded as much worse than the counterpart found in MTW – anyhow, it is prettier no doubt. The left part strike me as pretty hopeless if you guys ask me, barely practical or functional at all I think. It simply does not provide much clarity or useful overview as the MTW counterpart does. So, personally I feel that section to be inferior…


MTW....


Dark blobs? Well, I can’t see them, is anybody more successful than I am here? I played vic-20/vic-64 games as a kid, so I ought to know what blobs really look like and truth be told; I don’t find them in these screens.


RTW....


This is at maximum GFX settings (as all screens) and still it does not strike me as "the major improvement" to MTW. Maybe the operational view and the RTW-GFX as we play the game and look at the troops are not that overwhelmingly spectacular after all? It is a feeling I get anyhow….


Maybe it’s just me, but I have a rather hard time finding these dark blobs; actually I have a hard time finding the vast superiority in GFX for RTW vs. MTW in battle mode in general - its there alright (trees and buildings etc.), but it seems that we need to get really, really close before it makes a significant difference as far as the troops goes – much closer than what is ever practical in the game in fact. The GFX-gap simply doesn’t strike me as big as one would imagine as I look upon these screens and the troops in them - that’s my opinion anyhow. Well guys, what do you think?

- Cheers

[Xerrop]

What I think?

The only superiority of RTW is, that you can zoom in very close - something you haven´t shown on your pics But OK, during 90% of the battles I don´t use this, so it´s not that important for me.

Oh and one big point - I never liked the giant battle banners of RTW and the other games onwards. In MTW they look far more realistic due to having a reasonable size.

EDIT: +REP for showing some MTW pics - it´s rare to see any on this forum.

[War lord]

Ok so red blobs on white but still MTW=14 Icons. RTW=11.

[Xerrop]

@Axalon: could you show also some pics of Shogun?

Have never played it, so I´m interested how it differs from MTW.