Why are you still playing MTW or Shogun?

[spanish_emperor]

The animations in MTW are really bad.

EDIT: Be more careful how you ad things around here. Sigs are enough. - Axalon

[caravel]

Rout and the wedge.

Perhaps you should actually try playing the game in depth before commenting?

Rout is vital in MTW as it's the only way to get certain units out alive. It is often next to impossible to withraw units and having them turn tail and run is the only option.

Wedge can be devastating and is used extensively by experienced MP players. It increases attack at a cost to defence so it's good for cavalry when charging an enemies flank or rear, but once they're engaged you should switch back out of wedge.

Your "fuzzy blobs" comment is also misguided and unfounded. You mention that all of the units were blobs except the Royal Knights, whereas every STW/MTW player knows that the cavalry have the lower resolution. It is actually the infantry units that look the best and are the most defined. For 2D sprites they're not bad. However you look at it though, the STW/MTW sprite units are not "fuzzy blobs".

RTW units when viewed at a long distance zoom turn into sprites, it is those that are fuzzy blobs and most RTW players would agree with me. All of the newer TW battles look great when you're well zoomed in - but what's the point? It's not as if you can effectively manage your army when you're zoomed right in looking at your horse's arse is there?

[Andalus]

But it is a beautifully rendered horse's arse!

@Xerrop: One of the main differences in STW is that all units are exactly the same size, and all factions have exactly the same units, but with discounts on different aspects. The sprites are still discernible, but lower quality. Basically, Shogun is quite similar to MTW, but with less factional and regional diversity, and less of the extra features, like mercenaries, fleets, religion, etc

[therussian]

To answer the question frankly: because it's the best.




Though I lost my MTW Disc 1 years ago and haven't been able to play it. Cry.

[Axalon]

Hi guys,

It seems that this thread is thriving fairly well and here is my latest contribution to it. But first; RTW in all its imperial glory
- doing what it does best (in spoiler)….

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Personally, I wonder if not finer specimens of horse’s arses can be found in M2TW and ETW? For whatever it is worth, RTW was indeed the TW-game that first introduced this questionable feature. However, in all honesty, does it have any practical use at all for the game? - Apart from making the marketing department of CA happy, that is? Any better suggestions people? I am honestly wondering here…. (Don’t take this too seriously, but I do wonder!)

At any rate, I previously said that I thought trees looked better in RTW (I remembered them as better), I have changed my mind, they are pretty much look just as bad as those found in MTW, the only difference is that these are just so 3d-ish and it is so obvious (trees like that was essentially found in some PC-games on the market 5 years prior to RTW’s release). Just because they are 3d hardly makes ‘em better. Nah, trees can look a tad better than that I think. Maybe ETW is not as bad tree-wise perhaps (I can’t remember)? Anywhay, to more important things….

Russ!

Long time no read; nice to see you around these parts again (at least I have not seen you here for long time). Don’t cry, go and get your Visa-card instead (or whatever it is you use)! About 10-15 euros later - all bad dreams are dust.... You’ll be the proud owner of MTW once again in no time! You know it's worth it....
...


Spanish_emperor...

Considering how much time I spent re-working and recalibrating those darn battle animations,
I have little choice but to agree with your opinion. Sad but true...
...


War lord....

Is there any TW-game excluded from this little "blob"-doctrine of yours? Assuming here that blobs do not discriminate...?

As far as the interface and buttons concerned, on the previous reference screens I posted up your math is correct as far MTW is concerned, as in what we can see on those; 14 buttons. In total however there is 22 or so buttons in MTW battlemode. Now, I can’t speak for all people that play MTW, but I have played that darn game since the day it was released and I have only used two out of those additional buttons – not seen in the screens – more than once. Believe what you will, but that is how things have been for me at least – that leaves approximately 16 buttons and I hardly use more than 5-6 out of these ever. As far as RTW goes your math is incorrect however, I count 17 buttons, since we have 6 additional buttons to the left in addition to those 11 you already counted on the right. That means that as far as interface goes, RTW has in fact more buttons crammed in one interface than MTW does (or STW for that matter) thus the overall basis for your “button-claim” falls apart as in “RTW has fewer buttons in the interface” in battle mode than MTW.

Still, you are of course technically right in the sense that if we see to the overall total amount of buttons considering the two the “sub-interfaces” also included in MTW – so in that sense, yes, there are more buttons in MTW in total - but there never are more than 14 buttons at the same time in MTW while RTW always has 17 (and these are essentially smaller, with one exception, and thus less easy to use as far as the basic principles of interface goes). To cheer you up here, I can also say that as far as I am concerned, at least 9 out of the 22 buttons are indeed completely redundant – for me at least. Thus I will agree to that much and in that sense I think you are right – there are buttons in MTW of questionable value. However, that is a problem well represented in RTW as well – again, look to the left and at least I find plenty of promising candidates for that.
...


Andalus & general remarks, mostly STW (in spoiler)…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can do little else but to agree with your remarks on STW, however there is more too it than that I think. I feel STW has tightness and very well thought out design which makes “less is more” for me at least. There is less of the redundant nonsense of the kind we can find in MTW and later TW-games – with an increasing level for each new title I might add, making ETW the worst of the bunch so far (that is what I think anyhow).

In MTW we got the random traits for instance (vices and virtues), in RTW we also got the annoying senate (as if the papacy of MTW was not annoying enough) and their blasted missions as another example to pester us with and for each new title there are more and more annoying and (what I regard as) debatable content added to the TW-games while it is less and less of what made me play TW-games in the first place – great and interesting battlefield-simulations. I can cope with most of the added content and features in MTW decently enough, because I’m inclined to say that MTW handles battles probably even better than STW, thus it enough mitigating circumstances for me, but after that – it just a lot of “blaha” and a general shift of focus in the TW-games that I have little love for. Strategy is nice and ok. Battles, tactics and distribution of tactical resources - that is to die for! Think what you will of it, I’m just a hopeless wardog, what can I say....

It’s not that in isolated aspects the other TW-games can’t and don’t excel over STW in possibilities, they do, here and there I think. M2TW for instance handles sieges better in general, MTW handles battles better in general (despite of the combat system being poorly equipped to handle and cope with the number of units included in that game), RTW handles the rendering of horses arses and modding very well (does RTW handle anything else well? Sorry, I couldn’t think of anything else as I wrote this) while ETW is the first to offer real seabattle-simulations and so forth – but as whole game, as far as I am concerned STW is tighter, more efficient, reliable and interesting game than all the rest. The others don’t stand a chance in that sense because they try to cover too big concepts (and includes too much redundant features as well) – Medieval Europe and the crusades (!), the Roman empire (!!), half the world essentially (!!!) – that simply does not hold together that well, it is too big in scope to be really successfully handled. This makes things less tight and instead it sprawls in all directions and thus these games lack “unity” in concept and I don’t like that. In STW however, every part fit and work together on a whole other level, which combined makes it essentially unrivalled as a TW-game and the experience it offers – to me at least.

To this day, STW is still my favourite example that we don’t need 5000 factions, units, provinces or features to make a game interesting and good – it will never get any more interesting because it includes 5000 factions etc. To me it is the quality of the design of each faction and each troop that are interesting etc. – quantity, what ever it may be, well.... I happily leave that to others who can truly appreciate it - because I can’t. As far as I am concerned, quantity, in whatever aspect, never was an assured or successful way to get quality in a TW-game and for me STW stand as the obvious proof for it. It has fewer factions, fewer kinds of troops, fewer provinces, less features and variables than any other TW-game and still it manages to end up more interesting than all the others. Now why is that?

In lack of any better explanation, I believe it is because of outstanding and well thought out overall design - but that just what I think. Anyhow, STW got 4 turns per year – do I need say more?

Finally, some STW-pics as requested, for Xerrop and other people that might be interested in such a thing. More "blobs"
to the people essentially.... Enjoy!



Ok, this is the STW stratmap. Pretty pale and clean, but it sure works with the Japanese theme of this game. I personally
think it is great in all its simplicity and this simplicity does offer a clarity that no other TW-game comes even close too, it
just kills all opposition in that regard….




This is the throne room of STW. This is a unique and very cool feature for STW. Here we receive messengers/emissaries
and if we click on the old advisor to the left we get out daily dose of ancient Japanese wisdom – not very valuable in
practicality for the game, but it sure does wonders in terms of atmosphere. The geisha is sadly just for show - nothing is
perfect as well all well know….




The first battlescreen for STW. In this game we actually get seasons – spring, summer, autumn and winter - imagine that!
As a result we have one of my absolute fave aspects of the game, years are truly years – not just plain turns with attached
years swirling by at almost hap hazard rate - MTW and M2TW are probably the worst of them all in this particular regard….




Here we have contact with the enemy while crossing the bridge. The GFX is a bit old and rusty by now, after all, GFX never
was a strong point of CA anyways and STW is yet another example of that along with all the other TW-games (yes, including
ETW). Another cool thing is that we can do battle in real storms and we can actually hear the thunder roar - adding a little
extra drama to battle. The SFX files are there as well in MTW, but as far as I can tell they are not used (if they are, it’s
pretty much news to me). The interface and the principles for it are the same as MTW.


Hopefully some of you people found these screens of STW interesting. Anyway,
enough of me for now - lets have some other posters here instead….

- Cheers

[AnthoniusII]

I loved those vidoes in STW ...Also the high quality unit info cards!
But most of all i loved the thone room...
Yea it was one realy unique feature...

[Triggaaar]

In answer to the original question, I'm not so much 'still' playing STW, but I've just started.

Graphics aren't a problem, that's not why I'm interested in this style of game. The gameplay is most important, and it could be improved, but it sounds like that goes for each TW game.

[Xerrop]

Thanks, Axalon for showing some Shogun pics.
It seems, that beside from a zoom-in feature there are no huge differences to Medieval.

Funny, that every single soldier has a banner on his back. Have seen this also some weeks ago in "Last Samurai" (the movie with Tom Cruise). Is this an old japanese custom?

The gameplay is most important, and it could be improved, but it sounds like that goes for each TW game.

That´s true - each TW game could be improved in many ways.

But I can understand that it is hard for game developers to make right decision, because every player want´s different things.
When they add a new feature requested by fans, many others start crying that it ruins gameplay.

[Martok]

Funny, that every single soldier has a banner on his back. Have seen this also some weeks ago in "Last Samurai" (the movie with Tom Cruise). Is this an old japanese custom?

Yes, it was a longstanding practice in feudal Japan for warriors to wear their liege lord's "insignia" (I'm blanking out on the Japanese term ATM) on a small pole on their backs. It helped to avoid confusion during battles, especially in terms of friendly fire.

[caravel]

Yes, it was a longstanding practice in feudal Japan for warriors to wear their liege lord's "insignia" (I'm blanking out on the Japanese term ATM) on a small pole on their backs. It helped to avoid confusion during battles, especially in terms of friendly fire.

That will be the "Sashimono".

@Xerrop: If you want to see some decent movies about the period, then you need look no further than Akira Kurosawa's epics; Ran and Kagemusha.

[Triggaaar]

If you want to see some decent movies about the period, then you need look no further than Akira Kurosawa's epics; Ran and Kagemusha.

Like Kurosawa I make mad films, Okay I don't make films, but if I did they'd have a samurai

[Axalon]

Hello people,

Earlier in this thread there were some publicly voiced claims regarding: the RTW-stratmap model and its supposed superiority over the older STW-model. Since the advocates of this claim declined to debate this properly I thought that I would at least present my reasons as for why I questioned that claim from day1 – if nothing else, to set the record straight on that issue. So, here we go....


Examining the RTW-stratmap model.... (in spoiler)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Advantages with the RTW-model...

• You can do multiple actions with your pieces on each turn (armies, agents, ships).
• Fight battles at your convenience and then move afterwards…
• This model introduces strategic positioning in the game. This could be regarded as positive – however such a evaluation is not without controversy.*
• The model offers a seemingly increased level of movement realism to the game. However such an assessment is not without controversy.**
• You can build some (forts etc.) at strategic points on the map…
• Additional SFX-verification while using pieces on the new model stratmap....
• It brings additional and further aspects of strategy in to the game in general.
• ???

*Controversy I

Nobody are so far trying to deny that in a strictly technical sense this trait is indeed implemented and present in the “new” model - however the critics argue that in order for us to truly regard it as an advantage it must also work properly first. Since there are so many accounts that suggest otherwise and that this simple term is not met it is not possible to regard it as an advantage since the only advantage it provides is for the player since while the AI obviously can’t handle it. Thus it is not an advantage but yet another flaw and exploit for the benefit for the player on an already crippled and dysfunctional AI. In fact it only offers more parameters that the AI can and will screw up in. Thus is rather a drawback not an advantage according to the critics. You be the judge what you think...

**Controversy II

Nobody is so far trying to deny that each piece in the game has individual movement-capabilities in the game. However, the critics doubt whether or not we can truly regard this as a benefit if we study the actual circumstances in the game. Movement from one point to another can both take unreasonably long time and may very well be thwarted by seemingly unreasonable obstacles. For instance a single neutral ship (obviously outnumbered and underpowered) can halt an armada of 5 ships that individually are stronger than the ship that thwarts their passage in the straits of Gibraltar for instance. Thus the tables can obviously be turned against the notion that the new model does really provide an increased level of realism into the game and if this can truly be regarded as an advantage over the old system. All under the guiding star of what seems reasonable and the circumstances provided by the new model is thus deemed by the critics as even more unreasonable than the old one. Make up your own mind what you think of this controversy...


Drawbacks with the RTW-model...

• It brings an increased level of timewastage in the game. Various movement animations and AI-turns are the most blatant examples of this. It simply wastes more time to do essential and necessary things in the game. Thus a functionality drawback.
• It brings a less efficient and easy way to get any proper overview of the map than the previous solution. Also, the map simply has to much included in it for us to get good and simple overview of things. Thus a functionality drawback.
• It brings in general a slower, less fluent and smooth overall gameexperience than the previous model (much due to increased level of strategic features but also due to poor interface). Everything is more cumbersome and timeconsuming to do. Every turn is more timeconsuming and cumbersome to handle. It simply is less efficient to do anything with this model. We simply must dedicate more time and concentration on the means of the game in order to do anything in the game. Even when we do things in the game it does take more time to see and get the results of out actions in the game. Thus a functionality drawback in general.
• It brings an increased level of buggynes to the game due to an increased level of variables present in this model. More things can “bug out” and usually do, at some point. Thus creating an overall buggier experience of the game. Thus a buggyness drawback.
• It brings the new and in essence unique problem for this model. It has at times “lag” as we navigate on the stratmap with this solution. This problem did not exist with the old model (healthy installs) while it is a real factor in the new model if the GFX settings are too high. Thus a “lag” drawback is introduced with it.
• It brings an increased level of instability-issues to the game with this model. Thus we get more crashes and freezes with this solution. Thus a stability drawback in general.
• It brings increased loading/waiting times as the AI-turns are far more time-consuming than in the old model. What usually takes a few seconds now can very well exceed a minute in the worst cases. It simply brings more waiting time to the game. Thus a Loading/waiting time drawback.
• It brings increased levels of unintended and faulty orders due to shortcomings in interface and controls. As in you do things in the game that you never intended for the game because of the means of the game (controls and interface). This model brings an increased level of this problem. Thus a functionality and interface drawback.
• It brings and increased level of AI-inconsistencies to the game, such as AI- armies wandering about in the places they should not bother with, or wandering back and forth, or placing the armies were they ought not to be in at all (over your borders while at peace etc. etc.). Obvious strategic inconsistencies also increase with this model, leaving additional and further ways for the player to do and realize various obviously unintended exploits in the game because the AI can not handle it properly. Thus an increased level of exploits are present in the game with this model. This is usually considered to be undesirable by most players. Thus more and additional exploits are made possible with this model – exploits and higher quantity of these are usually regarded by most people as undesirable. These circumstances thus clearly translates to a drawback as well – AI/basic-design/general drawback then.
• It brings a weaker and less functional AI to the game in a general sense. The game simply can not handle this model very well, in effect because of the model and the circumstances found there and how all this is designed in general. Thus a AI drawback in general.
• It brings further aspects for the AI to handle in general, which means in effect that there are more aspects that the AI can mess up in, presenting a yet even poorer opposition for the player because of this very fact. Thus another AI drawback.
• The fact that this model obviously brings more drawbacks than benefits is a major drawback by it self.... Possibly the mother of all drawbacks by definition. The RTW-model is no exception to that circumstance.
• ???

There you have it, these are the facts on RTW-stratmap model and the only thing I do here is to point them out for you. With these facts we can also begin to truly validate the earlier claimed RTW-model superiority over the STW-model with some sober eyes for a change. Personally I find it striking that we have almost two listed drawbacks for each and every potential benefit listed here. You do the math.... Now, is it at all possible to consider this model as superior in spite of all this? No, it is not. How can it be? The claim simply falls apart since it so obviously has little to do with reason or any solid basis – at best it is a personal preference elevated to a public claim which is just awfully founded at that. After all, the simple and obvious facts speak with total clarity – something that brings more drawbacks than benefits can not and should not be regarded as superior. That my friends, would just be sheer folly to believe any such thing.... And, it defies all principles of reason we have.

Examining the STW-stratmap model.... (In spoiler)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Advantages with the STW-model...

• Faster player turns, it simply is easier and faster to do whatever you want to do in turn X, and the wait for the AI is shorter, especially in STW. More timeefficient.
• Faster AI-turns, especially STW, probably the fastest TW-game to date in that regard.
• Easier interface, fewer things to keep track of or to worry about, that means that even CA managed to do better and less screwed up Interfaces with this model (unlikely as it seems, it never was something they mastered very well so far). Especially so in STW.
• More stable game experience, fewer things that can screw up in the game. Less crashes and freezes as a result. Especially so in STW.
• Less buggyness, since there are fewer variables there are also fewer things that can go wrong, as a direct result we get less buggs in the game. Especially in STW
• Less redundant and questionable features, a more balanced and thought out in design. Less dubious elements and features present that can screw up the game to various degrees. Especially so in STW.
• Stronger AI in general. The AI handles things better because of the circumstances found and designed in this model.
• Tougher AI in general, since there are fewer things the AI can mess up in, the overall challenge of the game increases since the game AI does a better job with this model. Thus a tougher opposition is the result we get from it.
• Less exploits possible, since the AI does less stupid things the frequency of possible exploits drops. There still are exploits but they are fewer with this model.
• Overall more efficient means to do things in the stratmap. No matter what we decide to do, the means to do it are easier and more efficient to use in this model. Thus we can focus more on what happens in the game rather than the means to play the game. The means are better to play the game with this model.
• Shorter Loading/waiting times, faster AI turns is the best example, another is that we have no time-consuming animations cope with. Especially so in STW.
• Piece-movement in this model is instantaneous and less complicated due to the simpler circumstances found in this model.
• Simpler and straight forward to use in general. The possibilities to do faulty or unintentional errors in this model are fewer and more easily countered.
• This model does not suffer from any lag-problems (healthy install, due to GFX-settings etc.). This is a desirable trait and clearly translates as a benefit that we are spared that annoying circumstance.
• It creates more benefits than drawbacks. That in it self is a benefit and thus beneficial by definition....
• ???

Drawbacks with the STW-model...

• It can be argued that the STW-model brings a lesser degree of movement realism into the game with this model. This kind of argument is common among RTW-model advocates. However, there is also possible to raise controversy about that; see advantages RTW-model, controversy II.
• It offers No strategical positioning feature and such level of detail as offered by the new model – it simply has no true counterpart in the STW-model. The areas to position various pieces in the game are bigger and more simple thus it offers a less detailed solution - so far so good. Thus it could by some be considered as an undesirable trait, while others consider it to actually be desirable instead – the argument usually goes toward pointing at the more dysfunctional AI of the RTW-model. So even this potential drawback is filled with controversy.
• This model does not allow you to do multiple actions per turn with your pieces in the game... Thus a drawback in capacity by comparison.
• This model does not offer the same level of strategic depth as provided by the newer RTW-model in general. Thus a drawback in capacity by comparison. However this stance is not without controversy either since the critics argue that in order to count that “strategic depth” in comparison it must also be a fully functional as a feature in the game and not just for the player. Yes, you guessed it the ‘ol blaming the dysfunctional AI again and thus that provided strategic depth in RTW is just another potential exploit in that system and thus the absence of these problems and aspects in the STW should therefore not be regarded as drawback since the depth of the newer model is in fact not functional to any other than the player anyhow.... As usual, you are the boss – think what you will of this criticism.
• ???

Ok, there you have the facts regarding the STW-stratmap model and as usual the only thing I do here is to point them out for you. With these additional facts we can even further validate the RTW-stratmap superiority clam. Things did not look too good for the RTW-model even before we examined facts on the STW-model. - Now, to put it plainly here; the STW model is in comparison pretty much the exact opposite of the RTW-model. It has brings more benefits then drawbacks and the overall favorable ratio is way beyond 2:1 for the benefits – in fact we are looking at something above 4:1 or so. By all means you do the math. Whatever doubts we possibly could have is now beyond any question utterly destroyed by these simple facts of the STW-model. It simply would be plain stupidity to regard this model as inferior to the other newer model. After all, it brings more advantages while at the same time brings fewer disadvantages to the game. Personally I find it very hard to believe that anybody can seriously maintain that the RTW-model is still up for consideration of being superior in this sense since I simply can not bring myself to believe that anybody would be that stupid. It defies all reason and because of that it does not deserve to be taken seriously at all.

Concerning 2d and 3d

If we disregard the technical circumstances and difficulties of what 2d and 3d means and look at it with fresh eyes; the STW-stratmap model is 2d all over and thus it offers a different kind of representation than the essentially 3d-based representation we find in the RTW-model. Thus we basically have two different forms and solutions of representations the same thing – the stratmap. The argument goes back and forth whether or not one is prettier than the other but I think that any such attempt to determine that is hardly interesting, nor productive. After all we are essentially talking about “apples” and “oranges” here.

Both might be fruits (stratmaps) but they taste and are completely unique in nature compared with the other (2d and 3d in this case) thus it strikes me as rather pointless to argue this aspect. Neither 2d or 3d is better then the other just because it happens to be 2d for instance – such a notion strike me as rather ridiculous. Why would we argue that tempera (a kind of water-based paint) is better then oil-paint (oil-based paint obviously)? It’s just silly....


Conclusion

In spite of the very real possibility that I might have forgotten some fact - there is little doubt that the facts that is brought to light here speak for themselves; there simply is no room for doubts or questionmarks at all. The basis for the RTW-model-claim and “it being superior” to the older STW-model - is utterly destroyed and falls apart like a house of cards when scrutinized and set into a healthy perspective. I did even include more basis in favor of that model than any of the two latest advocates of this claim ever did while they declared it.... Still the basis and the claim with it, just falls apart into smithereens. We simply have no reason whatsoever to take any of these claims seriously at all as a result of that fact – unless some new and completely unknown sets of facts are brought to light. Until that day, we can all with good conscience simply dismiss all and any such claims as unserious and silly because they are – the facts shows that with ruthless clarity. Thus, all such claims so far presented in this thread so far, are therefore little else than sheer nonsense and it is not I that suggest this – it is the facts that does that....

Now, I have written this as a healthy wake-up call for all overconfident “Romans” to set things in a more sober and viable perspective while we discuss these things here and elsewhere. RTW and any later game (dependent on this model) might still be very entertaining and liked by plenty of people and all that is quite alright as far as I am concerned, however as far as offering a superior model for the stratmap-part of the game, it is just nonsense and it should from now on be treated as such I think. We may still like whatever TW-game we want on a personal level, we are entitled to that – utterly regardless of the facts, if we like. However, with public claims things are different and with these we enter the domains of facts and basis – leaving personal preference back home because it is no longer relevant in such a context. So, next time anybody tries to claim anything (a limited aspect of the game or whatever) to be superior – please, do examine “the big picture” (as in enough facts) first before doing so....


At any rate, there was another reason I wrote this as well, perhaps not as important but still - all this presents yet further reasons why I personally still play MTW and STW. Thus, we are back on track with this thread and please people, let’s keep it that way from now on....

- Cheers

[Koolhan37]

Hey all, just re-installed MTW+VI and trying to get it to run on Win 7 RC, hope all goes well.

Can't find my STW/Mongol Invasion(talk about a hard expansion!) discs around....

I guess I am coming back to these(and some mods for MTW2) because I never got much into Rome(although I hear with the expansions and some mods it is pretty great, which I'm sure it is), and because I'm currently frustrated with ETW.

I miss the feel and character of the campaings. I loved the VI campaign on Brittania, with the various factions, Huscarls, etc. Loved the MTW/Shogun music, well-drawn campaign maps, and art.

They just seemed more polished, with more life to them even with the outdated graphics(which in those days were pretty awesome).

Anyways I hope to get MTW running here and check out some mods. I keep STW/MTW in a special place, along with the other old game classics that I revisit from time to time, like Fallout, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, Curse of Monkey Island, etc.

They are still enjoyable even after the passage of time, which is a testament to the design and fun of the game.

[Xerrop]

Yes, it was a longstanding practice in feudal Japan for warriors to wear their liege lord's "insignia" (I'm blanking out on the Japanese term ATM) on a small pole on their backs. It helped to avoid confusion during battles, especially in terms of friendly fire.

That will be the "Sashimono".

Ah OK - interesting to know. It had maybe also something to do with a feeling of solidarity under the drafted peasents to strenghten their morale.
But weren´t this pole´s inconvenient during close-combat?

[caravel]

Ah OK - interesting to know. It had maybe also something to do with a feeling of solidarity under the drafted peasents to strenghten their morale.

It was a means to indentify troops on the battlefield and was worn by Samurai and Ashigaru alike. (used by both Nobility and Peasantry).

But weren´t this pole´s inconvenient during close-combat?

I doubt it, or they wouldn't have used it. And the Samurai would not have earned their place in military history.

[Misfratz]

I am still playing Medieval Total War because, amazingly, I have still not finished a campaign...

Back in 2002, when the game was released, I excitedly bought a copy [I'd been a huge nocturnal fan of Shogun]. Unfortunately, it did not work at all on the computer I'd been playing Shogun on. I had to take it back to the shop.

A couple of years later, after buying a house, my computer began to give up the ghost, so my girlfriend bought herself a new computer to play Morrowind on. We both had a lot of fun with that. I had never forgotten Medieval, so I bought a copy of the "Battle Edition" and tried to run it. Unfortunately, it did not run at all, on the computer that we'd been happily playing Morrowind on!

Not to be defeated, I saved up my pennies and bought a shiny AGP nvidia graphics card. Not only did this make Morrowind run faster and smoother, but now I could get my teeth into Medieval and I started quite a number of campaigns [English, Almohads, French, Russians...]

Now, by this point, my soon-to-be wife was beginning to become annoyed at the extent to wqhich I was keeping her from playing Morrowind by playing Medieval. So she bought me a laptop, with a sufficiently shiny graphics card that it could run Medieval.

Or so I thought.

But then something strange happened in my Viking campaign, when I was facing off against the golden horde. Grass began to disappear from the battle map, then trees, then my troops would begin to flicker, and finally I was only able to tell where my army was by using the overview map and holding the mouse cursor over them! It turned out my laptop could only deal with upto 8 different units on the abttle map at one time. This had been fine early in the campaign, when I'd simply thrown a horde of Vikings at the enemy.

Then my wife took her computer away with her when she left me with the kid. To make matters worse I couldn't get Shogun to play on my Windows XP computer. Gah.

However, about two years ago I bought a very cheap second hand computer from a colleague at work, that ran Windows 98SE. I also picked up a by then very cheap graphics card to improve said computer, so I now had a computer capable of running Medieval again! Consequently more campaigns were started, including a Byzantine campaign in which I conquered the Hungarians, Turks, Egyptians and encircled the Black Sea; the Sicilians; Vikings; Irish; Welsh.

And then the hard drive died. Or at least, I recently worked out that the reason the computer wouldn't boot up was due to an old hard drive. It so happened that I had another old Windows 98 computer, which I'd picked up first, but could only run Shogun, not Medieval. So a couple of weeks ago I stripped the hard drive out of that, and plugged it into the other computer. It's only a 3Gb hard drive, so I had to uninstall everything to fit Medieval and Viking Invasions in with the Windows 98 operating system [including Shogun ], but it just fits!

There isn't enough room left on the hard drive to have more than one campaign running at a time, so perhaps I'll manage to play this Polish campaign out to the end this time!

I think, perhaps, that in a few years time I will try and scrounge a fairly cheap second hand PC and play Empire Total War. I've had fun playing Sid Meier's pirates, and the prospect of playing real-time naval battles within a Total War game is enticing. Also, I did just finish reading War and Peace..

[@ndyN]

I play MTW just when I'm bored and don't have something better on my PC

[TheJian]

I still play STW but cant play battles for some reason..............Love how it get me into thinking im a shogun..............still love watching the ninja movies

[Xellos_Moon]

I just got his game, and i love rts games. Ive played everything else except for the total war series. Ill be done with this game when starcraft 2 comes out. but until then MTW ftw baby!

[Julius Caesar Salad]

I wish I was still playing STW and MTW, but alas, my disks are lost to the ages... and this MTW redux looks so cool, I'll have to find a way to get my hands on another copy.
The main reason to play these games is the fact that the AI works. The risk style map makes it so that you're forced to battle, so the computer seems smart even if it is still stupid, you don't see it with fifteen stacks wandering Morocco while Spain is being conquered by someone else. As for diplomacy, it really hasn't changed. In the old games, you could ally, or if at war, make peace. That's all it was. The AI still irrationally attacked you, and would be pig headed and not accept peace even when it was in its best interest,and that's the problem: The diplomacy has not changed, in all the games, it's the same old crap. As if the same code has just been copied and pasted from one to the next.
Also, as others have mentioned, the atmosphere was so much better. In Shogun you feel like a 16th century Daimyo duking it out to become Shogun - whereas in Empire, you feel like someone who is playing a game that's set in the 17th century. You don't feel immersed. And immersion is the biggest thing from making a good game a great game. A game with good immersion will be accepted, faults and all because it captures the imagination, and transports you to a different place. And isn't that why we play video games in the first place?

EDIT: I would also like to add another reason that I'd play the older TWs - simplicity. There aren't tons of little things that one needs to worry about, but with each release, there's 10 more 'features' that are added that just end up making the game a convoluted mess of annoying micromanagement.