SS vs TA

[Kernow]

I've only played SS mod, how do the mechanics of TA differ from SS. In what ways is TA better than SS.

[Maiden_Ante]

Well, most obviously: it's a Lord of the Rings mod. And a really good one at that. Mechanics-wise, you don't use merchants, the good factions don't use assasins etc.

[Athalwulf]

Well, most obviously: it's a Lord of the Rings mod. And a really good one at that. Mechanics-wise, you don't use merchants, the good factions don't use assasins etc.

I use assassins as good factions...

[Maiden_Ante]

I use assassins as good factions...

Really? I've seen them for neither Gondor nor Silvan Elves since 1.3 or something like that?

[Ngugi]

Really? I've seen them for neither Gondor nor Silvan Elves since 1.3 or something like that?

Eriador has them, for one.

[Lord Butters I]

Really? I've seen them for neither Gondor nor Silvan Elves since 1.3 or something like that?

Gondor definitely has them. Elves definitely don't. Cant go too much more in depth because I never use them; assassins seem like they've been seriously gimped in TATW. Send out a fleet of ten assassins and three will survive their first mission, none will survive the second. This is against captains.

[Asterix]

TATW is obviously totally different from SS, so its difficult to compare them. but TATW is naturally more action-packed, fast-paced, etc. than SS because its a LOTR mod. its tons of fun, but in a less sophisticated way than SS, which has more of an appeal to those who like historical empire building. not to put down TATW, which succeeds brilliantly in pure fantasy epicness!!! depending on who you are in TATW, you can make a massive come-from-behind victory, which is tons of fun. Decisive battles in TATW are actually present because one massive victory or loss can represent your entire military force (or a good chunk of it) and result in bigger losses than in SS, in which you can recover more easily. that's one of the many reasons i love TATW-you can actually pinpoint which battle changed the course of the war for you.

As i said earlier, its difficult to compare the two and say which is better, because they both so brilliantly succeed in what they wish to accomplish-a great historically accurate game and a brilliant epic fantasy game. if you like one, you'll like the other just as much.
EDIT: haha, i exited this thread and realized i was in the Third Age forum...i thought i was in the Stainless Steel one...... oh dear, getting more absentminded by the day.

[Santeri]

Nothing to add to previous posts but as they are both mod foldered and don't change things in each other you should try and see for yourself

[alreadyded]

Nothing to add to previous posts but as they are both mod foldered and don't change things in each other you should try and see for yourself

Ya, what he said. You should form your own opinions, not allow others to do so for you. They are both free and good for AT LEAST a few hours of entertainment.

[Scorpius Centaurus]

TATW is by far the more polished of the two, both visually and game play wise. SS still uses many vanilla textures and models for their units, and I find it difficult to go back to it after playing such a visually stunning game as TATW.

[Radzeer]

TATW is by far the more polished of the two, both visually and game play wise. SS still uses many vanilla textures and models for their units, and I find it difficult to go back to it after playing such a visually stunning game as TATW.

TATW is probably the most visually detailed of all MTW2 mods. However, SS is the visual top for the non-fantasy MTW2 mods, and some factions (like Kiev) match TATW easily. But it needs a big rig to bring it out.
Regarding the game play, it's apples and oranges. No reason to compare.

[Asterix]

TATW is probably the most visually detailed of all MTW2 mods. However, SS is the visual top for the non-fantasy MTW2 mods, and some factions (like Kiev) match TATW easily. But it needs a big rig to bring it out.
Regarding the game play, it's apples and oranges. No reason to compare.

not in my opinion....i always get tons more lag on TATW than SS.
one has to remember, in TATW all units needed to be reskinned because its a LOTR mod. whereas SS is historical and its OK to use some vanilla things (come on, vanilla had some nice looking units). but a lot of SS's skins, etc, are new and beautiful. just look at the Byzantines-almost every unit is originally designed and skinned.

[Athalwulf]

TATW is by far the more polished of the two, both visually and game play wise. SS still uses many vanilla textures and models for their units, and I find it difficult to go back to it after playing such a visually stunning game as TATW.

SS is definitely not up to par for visuals. I wish KK or someone would go back and redo all the units and textures of SS.

[Asterix]

SS is definitely not up to par for visuals. I wish KK or someone would go back and redo all the units and textures of SS.

i think SS is "up to par" but it wouldn't hurt to tweak things here and there. its not as pretty as TATW (what is?) but it's still nice.
now, one thing that really excites me is that KK might (MIGHT) bring custom settlements into SS after he's done some in TATW. Imagine fighting on the streets of Constantinople, or defending Venice and its convoluted canals, or Jerusalem's dozens of mosques, synagogues, churches....the list goes on and on.

[Lemoniser]

i think SS is "up to par" but it wouldn't hurt to tweak things here and there. its not as pretty as TATW (what is?) but it's still nice.
now, one thing that really excites me is that KK might (MIGHT) bring custom settlements into SS after he's done some in TATW. Imagine fighting on the streets of Constantinople, or defending Venice and its convoluted canals, or Jerusalem's dozens of mosques, synagogues, churches....the list goes on and on.

Unless KK worked on SS (which i think he might have but still) I highly doubt he will. Even if he did I don't think custom settlements would work as well in real cities. I mean for these cities you can easily find maps with jsut the right amount of information on them and it is easy as to get them from the right period. For real cities getting them historically accurate would be just about impossible. Venice would be nice but I think that most others would be a waste of time. Maybe Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople but imo the first two would be better done on a rome mod (or at least that period) and constantinople would just be a massive city with a port.

[Asterix]

Unless KK worked on SS (which i think he might have but still) I highly doubt he will. Even if he did I don't think custom settlements would work as well in real cities. I mean for these cities you can easily find maps with jsut the right amount of information on them and it is easy as to get them from the right period. For real cities getting them historically accurate would be just about impossible. Venice would be nice but I think that most others would be a waste of time. Maybe Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople but imo the first two would be better done on a rome mod (or at least that period) and constantinople would just be a massive city with a port.

im sure other people will learn how to use the tool and put it into SS. but i don't think this'll be a waste of time at all....
and constantinople being a huge city with a port?
constantinople was one of the strongest cities in the world and occupied (and still does) one of the strongest defensive positions on the face of the earth. if you looked at a map of constantinople in the middle ages (there are plenty) you will see just how amazing it was.

[Maiden_Ante]

I've thought about it more now... first of all, the battles themselves are different because of:

• "Monster units" such as trolls, ents, mûmakils and even balrogs
• Different factions having very varied strengths and weaknesses, such as the Elves hardcore armies while being few and expensive, Rohan having good and easily accessible cavalry but harder-to-come-by archery, Mordor having hordes upon hordes of orcs that are decent in close combat whilst having sucky archers and very little cavalry.
• The Good side don't have the Crusade-thing, only the Evil side has it.
• Depending on which side you play, allies are important as hell, you won't make it as Rohan if all of Gondor is taken over by Sauron's minions.Also, you don't have to worry as much about being back-stabbed by allies.

[jonny duck]

It's hard to add anything extra to the previous posters.

Factions
In TATW, the differences between each faction are very varied. Unlike SS, where the rosters by and large only have minor tweeks, in TATW each faction has very obvious strengths and weaknesses, allowing you to find a faction you like regardless of your style of play.

Looks
TATW looks better than SS. Fact. Because it's in set in middle earth, there are no vanilla units, meaning everything has had to be designed from scratch. The only thing remaining are settlements, and these are due to be overhauled in the near future judging by the preview threads.

Gameplay
This is where the main differences are. They both make for slower games than vanilla but both for different reasons. SS is much more in depth on the campaign due to mods such as grim reality and unit recruitment eras system. TATW is a much slower game because of the planning you have to go through.

Take Eriador for example. For the first 50 turns, you are too poor to recruit any substanital number of units. You have to spend most of your time shifting around your starting units and the first settlements you take have to be captured without any substantial losses. Each battle is important, certainly in the first 150 turns, and losing it can mean that you will ultimatly lose, or at least make your task a lot harder.

Any other business
TATW turn changes are quicker as there are far fewer factions
You don't need to worry about the AI not doing naval invasions.
It's probably a waste of time playing TATW if you dont like Lord of the Rings. (although you don't have to know anything about it to enjoy the game)

[Lord Butters I]

The most obvious difference is going to be economy. SS absolutely vomits cash into your lap and you never really have to struggle to afford anything, while TATW has a much more restrictive financial aspect. You can't have ten full stacks of top tier units trapezing around the map for example. Also, the politics are a bit less fluid; in any game Mordor is going to fight Gondor, Isengard is going to fight Rohan, Gundabad is going to fight Eriador, etc. This isn't to say that every game plays exactly the same, but there are nearly always the same basic trends. Also, there are basically no mercenaries in TATW. Dwarves can hire Dale cavalry inside Dale, there's bandits around some places, evil factions can hire orcs when on crusade, but for the most part there's no mercs. No merchants either, which can be jarring when you're used to them being as much of a license to print money as they are in SS and vanilla.

I can't comment on the gameplay too much because I never got too deep into SS (the functionally infinite money aspect turned me off of it and I never cared enough to mod it down), but one thing I can say is that there are some very distinct barriers in fighting style. In SS the differences between factions, especially the Catholic ones, are more cosmetic than anything else. Yes, England has archers while everyone else has crossbowmen, France has slightly better cavalry, etc, but there's not that much of a difference. Most factions are going to fight very similarly because that's just realistic; everyone wanted to use the most effective way of fighting. TATW is not realistic and factions play very differently. Dwarves, for instance, are pure infantry. They don't even HAVE cavalry (other than mercs). Rohan has way, way more cavalry than anyone else. Elves have godlike archers. Gondor is the only faction that can be really effective across the board, and they suffer from the "jack of all trades" problem: their infantry isn't as good as the dwarves, their archers aren't as good as the elves, and their cavalry isn't as good as Rohan's. So the armies of TATW are much, MUCH more specialized than SS's.

Size is a concern too. I've never sat down and counted them, but TATW has quite a bit fewer settlements and MUCH fewer factions. Your campaigns are thus going to be quite a bit shorter in TATW if you've got your heart set on total world domination. Lastly, TATW incorporates quite a few custom things that make the game harder: when you besiege an important settlement (Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Isengard, etc. Settlements everyone's heard of.) the AI automatically gets a huge garrison there. Archers with the ability to lay stakes can do so mid-battle, so sending cavalry to wipe out an emplacement of archers can turn ugly. You don't have access to your entire roster at turn 1, you get it in installments. In the beginning you can only recruit militia. I personally don't like these things and removed them, but that's just me.

Those are all the major differences that I can think of off the top of my head. As for why it's better, I like the fact that all the factions play so differently, that you don't get as much money, and the fact that the action moves quite a bit faster (there is GOING to be war whether you like it or not).

[Asterix]

The most obvious difference is going to be economy. SS absolutely vomits cash into your lap and you never really have to struggle to afford anything, while TATW has a much more restrictive financial aspect. You can't have ten full stacks of top tier units trapezing around the map for example. Also, the politics are a bit less fluid; in any game Mordor is going to fight Gondor, Isengard is going to fight Rohan, Gundabad is going to fight Eriador, etc. This isn't to say that every game plays exactly the same, but there are nearly always the same basic trends. Also, there are basically no mercenaries in TATW. Dwarves can hire Dale cavalry inside Dale, there's bandits around some places, evil factions can hire orcs when on crusade, but for the most part there's no mercs. No merchants either, which can be jarring when you're used to them being as much of a license to print money as they are in SS and vanilla.

I can't comment on the gameplay too much because I never got too deep into SS (the functionally infinite money aspect turned me off of it and I never cared enough to mod it down), but one thing I can say is that there are some very distinct barriers in fighting style. In SS the differences between factions, especially the Catholic ones, are more cosmetic than anything else. Yes, England has archers while everyone else has crossbowmen, France has slightly better cavalry, etc, but there's not that much of a difference. Most factions are going to fight very similarly because that's just realistic; everyone wanted to use the most effective way of fighting. TATW is not realistic and factions play very differently. Dwarves, for instance, are pure infantry. They don't even HAVE cavalry (other than mercs). Rohan has way, way more cavalry than anyone else. Elves have godlike archers. Gondor is the only faction that can be really effective across the board, and they suffer from the "jack of all trades" problem: their infantry isn't as good as the dwarves, their archers aren't as good as the elves, and their cavalry isn't as good as Rohan's. So the armies of TATW are much, MUCH more specialized than SS's.

Size is a concern too. I've never sat down and counted them, but TATW has quite a bit fewer settlements and MUCH fewer factions. Your campaigns are thus going to be quite a bit shorter in TATW if you've got your heart set on total world domination. Lastly, TATW incorporates quite a few custom things that make the game harder: when you besiege an important settlement (Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Isengard, etc. Settlements everyone's heard of.) the AI automatically gets a huge garrison there. Archers with the ability to lay stakes can do so mid-battle, so sending cavalry to wipe out an emplacement of archers can turn ugly. You don't have access to your entire roster at turn 1, you get it in installments. In the beginning you can only recruit militia. I personally don't like these things and removed them, but that's just me.

Those are all the major differences that I can think of off the top of my head. As for why it's better, I like the fact that all the factions play so differently, that you don't get as much money, and the fact that the action moves quite a bit faster (there is GOING to be war whether you like it or not).

errr.... are you playing on E/E in SS? cash is much easier to get in SS than TATW, granted, but its still not like RSII for RTW when you have 100k plus on a regular basis. and even in SS maintaining a huge fighting force is difficult and can hurt your economy.
as for your comments about how catholic factions differ, yes, you are somewhat correct, there often isn't a huge difference between factions. but this is historically true-besides a few differences (england rocks the archers, france rules the cavalry, Norway with their axemen, etc) most kingdoms had very similar armies.
and there will be war in SS whether you like it or not. the AI will go for their victory conditions and if you stand in the way, PREPARE FOR WAR!!!!!

Once again, you cannot compare SS and TATW realistically. they are like apples and oranges. you can't say that one is a better mod than the other, because they are so different- one is historical the other is fantasy.