News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War  (Read 7561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Krass

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2009, 03:51:19 PM »
my 5 cents....
Medieval 2
+great  graphic (models in one unit looks different, great effects)
+setting (Crusades, diplomatic battles for Pape's place)
+new trade, building, diplomatic system
+they make mini-mouvies for every act on map (like in Shogun!!!)
+a lot of different units and states to play

-boring sieges (nothing changes, the same ladders, towers, catapults...later cannons)
-intro movies are not very good, they don't give you ideas about your nation future

Rome
+good graphic (it can work even on not very new computer)
+old world, touch the history!)
+a lot...no A LOT of modification, after TOTAL REALISM mode map Medieval will looks poor and very very small)
+good intros (you always know where to go and who are your enemies)
+a lot of random encounters (plague, rebels, council missions)
+night battles in addon...they looks wonderfull!)

-less variable building system (there is only one type of cities)

 Hope it will help)
-«Clear as vodka» (c) Vladimir Lem

Offline One Guy with a Meltagun

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
  • C.A.S. - it's not just a transport, it's an AFV!
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2009, 06:47:25 PM »
You might want to look at the available modification for R:TW, Barbarian Invasion and Alexander.

There are some grand mods like Europa Barbarorum ( antiquity era and very detailed). Fourth Age Mod ( LOTR, after the death of Aragorn) or LOTR: TW.

I saw that a Warhammer Mod is also WIP.

So, once you have played through RTW, Barb-Invasion and Alexander, you have a lot of various new "games" to play when you add a mod.

One Guy
It's easy to smile when you have a squirrel's intellect. - Dylan Moran

The 898th Cromaryn is now set loose on the Fiction board.

Chimera Appreciation Society - To you it's a Target, to us it's a lifestyle!

Tactica:Chimera

The Rapid Life of Rapid Fire - Mechanized Guard

Offline Chosen40k

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1431
  • Country: 00
  • Owned
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2009, 07:03:37 PM »
Also, quick question. Can this laptop run the game?

Processor: AMD Turion™ X2 (2.0GHz)
RAM: 3GB
Hard Drive: 250GB
Video Card(!): ATI RADEON 3100

Once again, Thank You.
On the topic of 40k vs. any other SciFi universe:

Quote from: Albatross_4Sale
the moral of the story, don't beslubber with warhammer 40k its just too overpowered and it is no fun to fight with.
Dawn of War II Unit Voices
Dawn of War II Community

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 906
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Eldar
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2009, 08:57:09 PM »
I found both fun for a while, but once I've beaten it once, I tend to start various factions, which seem samey-samey after a short time, and lose focus. So I'd say they both get a little old after a while.

And the battles tend to be easy to easy-ish, even on the higher difficulties.
-IG w/d/l (since 15th December, 2007): 26/8/6
Last Game: 4,000 point draw in Apocalypse

Offline Talon Undecided

  • Full Bird Colonel; Old School Necron Hunter Adept; Best Painted Rough Riders
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2868
  • Country: 00
  • kweh!
  • Armies: Astra Militarum, Evil Blood Ravens, AdMech
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2009, 09:49:02 PM »
Talon Raven: You know you can set it to the short campaign, in which you only need to take 15 territories and defeat one or two specific factions to win?
I was under the impression that the short campaign didn't unlock the other non-Roman Factions...
Imperial Guard Poster of the year '09!
Good golly that was ages ago.

Astra what now?

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2009, 05:07:16 AM »
Quote
A mongolian cavalry army is a very different beast
....Shudder.

The Barbarian invasion add-on includes hunnish elite missile cavalry. You might as well put machineguns on the field for what it does to formed-up heavy infantry. I imagine some of the units in Medieval are the same.


Generals are ridiculously nasty in Rome. Not to the point where you don't need an army - the first spear unit you come across handled competently yells "shiv!" and you're looking for a new faction heir - but certainly to the point where you don't usually need to specifically recruit heavy cavalry units. By the time you've unlocked companion/sacred band/graal knight cavalry, you've got about half-a-dozen silver or gold experience generals, who'll do the job better and don't demand pay.

Of course, I tend to use a heavy infantry army anyway. Started as the brutii, then the greeks, then the egyptians. Equally, barbarian invasion is generally saxons for me. Massed spears and massed flaming arrows for the win.
Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2009, 05:40:22 AM »
In Rome i usually fielded armies consisting of a strong infantry core, a couple of cavallery units to protect/threaten flanks and a couple of warhounds as terror weapons.

Funniest battle was probably My first full star julier general fighting in Britain a full british army with King, while most of my army was still in londinium and i only had3 warhound units and 2 Hastati with me. I released the hounds straight at the middle of his formation, where his king was hiding behind, and in combination with my general and hastati broke the swordfighters that protected the king and killed the king before the wings of the army could react. After that battle i took my general/leader, conquered Mallorca and let him enjoy his retirement  :)

Although the most fun fraction was greeks to me. I once had an army consisting of 8 armoured hoplits (those with yellow shields) and a general getting attacked by 2 full roman armies. I deployed them in a forrest for some arrow protection, in a double square formation (a squre in a square) with the general in the middle and wethered the storm of attacking warhounds, legionaries, equites and lastly generals. Always great fun.


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2009, 07:18:34 AM »
Talon Raven: You know you can set it to the short campaign, in which you only need to take 15 territories and defeat one or two specific factions to win?
I was under the impression that the short campaign didn't unlock the other non-Roman Factions...

You are incorrect.

In Rome i usually fielded armies consisting of a strong infantry core, a couple of cavallery units to protect/threaten flanks and a couple of warhounds as terror weapons.

Funniest battle was probably My first full star julier general fighting in Britain a full british army with King, while most of my army was still in londinium and i only had3 warhound units and 2 Hastati with me. I released the hounds straight at the middle of his formation, where his king was hiding behind, and in combination with my general and hastati broke the swordfighters that protected the king and killed the king before the wings of the army could react. After that battle i took my general/leader, conquered Mallorca and let him enjoy his retirement  :)

Although the most fun fraction was greeks to me. I once had an army consisting of 8 armoured hoplits (those with yellow shields) and a general getting attacked by 2 full roman armies. I deployed them in a forrest for some arrow protection, in a double square formation (a squre in a square) with the general in the middle and wethered the storm of attacking warhounds, legionaries, equites and lastly generals. Always great fun.

I honestly have no idea how this works for you. If I ever tried it when I play either R:TW or M2:TW I would lose. Horrendously. What difficulty do you play it on?
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2009, 08:10:37 AM »
Campaign and battlefield difficulty max, otherwise it would get boring. Of course the units involved in the fight against the british already had one or 2 yellow stripes, after all they conquered gallia before they came to England. Its not too hard once you figure out how the game works. There are certain things that weaken the morale of a unit, combining  couple of those usually breaks them. Those things are, if i can still get them together:

-flaming arrows -
- war hounds -
- flank charge --
- rear charge ---
- general running --
- general dead ---
- outnumbering (depending upon the odds in a specific small area) 1-2 -
- artillery fire -
- elephants --
- charging from a higher position -
- tiredness -
- own unit running away somewhere near --
- loosing more guys than the opponent (depending upon the ratio) 1-3 -
- receiving a cavallery charge -

Thats all i can remember right now, and is of course all my own estimate. A strong general boost moral. I also had the suspicion that enemies break faster when your general outranked the opponents one, though i am not sure about that. Three *-* is usually enough to send a low morale unit (like many mercanaries) running, as long as there is no strong general near, while you probably need around 10 *-* to send spartans running (a rare feat but doable, although you pretty much have to wipe out the unit to archieve that). In the above battle i had warhounds, outnumbered the opponent on that small part of the field, had a cavallery charge and inflicted large losses on the target, while the enemys king was relative inexperienced, since i had already killed the former one.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 08:12:40 AM by Lonewolf »


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Talon Undecided

  • Full Bird Colonel; Old School Necron Hunter Adept; Best Painted Rough Riders
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2868
  • Country: 00
  • kweh!
  • Armies: Astra Militarum, Evil Blood Ravens, AdMech
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2009, 08:51:34 PM »
You are incorrect.
My bad...

Anywho, my favourite Roman formations: 3-4 Archer units in the front rank, onagers in the second, infantry in the third and calvary on the flank.

From the beginning of the battle, have the archers reduce the more troublesome units i.e. Chosen Swordsmen or Skirmishers while the Onagers go for gold and aim for the General with flaming boulders. The Infantry should start moving up to be in front of the archers, with the calvary marching along the sides. When combat is reached, keep the Archers back and have them engage other units not in combat.
Imperial Guard Poster of the year '09!
Good golly that was ages ago.

Astra what now?

Offline Damnation

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2009, 06:43:45 AM »
Having played both games extensively as well as all their official expansions, I believe I'll have to go for both  :D Seriously, here in Flanders you can get Rome + Barbarian Invasion for five euros, Medieval 2 without the expansion for ten. They're both absolute steals and can both keep you occupied for hundreds of hours.

However, I do believe you should play Rome first - simply for the fact that Medieval 2 takes the formula and tacks on a LOT. Better visuals, better sound, a bigger campaign map with more settlements, the papacy which has a huge effect on how you're going to wage war, more agents, and best of all, an expansion pack with FOUR different campaign maps each with their own variations, large and small, on the original campaign.

Countering all of that, Rome has but a few areas where it truly exceeds Medieval 2. First of all, the factions of Rome have more variety between them. In Medieval 2, for example, the tech trees of the Western European factions have a lot of similarities; Milan, France, the Holy Roman Empire all have Peasant Archers, Sergeant Spearmen, Dismounted Feudal Knights, etc. etc., whereas in Rome, Gaul has a radically different tech tree from Germania, which have a radically different tech tree from the Scythians, which have a radically different tech tree from the Parthians... You get the picture.

Secondly, Medieval 2 is a bit more buggy when it comes to unit controls. Pathfinding issues in sieges are bloody annoying, but most of all, cavalry are a pain to use - you order them to charge, they lower their lances and gallop, then a few metres before their target they slow down to a trot, lift their lances and walk into battle with their cavalry swords. Le sigh. Not even the patches solve this.

So I'd recommend you start with Rome.

Offline Damnation

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2009, 06:46:25 AM »
I also enjoyed night fights very much. Religion was a minor Problem (if you didnt play west rome that is). The easiest race was Seleucids btw. I didnt even bother recruiting an army. 3-4 generals killed any army i ever came across and converted any city within 2 rounds to my religion.
If it's Barbarian Invasion you're talking about, you probably mean 'Sassanids' instead of 'Seleucids'.

Offline Derikari

  • I Brake for Kroot
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2219
  • Country: 00
  • I gots a title! ... I don't get it.
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2009, 07:07:01 AM »
If you get M2:TW, I strongly recommend you also get a mod. The AI is horrible and some of the big mods fix that, such as when they negotiate a peace or alliance, then immediately attack you. Deus lo Vult greatly improves the empire building part of the game with many more features, Stainless Steel has good feedback and I think is the most popular and Darthmod has some huge improvements to combat. Each tends to have a bigger map and more factions, plus extra units from the expansion campaigns and units that are in the game but aren't used like sergeant swordsmen.

Offline Illumini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2009, 07:44:36 AM »
The Stainless Steel mod for MTW2 is extremely good, it improves the gameplay of the original game tenfold. Highly recommended, and IMO, a much better game than rome
If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltare

Offline Ashman

  • Fear of Bovines. | Cool title here until Devern thinks of something better
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Country: 00
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2009, 09:22:48 AM »
With Empire TW coming out, does anyone think it worthwhile getting M2TW if I haven't already? I have RomeTW, but don't play it that often, and if I got M2TW it would be the same.
From what I've heard of Empire TW, it sounds like it will be awesome.

CM

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2009, 09:24:44 AM »
I still play Shogun Total War on occasion, and the only reason I no longer play the first Medieval is it's pretty much the same as 2 but less shiny and realistic. I certainly play Rome and I'm sure I will continue to with Empire. One thing to note however is that once Empire's out it's likely you'll be able to get Medieval 2 for much cheaper
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline speedy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
  • lurking in a forum near you!
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2009, 09:46:52 AM »
Whatever major company that bought up the studio that produces teh Total War games has quickly made me lose interest in the new games.

Rome was very good, especially with some of the community created mods.  I didn't buy it new and it was well patched by the time I got it.

I found MTW2 completely unplayable when I got it.  It took half a year and 2 or 3 patches for the game to get fixed up and some things were still broken.  2 handed weapons didn't work, cavalry had all kinds of weird bugs, seige battles were very predicatble and happened waaaaaaaaay too much.

Hopefully this latest game will come out in without any game breaking glitches, but I doubt we'll see that.  Too much pressure from the parent company to put the game out, playable or not.  Wish they would learn their lesson.

As far as MTW2 goes, I could link to a forum that has a lot of good mods, I helped test one for a while that fixed a lot of things in the game that weren't playing right, like the princesses always ending up with secret lovers, and random other ancilleraries for your characters.  Think it was called ProblemFixer or something like that.

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2009, 11:11:41 AM »
I also enjoyed night fights very much. Religion was a minor Problem (if you didnt play west rome that is). The easiest race was Seleucids btw. I didnt even bother recruiting an army. 3-4 generals killed any army i ever came across and converted any city within 2 rounds to my religion.
If it's Barbarian Invasion you're talking about, you probably mean 'Sassanids' instead of 'Seleucids'.

You are right of course, i keep mixing those names up. Due to this thread here i reinstalled Rome on my PC and play as Parthiens right now, with campaign and battle difficulty and unit sizes on max. Its just brutal, i never had to fight that hard to stay alive. After inital success against the seleucids, suddenly the scyths, armeniens, ponts and egypts start to attack me. If it werent for my horsearchers i would have been slaughtered. No round where i dont have to fight a couple of battles and still i make barely any progress and i am always broke. Its quite fun  :)

Quote
Stainless Steel has good feedback and I think is the most popular and Darthmod has some huge improvements to combat.

I might try that. As long as it fixes that annoying cavallery bug, which was kinda the main reason why i lost interest in medieval2 so fast.


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Ashman

  • Fear of Bovines. | Cool title here until Devern thinks of something better
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Country: 00
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2009, 01:07:11 PM »
One thing to note however is that once Empire's out it's likely you'll be able to get Medieval 2 for much cheaper

True dat. Mind you, it's pretty cheap on Amazon sometimes, with the Gold Edition being £15 every now and then. Heck it's even cheaper to buy the game and expansion seperately at the moment, coming to £10.50.
But I guess the price can only go down further once Empire comes out.

CM

Offline alexlopez11378

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • "Have you seen my squad?"
Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2009, 01:38:22 PM »
Honestly, i recommend to get both.  ::)
Both are interesting because they focus on different time periods and unit types.
I am very hooked on these games and played each one at different times, depending on my mood. I do find that its easier to break the armmies in Rome. Outflank and make some units run will cause panic unless u have very high moral.
Is hard for me to say which one to get but I am certain you will eventually have both and their expansions; they are that good.
IMO  ;D

 


Powered by EzPortal