40K Online

Community => Video Gaming and Computers => Topic started by: Chosen40k on February 16, 2009, 09:09:18 PM

Title: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chosen40k on February 16, 2009, 09:09:18 PM
So I'm getting a new laptop and a great game to go with it, and I can't decide between Rome: Total War or Medieval II: Total War. 

So can anyone please post the plus and minuses of either games, as well as which I should get?

Also system requirements and performance (as well as Empire: Total War ;)) need not be taken into account. 


 Thank You.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Myen'Tal on February 16, 2009, 10:03:17 PM
Medieval 2 all the way. Both are great, but Med2 builds on and improves some of the things that were kind of lacking in Rome. Religion, diplomacy, etc, the graphics have a huge overhaul, the combat has been improved, you get a Americas campaign on top of the original, join/oppose the crusades, survive the black plague, get/invade excommunitcated, be top dog with the pope, etc. Imo, everything Rome has, Medieval 2 has, with alot of extra bonuses added into it. (Exept settings, of course)

Rome was awesome, but I say Medieval two. :)

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Talon Undecided on February 16, 2009, 10:14:18 PM
Can speak so much for Rome Total War, and only a little on Medieval 2. ;)

Rome Total War is plenty awesome, you take control of one of the three Roman Factions (Julii, Brutii and Scipii) each with their own beginning advantages (i.e. Julii can expand very quickly and usually only has to tend with the barbarian factions first, while Brutii can expand similarly quickly but has to tend with the more advanced Greek nations for example). Ultimately, while odds are heavily stacked in your favour (trade rights with three other factions on the onset, superior infantry) you will have the hardest task, overthrowing the Senate and your two rival factions. Only then can you complete the Campaign (while getting 50 territories under your fold), and begin playing as the other factions. As such, it gets tedious towards the end because your main opponents in the endgame are the Roman factions and it's just a slugfest of Legionary v Legionary. But, it is worth the effort to finish the Roman Campaign, because the non-Roman Factions are plenty awesome too  ;) Woohoo Carthage!

If you're feeling up to it, get the Barbarian Invasion expansion as well. It doesn't add on to the original campaign, but focuses more on the Late Roman Empire period. It is much harder to totally vanquish a faction (the entire civilian populace are converted to warriors and soldiers upon losing the last territory, becoming a neutral 'rebel' faction). IIRC, they add the Loyalty characteristic back too.

Appearance wise, Rome Total War is beautiful. The landscapes and battlefield scene are rich, and can even be destroyed by siege machines for morale ;). Fighting scenes are not as great as Medieval II but at least you don't have 2d images running across the field like Medieval I. Music works perfectly with the pace of the battle (changing from peaceful to marching to fighting).

If there is one thing that irks me about Rome Total War, it is the AI. I am not aware of any AI mods that makes them fight properly but sieges are awfully easy if your target only has wooden walls. I'll leave you to figure it out on your own, but the freebie I can drop is that the AI likes to move their units unnecessarily.


For Medieval II, mechanics are almost the same, and I am also aware that the Christian factions have the Pope to contend with if they want to expand. Since I've not played the full campaign yet I'll reserve my comments on its difficulty. Also, you should be able to get all available factions from the beginning.

However, I am aware of a Mod (Stainless Steel, iirc) that increases the AI's capabilities, and also includes new factions. Interaction between units  on the battlefield are also smoother and more seamless.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: PaxImperator on February 17, 2009, 07:07:11 AM
Think of M2TW as an overall improvement on RTW, with the setting transplanted from classical antiquity to the middle ages. Unless you feel very strongly that the classics are awesome, M2TW is the better game purely based on graphics. I haven't noted so many major other differences, apart from the presence of merchants (micromanagement required) and the holy war mechanics in M2TW.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 07:16:23 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?
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on February 17, 2009, 07:19:42 AM
Think of M2TW as an overall improvement on RTW, with the setting transplanted from classical antiquity to the middle ages. Unless you feel very strongly that the classics are awesome, M2TW is the better game purely based on graphics. I haven't noted so many major other differences, apart from the presence of merchants (micromanagement required) and the holy war mechanics in M2TW.

Rome total War is an awesome game so i decided to get myself medieval 2, but for some reason it didnt do it to me like Rome. The main thing i found annoying in battles, that in M2 i had always the problem of charging my cavalry into battle. When i had positioned them for a flank or rear charge and ordered to attack, often only the first rank would attack, and they wouldn't exactly charge, but slowly walk into combat, which isn't exactly what i had in mind. In Rome i had never such problems. I also like the time in which Rome plays a lot more. Barbarian Invasion adds some new features like night fight, horde armies etc, which further improve the game in my eye.

I don't see M2 as an improved version of Rome but rather a modified one. Sure, graphics are better, but you will have to fight a lot more battle in M2, because you can faster recruit troops which becomes tiresome over time, especially with the before mentioned bug i had trouble with.

In a nutshell, i still prefer Rome over Medieval and never fully completed a campaign in the ladder, while i played with every fraction, partionally multiple times, in Rome.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 07:42:22 AM
Medieval 2 basically requires you to install the upgrade patch to get it to work properly. In addition to cavalry issues, the campaign will often screw you over by having your faction excommunicated with you having virtually no choice in the matter, and then everyone goes nuts at you. Once you install the upgrade patch it works much better.

I prefer M2 to Rome frankly, the setting is much more interesting to me and I find the game mechanics to be better once some adjustments are made
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Sheepz on February 17, 2009, 07:46:01 AM
I'm surprised no one mentioned Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, which is about the collapse of the Roman Empire. It's pretty awesome, there are new units and new nations, although some of the old ones are gone and there's no 'fair advantage' - Western Rome, for example, starts with like, 20 provinces [but they're all rioting], while the Franks get one, or two?

Religion is a big part of it, the map is primarily the same only a lot of the territories have been simplified to become bigger, getting rid of the need for so many provinces, although there are still loads. The historical slant is good (never did about the Fall of Rome), Generals are born in various cities rather than all in your capital. Yeah, it's good. I've not played medieval II (and one sucked so much), but I have to argue that Roman History = better than Dark Age history.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 07:50:05 AM
Got to disagree with you there, the Medieval period is fascinating to me, just as much as if not more than the Roman period. I intensely dislike the prevailing attitude that led to naming them "the Dark Ages"
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Sheepz on February 17, 2009, 08:27:12 AM
Then the choice should be apparent ;)
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on February 17, 2009, 08:40:42 AM
I'm surprised no one mentioned Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, which is about the collapse of the Roman Empire. It's pretty awesome, there are new units and new nations, although some of the old ones are gone and there's no 'fair advantage' - Western Rome, for example, starts with like, 20 provinces [but they're all rioting], while the Franks get one, or two?

Religion is a big part of it, the map is primarily the same only a lot of the territories have been simplified to become bigger, getting rid of the need for so many provinces, although there are still loads. The historical slant is good (never did about the Fall of Rome), Generals are born in various cities rather than all in your capital. Yeah, it's good. I've not played medieval II (and one sucked so much), but I have to argue that Roman History = better than Dark Age history.

I mentioned it shortly, especially since its less of an expansion to Rome but more kind of its own game. But i agree, its a very fun game. I remember playing the Huns in my first Barbarian Invasion game and making the mistake of conquering the first villages (you started in russia) instead of pillaging them. I had money problems the whole time so i conquered the seleucids (persia), egypt, africa... the goal was to get to rome, they never saw me coming  :P

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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 09:13:16 AM
Then the choice should be apparent ;)

Indeed, and it should be apparent what I chose  ;)
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Sheepz on February 17, 2009, 09:37:38 AM
And it should be apparent, in a bout of epic fail, that I believed you to be the OP. :P

Quote
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.

Generals were hard, but never that hard, IMO. Sure, an all general army could beat most armies, but four generals seems a little extreme.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on February 17, 2009, 09:39:34 AM
And it should be apparent, in a bout of epic fail, that I believed you to be the OP. :P

Quote
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.

Generals were hard, but never that hard, IMO. Sure, an all general army could beat most armies, but four generals seems a little extreme.

It worked with Seleucids. Hard armour, bows and bone hard on the charge. You break the enemy one unit at a time, starting with the opponents general, until the army breaks.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
And it should be apparent, in a bout of epic fail, that I believed you to be the OP. :P

Quote
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.

Generals were hard, but never that hard, IMO. Sure, an all general army could beat most armies, but four generals seems a little extreme.

Only at the early levels. By the time you get to high level games an all cavalry army composed of elite units will get beslubbering ruined. Cavalry can't do sustained combat, even if they're beslubbering bad-asses like generals.

I tend to play with the AI turned up a notch, since I've played the Total War series since its inception and find that otherwise it's a walk-over, and at decent levels the enemy simply won't let you pick them off that way.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Red-Fred on February 17, 2009, 10:11:44 AM
I'm so looking forward to Empire: Total War...Mmm redcoats.

RTW and the expansion are both awesome, I preferred the original purely for the reason I couldn't do more than about 6 turns on Barbarian Invasion without failing epically. Especially with The Western Empire, which unfortunately, is my favourite faction .

I found the Julii in RTW to be a generally good faction but one that suffers from cumulative waves of savages. For example, beat the Spanish and the Gauls are on their way. Beat the Gauls and the Germans arrive. Beat them and you end up trying to fight horde upon horde of evil horse archers that my legionaries could never catch...

As for which one to purchase, I think it depends on which historical period you prefer. RTW is much more ordered and neat in its battles. Partly because all the soldiers in units are clones but also due to the uniforms and so on being more classical. And in MTW2 there are a feew additional features that others have mentioned.

Red-Fred
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on February 17, 2009, 12:17:56 PM
And it should be apparent, in a bout of epic fail, that I believed you to be the OP. :P

Quote
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.

Generals were hard, but never that hard, IMO. Sure, an all general army could beat most armies, but four generals seems a little extreme.

Only at the early levels. By the time you get to high level games an all cavalry army composed of elite units will get beslubbering ruined. Cavalry can't do sustained combat, even if they're beslubbering bad-asses like generals.

I tend to play with the AI turned up a notch, since I've played the Total War series since its inception and find that otherwise it's a walk-over, and at decent levels the enemy simply won't let you pick them off that way.

Well you can disbelieve all you want ( :P ) but  with mentioned 4 heroes i conquered egypt, got myself a boat conquered turkey wich was mostly roman territiories at that point iirc, went up to constantinople then Rome. I always played on hardest AI, though there might be mods i dont know about. I only hired a couple of mercenary units when i had to attack a city to break down the walls, which i then left back at the city as guards. And the cavallery never had to fight in a longer combat, because 2 hero units in the front and one into flank or rear breaks anything short of an elephant, especially since there are no longer phalanx units. You just have to look out for spearguys, which you bait a bit before getting off a flank charge or shoot them down a bit if you have the timee. And the general can not be protected enough, that you cant break through to him and if you kill him its over anyway. It was only anoying when one of the heroes died - of old age.

Oh and my hun all cavallery army also disagrees with your comment. Are we talking about the same game Chuckles?  ;)
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 01:49:24 PM
A mongolian all cavalry army and an army consisting of 4 heroes with bodyguard are not remotely the same
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on February 17, 2009, 03:01:27 PM
A mongolian all cavalry army and an army consisting of 4 heroes with bodyguard are not remotely the same

Well i aimed at your statement that elite cavallery armies get weak later in the game.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown on February 17, 2009, 03:50:47 PM
A mongolian all cavalry army and an army consisting of 4 heroes with bodyguard are not remotely the same

Well i aimed at your statement that elite cavallery armies get weak later in the game.

I meant elite in the sense of "very small number of highly powerful warriors". You were talking about an army of around 4 heroes. A mongolian cavalry army is a very different beast
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Krass 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)
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: One Guy with a Meltagun 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chosen40k 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Wonko the Sane 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Talon Undecided 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...
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Locarno 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown 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?
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Talon Undecided 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Damnation 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Damnation 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'.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Derikari 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Illumini 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Ashman 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: speedy 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf 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.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Ashman 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: alexlopez11378 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
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: XCrusaderguy01 on March 11, 2009, 11:33:23 PM
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.

Bugs like this kept me from getting anywhere in Medieval. In Rome charging your units into battle was glorious, in Medieval 2 it was just plain annoying. Also, it seems odd to me how long it sometimes takes units to... kill each other in M2TW. While in Rome 2 units attacking each other would have soldiers pressing to get to the front, while in M2 they would spread our awkwardly, and fight in what always seemed to me to be a lazy fashion. Even your knights just kinda wander around aimlessly in a field full of peasants, occasionally deciding it might be a good idea to halfheartedly swing a sword at them.

I didn't play much of M2 at all, as I was so disappointed with the atmosphere of battles due to bugs like these. Don't get me wrong, I love the tactics and maneuvering of the TW series (played tons of Rome), and maybe I'll give it another try and find it isn't as bad as I remembered.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: PuNChIE on March 17, 2009, 04:08:36 PM
Gotta say medieval 2 total war, i always return to that game when newer games start getting dull. I also like Rome, but medieval is simply better in a lot of ways.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Cripple, Whose Corporeal Form is Now a Shade of Blue on March 24, 2009, 02:43:28 AM
I'll admit, I have had the cavalry problem mentioned by XCrusaderguy01 happen quite a few times (my computer seems to carry some hidden hatred of me, it always happens at the worst times). However, on most occasions it seems to work perfectly fine (i.e. mass slaughter of anything that dares to stand in the way of the iron-shod hooves of my glorious horsemen.)

Anyway, Medieval II is fun. The expansion adds 4 campaigns, each almost acting as a completely different game, I might add.
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Spirit of Kurnous on March 24, 2009, 06:40:51 AM
forget them both, empire total war is the way forward (or will be once the bugs are patched out) with naval combat and the ability to put those damn colonials in their place ;)
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Lonewolf on March 24, 2009, 06:46:24 AM
True enough but who buys me the monster machine to run the game on? My PC struggles with Rome on max unit size and graphics  :P
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Daedalus_Mk_V on March 24, 2009, 01:07:42 PM
True enough but who buys me the monster machine to run the game on? My PC struggles with Rome on max unit size and graphics  :P
My PC was middle-of-the-line three years ago, and I can play all three games well enough, though Empire only runs well on minimum settings (and isn't that pretty compared with Med 2. I don't know why it's slower...). I can't imagine that yours is far enough below me that you would have issues with it. Oh, and base nothing on the demo- loading times are less than half of that in the real game.

I'm loving Empire ATM. Though I am a little miffed at the ludicrous number of Galleons the Spanish toss around, given how trade-oriented England is, the actually functional diplomacy system (!) and much less annoying trade mechanics are quite nice. The one thing I'm not entirely thrilled at is the fact that gun-armed troops are worthless against melee-centric units without bayonettes (guns only kill at most 10-12 men per volley), which made early battles between my line of musketeers and the enemy's horde of unarmoured axemen one-sided on entirely the wrong side...
Title: Re: Rome: Total War vs. Medieval II Total War
Post by: Spirit of Kurnous on March 24, 2009, 08:15:28 PM
well muskets were crap weapons tbh, the only reason they took over from bows is because it was easier to train someone to be semi-effective with a musket than it was to train them with a bow.  so yeah loads of guys rushing in with axes would kill them horribly :D