Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

MTW vs. CK

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(6473)

unmerged(6473)

Banned
Nov 21, 2001
259
0
Visit site
I just discovered Medieval Total War a couple of weeks ago and have played it constantly. I must say that it is pretty good.

Tell us if you think that CK will be better than MTW and if so how?

MTW has a good balance of strategic and tactical play. The assortment of various units is wide and historically accurate. There are individual leaders and commanders with various attributes of political and military ability. There are dynasties and alliances and an economic system at least as complex as Legion's. Overall, as I have said, I was fairly impressed. If anything, however, I find that it is too easy to win as any country faction even on the very hardest difficulty settings, which is a disappointment. Poor strategic AI, though the tactical combat AI seems pretty good.

Anyway, can CK beat MTW? If so, I would like to know how. Maybe CK will have 1000 little provinces, but that might just create a micromanagement hell. I loved EU and EU2. I hope that CK will be very much like them.
 
One quick side note. In MTW, there were secret joke names given to many of the Kievan Russian commanders. Some designer must have had a sense of humor. Most players in the West would not guess that their generals had names like Chicken (Kuritsa), Devil (Chort), Rabbit (Zayats), or Fag (Kozyol / Kozel). I wonder if CK will have some secret joke names like that or if they will be more historically accurate.
 
Sytass: I read the old lengthy discussion which you indicated to me. They seem to have covered almost everything about this topic--not much left to say on this, I suppose.
 
Like I said in the "Troop Types" thread, one of the biggest things that bothered me about MTW was its lack of a realistic diplomatic relations model when it comes to vassal sates/tributaries.

For instance, if youre England and want to control Scotland and Wales, you have to outright conquer and annex them. There is no option to march in, defeat them, and make them a "vassal state" rather than a direct fief. Thats just not realistic, at least before Edward I. Same with the Empire regarding Bohemia, Poland, & Hungary, or say one of the Castillian/Leonese kings who claimed the title of "Emperador" and established a sort of supremacy over the other Christian kings without directly ruling/annexing them.

Im sure there are other good examples, but Im too tired to think of any.
 
I sure hope CK is FAR better than MTW. MTW was nothing short of a huge dissapointment - primitive economy, terrible diplomacy, micromanagement hell, hundreds of units travelling all over Europe converting Ireland to Islam and such;) .
Things I expect from CK that MTW failed to deliver:
- working feudal and dynastic system, genealogical tables (that would be a blast if you could trace your character's genealogy in relation to other players throughout the game)
- historical events
- many diplomatic options (at least on the same scale with EU2)
- relations with ther Church should play a major role
 
MTW just plain sucked! Yes the battles were cool, but watching the tokens do the "hokey pokey" every turn was enough to have me reaching for the barf bag. It was sort of like some street con man playing 3 Card Monty except that it was "follow the princess if you can..."
 
Originally posted by Doc
MTW just plain sucked! Yes the battles were cool, but watching the tokens do the "hokey pokey" every turn was enough to have me reaching for the barf bag. It was sort of like some street con man playing 3 Card Monty except that it was "follow the princess if you can..."
Click to expand...


travelling princesses and kings were irritating, but I was really annoyed by all the missionaries and emissaries - there were virtually hundreds of them in any given game and you hd to be constantly on the lookout for some lost imam that over the course of several years could convert your 100% catholic province.;)
 
Originally posted by Doc
MTW just plain sucked! Yes the battles were cool, but watching the tokens do the "hokey pokey" every turn was enough to have me reaching for the barf bag. It was sort of like some street con man playing 3 Card Monty except that it was "follow the princess if you can..."
Click to expand...
Hehe, exactly.

MTW was, ultimately, a tactical game, with strategic elements thrown in for those who prefer campaigns instead of single battles. Still it was not a strategy game so comparing it to CK is kind of useless. :)
 
Originally posted by Martinus
Hehe, exactly.

MTW was, ultimately, a tactical game, with strategic elements thrown in for those who prefer campaigns instead of single battles. Still it was not a strategy game so comparing it to CK is kind of useless. :)
Click to expand...

Yep...but boy are the battles neat...

At least until you see some unit carrying weapons it never wouldve used.

Sometimes I think Id enjoy games alot more if Id never opened a history book. :p
 
Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
.......................

Sometimes I think Id enjoy games alot more if Id never opened a history book. :p
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. As long as the game gave me the flavor (as I imagined it) of whatever it was supposed to portray that was fine - of course it had to be reasonable as a game also. Even now though gameplay is the important thing. I just don't get the guys who get all upset because the picture of the battleship should have upright funnels instead of the slanting ones etc. Guess that is because I am not as into history as some folks.:) But the more realistic (i.e. less abstract) the better.
 
Speaking of M:TW has anyone here heard anything about the new ROME: Total War?. I have no idea how accurate it will be but, after seeing some of those screenshots I can only hope. In any case it makes the old M:TW look like crap.
 
Originally posted by The Leper King
Speaking of M:TW has anyone here heard anything about the new ROME: Total War?. I have no idea how accurate it will be but, after seeing some of those screenshots I can only hope. In any case it makes the old M:TW look like crap.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it seems like itd be alot harder to screw up the Roman TW than Medieval TW, doesnt it? I mean alot of the military stuff doesnt demand as much research as Medieval and is pretty straightforward, at least till you get into auxiliaries and such. Or am I just being optimistic?
 
There's also going to be a Viking Age expansion for MTW...
 
Originally posted by The Leper King
Speaking of M:TW has anyone here heard anything about the new ROME: Total War?. I have no idea how accurate it will be but, after seeing some of those screenshots I can only hope. In any case it makes the old M:TW look like crap.
Click to expand...

I read on the website that the diplomacy model is going to be much more in depth, also, which is what M:TW was really missing. Also, they're doing away with provinces and working on a city based system, instead, which should prove interesting (and, to a degree, more accurate, I believe). Definitely be worth checking out.

I'm playing M:TW a little now, mostly to get my medieval fix until CK comes out. Soon as I bring that little gem home, M:TW is going back on the shelf, I'm afraid.
 
Originally posted by wookiee25
I read on the website that the diplomacy model is going to be much more in depth, also, which is what M:TW was really missing. Also, they're doing away with provinces and working on a city based system, instead, which should prove interesting (and, to a degree, more accurate, I believe). Definitely be worth checking out.

I'm playing M:TW a little now, mostly to get my medieval fix until CK comes out. Soon as I bring that little gem home, M:TW is going back on the shelf, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

But...wasnt the Roman Empire broken up into provinces?

You mean they finally got their hands on a genre that has easy to make historically-correct maps and they chose to not use them? Great.
 
Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
You mean they finally got their hands on a genre that has easy to make historically-correct maps and they chose to not use them? Great.
Click to expand...

Now calm down, it's not that bad. From what I hear, the game takes place in the late Republic through early Imperial period. Basically the provinces were still being formed at the time, and cities are really the only consistent centers of administration. And, supposedly all or parts of Europe have been rendered in battle map, so that you can fight in the streets of 1st century BC Roma.
 
Originally posted by The Leper King
Now calm down, it's not that bad. From what I hear, the game takes place in the late Republic through early Imperial period. Basically the provinces were still being formed at the time, and cities are really the only consistent centers of administration. And, supposedly all or parts of Europe have been rendered in battle map, so that you can fight in the streets of 1st century BC Roma.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thanks.

No, I didnt mean it as a jab, just that when they picked Medieval Europe, it was probably harder to put an accurate map together spanning 400 years than it would be to make one of the Roman Empire. You can find good RE maps anywhere, and the borders were probably a bit more static than during the Middle Ages.
 
Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
You can find good RE maps anywhere, and the borders were probably a bit more static than during the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...

Well, the provinces (once they were founded) did stay for the most part static between 1st and 2nd centuries of the Empire (athough there was occasional division and reconstitution in some places, hence "Lycia," and "Pamphylia," becoming "Lycia & Pamphylia." ;) ) But what do you do when Diocletian comes around at the end of the 3rd century, and turns Hispaniae from 3 provinces to 5?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back