Medieval Total War -- 2 questions for veterans
tbob
I'm interested in the turn-based campaign aspects but the real-time battle
stuff I found too chaotic and not much fun. Unfortunately, the demo does not
include any campaign stuff.
So, my questions are: How well does the computer do if you let it fight your
battles for you? Is the game worth playing if you don't play the battles?
tbob
robert_sanderson
"tbob" <tb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Gwa_b.39079$4o.57134@attbi_s52...
The computer fights your battles pretty well, I would generally allow it to
do battle which where going to be a cake walk. If the battle is in question
in anyway then you should fight it yourself. Also when deciding the outcome
if I remember correctly the computer was more concerned about sheer numbers
of troops rather then quality of troops. The one down side of letting the
computer fight your battles is the losses seem to be distrubuted amoung your
units, which can be annoying.
In my opinion if you are not going to do the battles your self, at least
some of them then the game is not really worth playing. The battles is are
the best part of the Totalwar series, but whatever floats your boat :).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Sheldon England
The AI is actually pretty good at fighting on your behalf.
When I started playing I used the AI a fair amount because I didn't
want to get bogged down. After a few efforts I found myself picking
and choosing my fights -- the easy ones I'd let the AI handle and the
fun/challenging/crucial battles were for micro-managing.
FWIW, I ended up really enjoying the tactical game much more than the
"Risk"-like campaign and political management. Gimme an army and the
high ground and I'll give you a victory! The Viking expansion added a
lot to the possibilities and "realism."
IMO.
- Sheldon, aka Pope-bane
Nats
aside but its far too limited to make it interesting on its own. The fun
about the battles is that they are like real life almost - they are chaotic
and thats how it really was (probably). Just learn to sit back and watch
your troops. Youll soon learn how to defend and attack effectively.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"tbob" <tb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Gwa_b.39079$4o.57134@attbi_s52...
R. Cohen
The computer does a very good job of fighting your battles. I like
the campaign game a lot more then others in this thread. I usually
fight the interesting battles real-time but many I just let the
computer fight. It's a decent game at the campaign level but that and
the real-time battles make it the classic it is. I.e. you are
missing a lot if you ignore the real-time battles. All the great
units you build and create really show their stuff in the real-time
battle. Conducting a cavalry charge of Gothic knights or an advance
by Turkish Jannisaries is, well, just fun.
I usually hate real-time games because of a lot of the same complaints
that you have. I think the pace of Medieval Total War makes it
"doable". I think with some practice you'll improve and enjoy the
real-time battles more. They become more manageable although the
chaotic element is always there.
castro
I think its worth getting even if you skip the battles. Im split about
evenly between playing the battles and just letting them go. I generally
dislike real-time stuff too but the battles are quite unlike typical RTS
clickathons once you understand how it works, so maybe youll end up liking
it after all. Some of the campaign elements are underdeveloped, such as
diplomacy. "Special" campaign units like emissaries and princesses are
pretty useless, at least for me.
John Secker
<cas...@spam.com> writes
fought by the AI. I guess that micromanaging a battle yourself might
make the difference in a very close situation, but like all the best
generals I like to ensure victory by getting there on the day of battle
with twice as many troops as the enemy. As someone else said, it's
whatever floats your boat, which is what makes this a great game.
--
John Secker
mcv
: On 25 Feb 2004 10:16:45 -0800 no one of any importance going by
: the name of, R. Cohen said about, "Re: Medieval Total War -- 2
: questions for veterans",
:
:>I usually hate real-time games because of a lot of the same complaints
:>that you have. I think the pace of Medieval Total War makes it
:>"doable".
: Plus you can always pause the battle, issue orders, then
: unpause it, and let it play out some more. By using the "P" key.
I do that a lot too. I used to skip most battles because I'm not too
fond of real-time games, but MTW is just really, really good at it,
and you can still pause and think if you're in trouble.
That said, most of the time the computer does a pretty good job on
the automatic fights, although there are a couple of notable differences.
Someone already mentioned that on automatic, all your units get some
attrition, while in real battles, some units survive intact while others
are wiped out. Another difference is in storming castles without
artillery; on automatic, you still wipe out a small enemy with little
trouble, but in a real battle, knocking that gate down without artillery
is a pretty tough job. It also matters a lot of the enemy has archers
or not.
mcv.
mcv
: In message <6Nd%b.358$S9...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, castro
:>"tbob" <tb...@home.com> wrote in message
:>news:Gwa_b.39079$4o.57134@attbi_s52...
:>> I've paged through a PDF of the manual for this game and played the demo.
:>> I'm interested in the turn-based campaign aspects but the real-time battle
:>> stuff I found too chaotic and not much fun. Unfortunately, the demo does
:>not
:>> include any campaign stuff.
:>>
:>> So, my questions are: How well does the computer do if you let it fight
:>your
:>> battles for you? Is the game worth playing if you don't play the battles?
:>I think its worth getting even if you skip the battles. Im split about
:>evenly between playing the battles and just letting them go. I generally
:>dislike real-time stuff too but the battles are quite unlike typical RTS
:>clickathons once you understand how it works, so maybe youll end up liking
:>it after all. Some of the campaign elements are underdeveloped, such as
:>diplomacy. "Special" campaign units like emissaries and princesses are
:>pretty useless, at least for me.
Agreed about the underdeveloped diplomacy. I'm currently playing late
Byzantium, and a website mentioned that spies and assassins were the
key to victory for late Byzantians. No idea why, really. The key to
victory, no matter what faction you play, is always the sea. Fiddling
with emissaries and spies is nice, but I really don't see much effect
on the game overall, except that you need as many people to stay neutral
or allied, and emissaries can bribe rebels. I completely fail to see
the use of spies and assassins.
: I agree - I played this mostly as a campaign game, with the battles all
: fought by the AI. I guess that micromanaging a battle yourself might
: make the difference in a very close situation, but like all the best
: generals I like to ensure victory by getting there on the day of battle
: with twice as many troops as the enemy. As someone else said, it's
: whatever floats your boat, which is what makes this a great game.
I recently did a battle where a few hundred of my troops were vastly
outnumbered by a few thousand rebels. I wouldn't dare to do a battle
like that on automatic, but in a real battle, he can't field his entire
army, while you're superior quality slaughters everything he does field.
mcv.
mcv
[snip all]
Great, this thread got me back to playing MTW, and to playing more and
bigger battles myself, instead of on automatic. I discovered one very
good reason to avoid big battles: the game tends to crash in the middle
of them. This game really needs a way to save the game during a battle.
mcv.
Nathan Engle
I've had improved stability since installing Viking Invasion.
I'd still love to see an in-battle save, but even if it didn't
show up until Rome:TW then I think I'd still make it through
the summer.
--
Nathan Engle Computer Support, IUB Psych Dept
nen...@indiana.edu http://mypage.iu.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
mcv
: mcv wrote:
:> [snip all]
:>
:> Great, this thread got me back to playing MTW, and to playing more and
:> bigger battles myself, instead of on automatic. I discovered one very
:> good reason to avoid big battles: the game tends to crash in the middle
:> of them. This game really needs a way to save the game during a battle.
:
: I've had improved stability since installing Viking Invasion.
: I'd still love to see an in-battle save, but even if it didn't
: show up until Rome:TW then I think I'd still make it through
: the summer.
The tech support people advised me to kill all other process, including
background processes (which is stupid because any program should be
able to deal with those, and speed and memory really aren't an issue
here) and set my desktop resolution to 800x600 (from the 1600x1200 I
normally use). Strangely enough, it does indeed make the game more
stable, but I really don't like to do all of that before I can play.
mcv.
Nathan Engle
> The tech support people advised me to kill all other process, including
> background processes (which is stupid because any program should be
> able to deal with those, and speed and memory really aren't an issue
> here)
Speed and memory aren't the only things that background
processes can degrade. Before I started running Adaware
the main ways that I knew I had spyware on a system were
otherwise unexplainable lock-ups.
> and set my desktop resolution to 800x600 (from the 1600x1200 I
> normally use). Strangely enough, it does indeed make the game more
> stable, but I really don't like to do all of that before I can play.
Considering that I spent upwards of $400 to jack up my
system enough to be able to run TW, I trust you'll understand
why I'd go along with them if they told me I had to drop my
trousers and paint my bottom blue...
Aquila
"mcv" <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:403f82d7$0$571$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
I've also found that in auto, defending a castle is a lot easier, and you
enemy tends to get wiped out!
mcv
: "mcv" <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
And bridge attacks are really, really hard. Terrain makes an enormous
difference in real battles. Does anyone know how much they matter in
automatic battles?
mcv.
mcv
: name of, mcv said about, "Re: Medieval Total War -- 2 questions
: for veterans",
:
:>Does anyone know how much they matter in
:>automatic battles?
:
: None that I am aware, it's just a number crunch, your
: troops vs the enemy, the rating of the commanders, and type of
: troops, that's it.
So when you're attacking in difficult terrain, automatic battle
resolution is probably a lot more advantageous than a real battle.
(And when you're defending, a real battle is better than automatic
resolution, obviously.)
mcv.
R. Cohen
Both are correct there. Bridge and castle attacks are much easier in
automatic mode. I kind of hate bridge attacks myself. Having two
bridges to attack over is sort of interesting though.
>
> mcv.