Rome vs. Medieval II Total War

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -
Well when I was at Target about 2 weeks ago, I was looking for DoW Platinum but unfortunately they were sold out. Just as I was about to throw my hands up in despair, I noticed Rome Total War Gold Edition sitting on the shelf with a clearance tag saying it was $5! So I snatched it up right away of course. Anyway, I've been enjoying it immensely, so it has drawn my attention to the newest in the series: Medieval II Total War. So my question is, which is better in your opinion and do you suggest that I buy Medieval II even though I already have Rome? I would assume that Medieval II is the better game (because it's newer) but I hear from many people that they thought that Rome was in fact much better.
#2 Posted by zopcet (106 posts) -
Who thought Rome was much better? Medieval 2 improves upon Rome in every way. Medieval 2 is much better. Only reason you would think Rome is better is if you really like the setting alot more.
#3 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -

Who thought Rome was much better? Medieval 2 improves upon Rome in every way. Medieval 2 is much better. Only reason you would think Rome is better is if you really like the setting alot more.zopcet

Heh, well as I said, that's what I assumed, but there were random people saying that Rome was better, and it didn't sound like they were saying it because of the setting, so that's why I was hesitant.

#4 Posted by fatshodan (2886 posts) -

Who thought Rome was much better? Medieval 2 improves upon Rome in every way. Medieval 2 is much better. Only reason you would think Rome is better is if you really like the setting alot more.zopcet

Rome has much better AI - while I think Medieval 2 is by far the better game overall (and it is - more of everything, everything is more refined and smoother, enhanced engine and a setting I prefer), both the diplomacy AI and the battle AI are quite broken.

Diplomacy is supposed to compliment combat, while in Medieval 2 the AI is so anti-diplomacy that all diplomatic wranglings will serve only to hinder you. You can expect just about every ally you ever make will stab you in the back, regardless of their chances of victory; you can expect just about no nation will ever bend the knee and become a vassal, even when faced with imminent destruction; you can expect the AI to pigheadedly attack particular provinces (regardless of their standing with the host nation) simply because they want it, and once you figure out who wants what, you can take advantage of it - as it is utterly predictable.

And the combat AI is just as ridiculous. They will stand and take barrages of arrows - you can whittle their numbers down from afar and they will happily stand there and take it. I always play as England, who have the prestigious longbowmen, so I experienced this problem pretty much every fight. You can also expect the AI to cavalry charge head first into spears, not guard their flanks (at all) and the whole game becomes a cavalry cluster****, with most fights being won based on who has more horses.

Medieval II is an excellent game, and if you enjoy the setting I think you should buy it without hesitating, regardless of the above, but all of the above were in the game until at least the expansion, where I stopped playing (so they may have been fixed by now), but the game is very flawed.

The original Medieval is by far the better game. If you can tolerate the aged visuals, and you don't own it, I'd say check out Medieval instead. If you're set on buying M2 - you should. It's a great game, but not without a few fairly crippling issues.

#5 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -
Wow thanks fatshodan! That was an excellent breakdown of the game! I'll probably get Medieval II then, but maybe I'll also give the original Medieval Total War a try too. ;)
#6 Posted by GUNpoint_ (1960 posts) -
i have RTW + the expansion, but i haven't reinstalled it yet. it was way too complicated for me, LOL. awesome game though.
#7 Posted by DrCortex (185 posts) -
Medieval is amazing, I love it. The first Medieval was really good, too. Same with Rome, but definitley pick up M2.
#8 Posted by Artekus (15700 posts) -

I suspect you already know my opinion but yes Rome is my preferred

.

#9 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -

I suspect you already know my opinion but yes Rome is my preferred

.

Lairdo91

Is it just the setting or are there some other things that make you prefer Rome?

#10 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -
Sorry for the double-post, but are there any mods that you guys would recommend for R:TW? Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying it immensely as it is, but I heard that there was a really good mod for it, but I can't remember what it is. :?
#11 Posted by Vfanek (7719 posts) -
Europa Barbaroum (or soemthing likeley) is the big one now. Google EB Rome or something.
#12 Posted by Forerunner-117 (8800 posts) -

Europa Barbaroum (or soemthing likeley) is the big one now. Google EB Rome or something.Vfanek

Thanks! Checking it out now!

#13 Posted by sindarlord (27 posts) -
Rome: Total Realism Platinum Edition is another mod, but it's generally agreed that Europa Barbarorum (v1.1) is better. Still, the new R: Total Realism (v7.0) should come out soon, which will help it catch up to EB. Anyways, can't go wrong with R:TR or EB, really. You could even have both. =)
#14 Posted by hamidious (1537 posts) -
Medieval 2 is even better, plus they removed stupid units like dogs and burning pigs. I am still disappointed with the way they portray eastern factions though.
#15 Posted by paul999 (240 posts) -
Medieval 2 of course, rome is too easy.
#16 Posted by sethbest (25 posts) -

Made an account just to comment here.

Though I do prefer the atmosphere in Rome Total War, there are many features that are superior to M2. Not to get too into the details of units and strategy options, I think that the main difference comes in AI, as mentioned before. In Rome, though the AI isn't quite as inteligent as i'd like in combat, at least on the campaign map it can surprise you, and provide some fun challanges. In Medieval 2 at first it seems like the AI is unpredictable but then you realize it just is unpredictable in its stupidity. Aliances formed and broken at random, seeming to plot their own downfall, attacking your massive empire with only 1 or 2 full armies, usualy full of militias and peasants, no coordination between allied nations, just to name a few annoying issues. This generaly leads to very repedative and boring games after a few hours of play, usualy less.

The only way to make things more challanging it seems is to (as i did) put an army on a boat (i was scotland) and bring them to capture a citadel or fortress (usualy defended by 1 unit) in the middle of enemy territory and see how long you hold out (i captured a fortress in north africa, that is constantly sieged by egypt or the mores and 80 turns in has yet to fall).

In both games the problem ai intelligence inbattle though is not at all alieved by setting it to hard mode, which just makes your forces retreat at random, even when your winning.

There are some mods that improve gameplay in m2, i prefer attack darth mod, but overall it is just too easy.

In both games I would like to see also changes in nations responses to you based on your power, if an aggressing super empire controls half of the world, maybe the other nations could put asside their differences and join forces against you, preventing the climax of the game being half way through, and declining all the way to your eventual victory.

#17 Posted by sethbest (25 posts) -
Oh yeah, one feature better in M2 than Rome is castles, though thats more from history than game design. Sure would be neat to have some more customization involved in them though.
#18 Posted by thusaha (14495 posts) -
I prefer Medieval 2.
#19 Posted by chesterocks7 (1572 posts) -
M2 is more polished than RTW but they are both excellent, so I would say play whichever game that has a setting you prefer.