MDRud216 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I havent played any of the games but I want to get one of them, I wanted to ask someone who has played both Medieval and Rome, which one is better? graphics go to Rome I am sure but I have a fascination with the Medieval Period as well, so: let me hear your opinions and I guess this could be a thread to generally discuss the games as well if anyone wants to because I would also like a little info on how the games are structured with the empire building and battle contorl. There was only so much I could get outof the articles i read. thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Why not just get both? The medieval version is cheap enough it's almost free at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDRud216 Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 you may have something there!! :P well if it is that cheap I might as well, still any insights on the workings of these games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icefiddell Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Well as its a thread about the total war games i might as well ask a question. In Rome did anyone else have this problem, when you take over a settlement/town/city, what ever it usually has a positive income. But after awhile of controlling it the income goes into the minus's this kept happening to me and i coudn't figure out to correct it :wacko: Oh and MDRud216 i agree with Peregrine get both, i have to say i like Rome the best but really thats mostly due to the battles, but Medieval is a great game and in some areas i think it beats Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallernotsowelsh Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Try increasing the tax, and decrease the garrison as much as you can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valdir Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 How about all three? MedievaL, Rome AND Shogun? I've played all of them and consider them good games. I just really suck at the empire managing part. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzdbox Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Ok, first I will try to answer the topic question.I have played both Rome:Total War and Medieval:Total War (with the Viking Invasions addon pack). Honestly, I don't know wich one would be the best. They are both truly awesome games.Let me try and pick out the differences. In Medieval, you get more factions to choose from in general. There are many more units overall than in Rome. Some functions that you have in Medieval (like for example the Pope for the christians, crusades and jihads) don't exist in Rome (but in Rome the romans do have senate missions). Rome obviously has much better graphics than Medieval, but Medieval's graphics aren't that bad. Rome has a MUCH deeper array of diplomatic options than Medieval. Rome also has more in-depht information about towns, why they are happy, what is bringing in money and what's nabbing it away, ect ect.In battle, Medieval in general has more units overall, as said above (wich results in more carnage), while Rome has prettier graphics, as said above (wich results in more beautiful carnage). Rome's units also have specific abilities (like legionnaries forming the testudo).Both games have a heavy focus on tactics in the battlefield. The easy answer is to buy both games. I don't know about Shogun, I've never tried it.The hard answer is to look at what you really want. I believe if you prefer quantity then nab Medieval (it gives me the impression of a slightly longer game), if you prefer quantity then get the other one, Rome (because of the nicer graphics and all the new functions that really stand out).Otherwise, take the one based on your favourite time period. In wich case, if I'm not mistaked, means Medieval. Now, let me try and answer the other question.Well as its a thread about the total war games i might as well ask a question. In Rome did anyone else have this problem, when you take over a settlement/town/city, what ever it usually has a positive income. But after awhile of controlling it the income goes into the minus's this kept happening to me and i coudn't figure out to correct it :wacko: Oh and MDRud216 i agree with Peregrine get both, i have to say i like Rome the best but really thats mostly due to the battles, but Medieval is a great game and in some areas i think it beats Rome.Well, the income isn't really going in the minus. What you see is simply the difference between money receive and money spent. You receive money from taxes, trade and farming, mostly. You spend money on mantaining your army, paying your generals, corruption, construction, and unit recruitment.Take a good look at army maintnance and general's salary. Each city pays an amount that covers these 2 expenses that are proportional to the cities' size. For example, a town with 500 people will spend 200, while a town with 5000 people will spend 2000, one with 20000 will spend 8000, ect ect. If your city is growing too fast and is not making enough income, then you will se a negative value. Armies don't care if an individual town is making a profit, they just wanna get payed, no? What it means in a few words is that the city is spending more than it's making.If you want to get rid of it, then decrease your army size. Else, reduce the population of the city that bothers you (remove garrison, put taxes at max, wait for rebellion, then kill the opposition and exterminate the population - cruel but popular tactic), or increase the population of all the other cities under your command. Hope this makes a few things more clear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallernotsowelsh Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Another tip for reducing population, buy a load of peasant units, and take them out and disband them :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icefiddell Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Oh thanks, i'll be sure to try those methods. Rome really has gone all out on the diplomatic side of things, it was easier controlling provinces in Medieval :P but definatly one good thing for me is getting rid of the princesses and so on, after awhile in Medieval the map did seem to clutter like hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Laguna Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 You could get them all as Peregrine suggested. I have Medieval (w/o Viking Invasion) and Rome. Personally I like Rome better. Not because of the graphics, actually I hate the graphics since it forces me to play at about 15fps (I estimate), but because it is a more refined game overall. If you decide to get Medieval make sure to get it with the Viking Invasion expanison pack (you should find a box containing both). Also, if you get Shogun, get the Warlord's Edition, which contains both the orginal Shogun and the Mongol Invasion expansion pack. Also Medieval has one advantage over Rome. Modifications, there quite a few very refined mods for Medieval Total War. For example Napoleonic Total War, though the mod team responsible for that mod is currently working on one for Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.