Strategyking92 said:
lol, hell no. Probably the weakest in the series (besides MTW2) They just can't get the medeival formula right, IMO. |
While I think Rome is better than Medieval I, I fucking played Medieval for ages until I decided to move onto Rome. They both have some negatives and positives.
The lacking feature in Rome that's featured in Medieval is being able to start from certain ages. You could excuse Rome for being only 200 years, but it's still really fun to play France either when it was getting it's ass kicked by Britain, or after it becomes a formidable power. It's also more fun to be able to play with pre-developed cities already and play with high units, while your enemies are also on even ground.
The disadvantage/advantage of Medieval was how there'll usually be one or two major superpower that'll emerge eventually. While in Rome the only major super powers you really had to worry about were the Roman states, Egypt, and possibly Britania/Germania. In Medieval, when you get the hang of the game, you actually control the flow of the game, sabotaging super powers, and cutting the heads off of emerging powers before they become too long. Alliances felt slightly more worthwhile in Medieval, as nations were more hungry for war (which can be seen as a disadvantage).
I could go on and on. I never played Shogun, but Medieval was a good fucking game man, and Rome was a revamp of the series in the postive direction.
