Total War Mobile

[Skybird]

I did not know until last week, but there are conversions of Rome and Medieval II to Android and iPad. Rome is available on a number of older tablets, too, while the new Medieval II runs only on newer high end tablets.

I have tested Rome now in three 1-2 hours long sessions. And I am very surprised how good the portation works! Really, do not think of this as a toned down typical mobile game application of limited playing value, like typical for many Android games. This is the PC version put onto a tablet, and I miss nothing, some things even handle more intuitively, while some chnages in the handling needing a short time to ge tused to, but then work surpeisngly good and intuitive, too. You get not a smalle rversion of the game, but the original game, including the monumental battles and full strategy map gameplay. I am running this on a Samsung S6 Tablet with 10" screen. I suffered not a single crash, even in very huge battles. I immediately felt at home in this game again.

I'm very pleased! To me, Rome 1, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 always were the best games in the Total War series. The price of 10 Euros is fair.

Medieval 2 was relesaed just a fe wmonths ago and may still need some patches, I do not know. Rome seems to eb aorund since 3 years, and as I said, it ran stable for me so far, Total Stability: Rome, so to speak. I plan to get Medieval 2 as well once I am through with my Rome campaign. I loved these games very much, and still do so.

The power of a PC from 15-20 years ago, now in the size of a 300 grams pocket book on your lap. Technology really has run away...

[Sonarman]

Yes, the company who do the conversions Feral Interactive have become very skilled at porting PC games over to tablets, Alien Isolation and Company of Heroes are also fantastic ports.

[Skybird]

I am considering X-Com 2 "AllInclusive".

For the Blackout time when the PC wont run anymore, only my solar panels' power to charge the mobiles.

BTW, i just learned that Medieval 2 and Rome 1 can be acitvated via Steam if you have CD kleys, and that then a W10-compatible verison sgets downlaoded form Steam for free. I did not know they did this, and tried it. Both games work on PC for me again, its greeat, I evenj got quite some DLCs I did not have back in those lon g ago years.

These two and Shogun 2 I liked best. And yes, they still play grrrreat. Oh how many nights have I sunk into these... Nice to see them all back on duty.


I played Alien. In VR. Man, that gave me the creeps.

[HunterICX]

I play the remastered Rome Total War on PC, runs smooth, looks sharp while not changing to much so I don't recognize it as the original.


Glad they brought it out as I had trouble trying to run the original on modern PC's , it ran but crashed and ran very poorly.


I hope we'll see Medieval II remastered for PC too soon which I think they'll do.

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Rome 1, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 always were the best games in the Total War series.

That's literally true I think, were being the key word.

Rome 1 was my first, Med 2 was my intravenous drip for years. Shogun 2 was great too, especially with Fall of the Samurai, but it also suffered from three egregious missteps -- realm divide, agent spam and that terrible, no good trade node nonsense. Even Med 2, as good as it was (especially the trait system) had the Pope, which was a troublesome concept at best. Rome 1 was transcendent for it's time, but for me has not aged all that well. But that strat map music was glorious

But in 2022 I think all of these games have been surpassed by some margin by the more recent entries in the series. Rome 2 is leaps and bounds beyond what Rome 1 achieved. Attila is a better game from nearly every meaningful perspective, campaigns, characters, factions, mechanics and right on down the line.


I recently did four runs through Three Kingdoms and it's phenomenal, a game so good I struggle to identify any weaknesses. And then there's Warhammer. For years I was a historical Total War snob, ignoring things like the Middle Earth mod for Med 2 in favor of more realistic ones like Stainless Steel. I noticed Warhammer 1 but kept my nose high. But I could not ignore the universal praise given to Warhammer 2 and I bought it.

It quickly became my favorite TW title of them all, which is quite the feat considering how highly I rate the other game in the series. CA is hamstrung in effect when designing historical titles, after all there's a history to adhere to. But in Warhammer, the devs were freed of those shackles and could let their imagination run wild. The result was a fantastic game, with each and every faction so unique, and it easily has the best replay value in the series.

Now, with the release of the Immortal Empires campaign (it stitches together all maps and factions from all the WH titles) I have picked up WH3.

I've played every Total War game aside from Shogun and Medieval, and the two Saga titles. As much as I like Shogun 2 and Med 2 (a Med 3 would be divine, and might just be coming next), the fact is, for me, these games just don't compete with the newest titles, which expand and improve on virtually every concept, feature and mechanic.

Matter of fact, I recently made a post on a different forum ranking all the Total War games I've played. I only picked up WH3 a few days ago, and its place is yet to be determined.


1. Warhammer 2 -- As much as I like many of the historical titles, they are in effect hamstrung by their historicalocity. Great games, but Warhammer 2 takes that leash off the designers. There is still lore to adhere to (I guess, I wouldn't know anything about that), but the fantasy nature allows the devs to run wild. Each and every faction is so unique, beyond what is possible when you're constrained by history. The Mortal Empires battle royale mode is Total War at it's most free. In the Steam era (since 2006 for me) no other TW game comes close in hours played. The most replayable Total War game.

2. Attila -- While WH2 was clearly the top one for me, the next tier is much more muddled. I'm picking Attila because of the great campaign. It's strategic in a way others fall short of, has interesting and unique factions, varied units and has the only horde-style play I've enjoyed in the series. Has the best settlement battles in Total War.

3. Three Kingdoms -- Maybe some recency bias at play here. But in some ways it's a perfectly balanced offering, with each of the core features well-implemented, innovative and polished. The campaign is fun, the dynastic and character side is good and it feels like each facet is in the right place. I struggle to identify TW3K's weaknesses. Well-rounded. Has the best recruitment model in the series.

4. Napoleon -- I seem to rank this one higher than most players do. I like the era, and I think gunpowder is the sweet spot for Total War gameplay. It suffers a bit perhaps for it's narrow scope, but this can also be seen as a plus. I like the replenishment and logistics models, and it may be faint praise, but it had my favorite naval side in the series. Nappy is the most tactical game in the series.

5. Rome 2 -- I held off on this one for years. Ancient Rome ain't my jam, but I liked it a lot anyway once I gave it a go. The grand campaign is sprawling and ambitious -- and pretty good -- but it was the companion campaigns like Rise of the Republic that I liked the most. Has the best battle maps in Total War.

6. Medieval 2 -- Honestly this is probably my first choice. If Med 2 were remade with modern conventions that we take for granted in the series today, this one would sit top of the pile. I love the era, the shift from steel to gundpowder. I like the unique recruitment constraints, where units can only be recruited and replenished in the right towns. Battle outcomes in Med 2 have more weight as a result. It feels more 'operational' than the other ones. Specializing settlements as military or civilian is great. We really need a new version of this, and it would seem we might just do. Has the best trait system in the series. (But the Pope sucks)

7. Shogun 2 -- This one should probably sit higher in this list. Dripping with era authenticity, it suffers for three huge misses in my view. Realm Divide, agent spam and the terrible, horrible, no good naval trade thing. But the battles are great, the tech tree is too. And with the fall of the Samurai expansion the game got way better. I mean come on, I can build railroads and bombard tactical battles with my ships offshore. FotS bridges the transition from blades to barrels resulting in the sort of asymmetric warfare that I like so much. Has the best DLC (Fall of the Samurai) in the series.

8. Warhammer -- It's worse in every way compared to WH2. But at the same time it has many of the same things that make WH2 such a good game.The factionality, or faction unique-ness, that shines in both games. Warhammer 2 took what this game started and improved it. Has the best collateral role to play in Total War -- making Mortal Empires bigger haha.

9. Empire -- I wanted to like it more than I do. The campaign is just too ambitious, spanning the globe. The much-hyped naval stuff fell flat. But it's gunpowder and tactical on the field of battle. Gunpowder TW games aren't just a matter of mashing your troops against the other guy's. Terrain and maneuver feel more central to tactical battles in gunpowder titles. There is nothing about Empire that is the best in the series, but it looked impressive on the battlefield with the smoke and colorful troops.

10. Rome 1 -- My first TW game. No bounce from that. Like Rome 2, the era doesn't inspire me. Compared to today's TW games it is rather crude and simple. But it was all so cool for me in its time. Has the best strat map music in the series.

[Skybird]

I have Rome 2, and that was what ended my love with Total War. The AI in the tactical battles was terrible, all units tend to start rushing towards a centre of gravity despite all your tactical planning, and left the efforts of the player to project influence in the battles in vein, no more it was rock, paper, scissors, but Moorhuhn-uniformity, and I ended up to have all units ordered running towards one and the same spot because that was what they would do anyway, and what the enemy AI did also, and unit dfferences would not make differences for their behaviour, and then it all degenerated into a pixel-brew at the centre of the aciton and no unit cohesion left at all. Pure arcade slaughtering. Maybe they repaired this later on, but if so, I missed it because I did not care for it anymore. This was not my own impression only, but a common criticism backc at the times of release. Compared to the battles in earlier titles, I considered it to be a mess. That was what decided it for me, and as a result I also had a serious decline of interest to come to terms with the changes in the strategic map play.

I bought Rome Remastered a couple of days ago, in a sale, and once I am done with my current match of Medieval 2 will try that one. Its said to have healed several of the strategic map play issues of the older title, repaired some of the broken game mechanics.

BTW, I still have the memory and impression that the most differentiated tactical play was to be had in the very first game of the series, Shogun 1, and also Medieval 1. Just the bitmap graphics keep me from playing them today. Flanking, height differences, obedience to orders I gave, in my memory at least were superior to what later games offered. Much more tactical moving-forth-and-back to win a battle while also keeping losses low.


Rome-1's bigest weakness to me was also its biggest attractiveness, that was keeping the Gallic and Germanic hordes from crossing a bridge with just a phalanx of hoplites. Very satisfactory to keep them blocked and picking them away with archers from the flanks. But then, it happened too often and then became repetitive.

[Threadfin]

Yeah, melee AI is a bit crude, even after twenty years. The gunpowder titles are best for this. But in melee titles the presence of player artillery is a magnet for the AI formation and here they come.

So while I'll concede that battlefield AI may not be much of an advance, everything else -- factions, maps, campaigns, mechanics, trait system, settlement battles, building mechanics, diplomacy, economies, recruitment, replenishment, animations, objectives and much more -- is far better, for me anyway in the most recent entries compared to the games that came in the 2000s.

I hold those games in very high regard, but I can't objectively say they are better games than Rome 2, Attila, Three Kingdoms and Warhammer 2 and 3.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I bought Rome Remastered a couple of days ago, in a sale, and once I am done with my current match of Medieval 2 will try that one. Its said to have healed several of the strategic map play issues of the older title, repaired some of the broken game mechanics.

Once you do it's worth checking out this mod for it :




it's still 0.5.2 last time I checked but the added content is substantial and plays like a different game imo.

BTW, I still have the memory and impression that the most differentiated tactical play was to be had in the very first game of the series, Shogun 1, and also Medieval 1. Just the bitmap graphics keep me from playing them today. Flanking, height differences, obedience to orders I gave, in my memory at least were superior to what later games offered. Much more tactical moving-forth-and-back to win a battle while also keeping losses low.

Not forget the strategic play in the original Shogun (can't comment on the original Medieval since I never managed to obtain that game).


The economy was the harvest which you gained income from 1 every 4 turns (4 seasons of the year) this added so much planning in your spending which added a lot which the later games lacked imo and I agree with the tactical play you mentioned...it felt having more of an impact depending on the troops composition you brought and the landscape.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Once you do it's worth checking out this mod for it :




it's still 0.5.2 last time I checked but the added content is substantial and plays like a different game imo.

Thanks for the heads-up, I put that on my list with radar contacts. First I will however try default RR, of course.

Do you know how thee mod handles save games? Must there be a relaunch from scratch (year 1) every time a new version is installed? I fear so, which could be a problem if one, like I usually do, play long term matches over severla months (when I play a couple of days, and then not again for some weeks, and then again log in a weekend or a week andn then pause again).

In general I do not play that fanatically and intensely anymore like I did years ago.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thanks for the heads-up, I put that on my list with radar contacts. First I will however try default RR, of course.

It's what I did first, play it like I remembered it when I had the first time and could barely run it on my PC back then.

Do you know how thee mod handles save games? Must there be a relaunch from scratch (year 1) every time a new version is installed? I fear so, which could be a problem if one, like I usually do, play long term matches over severla months (when I play a couple of days, and then not again for some weeks, and then again log in a weekend or a week andn then pause again).

I believe small updates should be compatible but I'd say large updates to the mod may come with a warning that it's not save game compatible if you happen to be running a campaign already.


I usually don't seriously invest much time running a campaign with mods untill it reaches 1.0 , usually after that the updates are small, savegame compatible and large updates are far in between allowing me to play a lot of the campaign.

In general I do not play that fanatically and intensely anymore like I did years ago.

Same here, how time flies by and things change. I may just be getting older

[Threadfin]

I skipped the remaster. Rome 1 was a great game in its day, and I'm sure the remaster made improvements, but the release was troubled, they rather botched it, and then went back to the drawing board and I suspect its better now. Mods muddle the equation and can overcome the worst parts and make it a better game.

But it's still ancient Rome, and I like Rome 2.

Having played Warhammer 3 now for about 80 hours I have to say CA has laid out a great foundation. The much-derided Realm of Chaos campaign put me off for a while. Once Immortal Empires was released I bought it. That campaign is unbelievably ambitious, battle royale, Total War style. 276 factions on turn 1! I finished one of those as Cathay, and now am doing a Kislev run in RoC. Whatever complaints there were at release have either been smoothed over or I just don't agree, because I think this campaign is a blast.

Having a great time with it, and I'd insert WH3 in second place, just below Warhammer 2. As good as the foundation is, WH3 isn't nearly so robust. But it it follows the same trajectory as WH2 did, there will be a steady stream of DLC, patches and improvement and I suspect Warhammer 3 will occupy top spot before too long. There are so many improvements, to the mechanics, factions, UI, and well, everything, that I think it will soon be the best Total War title, if it isn't already.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

I skipped the remaster. Rome 1 was a great game in its day, and I'm sure the remaster made improvements, but the release was troubled, they rather botched it, and then went back to the drawing board and I suspect its better now. Mods muddle the equation and can overcome the worst parts and make it a better game.

But it's still ancient Rome, and I like Rome 2.

Having played it lots at release I can't recall it being botched.
outside the claims it was botched because any Windows version before Wind 10 wasn't being supported.
They didn't go back on that one and Win10 is still a requirement.


the UI got some complaints but that's a "personal" things I'd find. I'm indifferent about that. Doesn't look better or worse then the original..but again that's a personal opinion.


It made improvements and also made those improvements optional if you wish to play it like it was with the original.


For me the upgrade to remaster was just 10€ because I already owned the original on Steam. A fair price to get the game to run properly again.

[Threadfin]

Maybe so, and as someone who did not buy the remaster I can only go from what I've read, and a couple friends who did purchase it. On release the instability was a major issue, but they patched it and maybe it no longer is?

One friend called the UI the "most amazingly unintuitive mess of a UI that was ever made worse through conscious decision".

Another friend said the agent play was intentionally made worse than it was in 2004 or whenever Rome 1 released.

The devs seemed to think that clicking over here which would bring up a window over there, which you then needed to click away to return to the UI over here. As if the devs think that moving your mouse across the screen is compelling gameplay, and it wouldn't be my first complaint with this sort of thing in the series, so maybe not exclusive to the remaster.

Whatever the actual state of the release, and whether it affected everyone, or not, I just remain unconvinced by this release and no worries there. If folks enjoy the game that's great. For me though it was the remaster we didn't need, and one which failed to offer enough compelling improvement to warrant a purchase.

Perhaps the best thing that might come out of it is similar treatment for Medieval 2. CA filed for a copyright for Medieval 3, which doesn't guarantee a game, but it's at least an indication they are looking in this direction. With that in mind a remaster is probably not in the cards, but you never know.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

Maybe so, and as someone who did not buy the remaster I can only go from what I've read, and a couple friends who did purchase it. On release the instability was a major issue, but they patched it and maybe it no longer is?

Instabillity was never an mayor issue, I played 60+ hours and never had a crash happen (without mods). Other I know that played the game have the same experience.

One friend called the UI the "most amazingly unintuitive mess of a UI that was ever made worse through conscious decision".

Perhaps my experience with worse UI's made me not hate it or like it when I played the Remaster. I believe the UI's design is brought over from the Mobile port it originally came from.

Another friend said the agent play was intentionally made worse than it was in 2004 or whenever Rome 1 released.

The Agent playing was never compelling and this goes personally for all total war games. All I really used where spies&assasins since they had a purpose to give you intel and with a bit of luck kill of a general. So my experience in the Remaster is the same as the Original so mainly just "Meh".

The devs seemed to think that clicking over here which would bring up a window over there, which you then needed to click away to return to the UI over here. As if the devs think that moving your mouse across the screen is compelling gameplay, and it wouldn't be my first complaint with this sort of thing in the series, so maybe not exclusive to the remaster.

I agree with you there and yes I do personally find the UI's in the TW series a hit & miss.

Whatever the actual state of the release, and whether it affected everyone, or not, I just remain unconvinced by this release and no worries there. If folks enjoy the game that's great. For me though it was the remaster we didn't need, and one which failed to offer enough compelling improvement to warrant a purchase.

I'm just glad I can fully enjoy the game, I had luck with the original up to 10 years ago where it ran smooth and didn't crash. After that best it could do is to run choppy, low FPS and crash a lot. The Remaster fixed that and I can again fully enjoy one of my personal favorites in the TW series.