The original Shogun and Medieval Total War are coming to Steam

Martok · June 10, 2015, 06:32:48 AM

So excited!! The announcement starts around the 6:30 mark:

It sounds like they may also have patched both games so that they'll run on modern rigs too. (Oh, I hope!) June 20 can't get here soon enough!! 8)

jomni · June 10, 2015, 07:36:42 AM

What for. Aren't they already surpassed by the current STW and MTW?

JasonPratt · June 10, 2015, 07:57:30 AM

Original STW is effectively the famous board game variously known as "Shogun" and (iirc) "Takeda" (since there's also another less detailed famous board game known as "Shogun"), plus a real-time combat layer if anyone cares about that. ;) STW2 isn't that board game per se anymore. So for purposes of playing that board game, the original still has value.

A ton of people still like the original MTW compared to MTW2 for various reasons, despite the ridiculous time-factors for moving pieces around on the strategy board. Among other things, it ports and updates the original "Shogun" board game rules to Medieval Europe/Med/NearMiddleEast. (And to England in the late Dark Ages via the expansion.) So not even counting the real-time combat (which again a lot of people still like compared to the feel of the MTW2 games), there's some value to the game as a board game.

Gusington · June 10, 2015, 08:27:47 AM

Love both games but I'm not sure I could go back to either after ~15 years.

I've tried and failed at that with Age of Kings II (HD), Wings, etc. and they were 'meh' at best. I would also much rather play Shogun 2 than the first one at this point. I don't mean that as a knock at the original either, but 15 years have passed and Shogun 2 just obliterates what came before...simple passage of time.

That said, both Shogun and Medieval hold special places in my gaming heart. If you've never played either, you're in for a treat.

Nefaro · June 10, 2015, 09:32:10 AM

Quote from: jomni on June 10, 2015, 07:36:42 AM
What for. Aren't they already surpassed by the current STW and MTW?

By far. I'd like to keep the nostalgia for those old dinosaurs locked away because they are quite primitive these days.

I can still go back and put some quality time in with some equally old RPGs but not these. Probably because they were in the early leaps & bounds of advancement, still in the teething stages of creating it's own genre, whereas others had already been established long before.

I'm sure other gamers have opposite tastes when it comes to which oldies they would rather revisit or remember as-is.

Martok · June 10, 2015, 11:59:40 AM

Quote from: jomni on June 10, 2015, 07:36:42 AM
What for. Aren't they already surpassed by the current STW and MTW?

Oh boy, where would I begin?

The Risk-style campaign map made for better strategic AI; the battle AI was likewise superior in the originals -- especially in the case of MTW (Shogun 2 did a much better job in this respect than Medieval 2). All playable factions were unlocked from the start. Lots more field battles and fewer sieges (although undeniably still no shortage of the latter). Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

Not that there weren't a ton of things the sequels did better, because there were. But the original two titles did have certain advantages over the later games other than "the nostalgia factor".

DennisS · June 10, 2015, 12:09:27 PM

Quote from: Gusington on June 10, 2015, 08:27:47 AM
Love both games but I'm not sure I could go back to either after ~15 years.

I've tried and failed at that with Age of Kings II (HD), Wings, etc. and they were 'meh' at best. I would also much rather play Shogun 2 than the first one at this point. I don't mean that as a knock at the original either, but 15 years have passed and Shogun 2 just obliterates what came before...simple passage of time.

That said, both Shogun and Medieval hold special places in my gaming heart. If you've never played either, you're in for a treat.

I agree 100% with this. I purchased X-COM: Enemy Unknown, and Terror From the Deep, and it just isn't the same.

Perhaps it was the sheer novelty and excellence of the gameplay...not sure.

I will say that I fired back up Master of Magic just the other day, and despite the now cheesy graphics, the gameplay is"blue"so awesome --to this day-- that I quite enjoyed it. Getting some "blue" magic, and conjuring up some phantom warriors to go along with your regenerating trolls is da BOMB!

Nefaro · June 10, 2015, 05:59:10 PM

Quote from: Martok on June 10, 2015, 11:59:40 AM
Quote from: jomni on June 10, 2015, 07:36:42 AM
What for. Aren't they already surpassed by the current STW and MTW?
Oh boy, where would I begin?

The Risk-style campaign map made for better strategic AI; the battle AI was likewise superior in the originals -- especially in the case of MTW (Shogun 2 did a much better job in this respect than Medieval 2). All playable factions were unlocked from the start. Lots more field battles and fewer sieges (although undeniably still no shortage of the latter). Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

Not that there weren't a ton of things the sequels did better, because there were. But the original two titles did have certain advantages over the later games other than "the nostalgia factor".

I disagree about the Risk style map being better. That had it's own problems. Specifically for armies to directly pass each other by when attacking between the same two regions. They'd just end up switching ownership/places. That they didn't run into each other was just a byproduct of those Risk-style campaign maps. I think they were attractive for their time but had drawbacks regarding moving armies in this way.

Likewise, the battle AI could be far too predictable. Even to the point where you give a move order to your army and the whole enemy army would immediately make a predictable move to match. More so than many latter TWs. That wouldn't bother me much but sometimes it would perpetually withdraw a short distance, every time you moved, and would just drag the battle on in doing so. That would get pretty annoying. Felt like herding cattle sometimes.

The early TWs had some of their own problems. They play a bit differently, mostly due to the campaign layer, so if you still enjoy them then that's great. I don't think I could anymore.

jomni · June 10, 2015, 06:42:51 PM

I remember using some AI morale mod in the first Shogun to address some issues.

Caffeinator · June 10, 2015, 11:16:48 PM

Medieval 1 was the last game in the series until Shogun 2 that had an actual, functional (note: not "Brilliant!", "functional") AI on both the strategic and tactical maps. I still play it often today.

Edit: I should have said "for the record, functional AI out of the box, no mods required".

Anguille · June 11, 2015, 04:02:07 AM

I am with Martok on this one....very glad to see them coming on steam. While i already have Shogun from gamersgate, Medieval wasn't available on electronic form before. The original TWs are the best for netbooks.

What i really, really don't like in the modern TWs is the micromanagement for Diplomats, spies and merchants. In Spartan (from Slitherine) these aspects were more abstracted which makes the strategy map much better imho. That's one of the aspect i really prefer with the board game interface, when you move diplomats, spies and so forth, it's less micromanagement.

JasonPratt · June 11, 2015, 07:51:36 AM

Anguille, which of course is completely due to the game(s) being a port of a specific board-game and its rules. O0

Again, if someone wants to play the Avalon Hill board game (I had the subsequent name wrong, it was renamed "Ikusa", and before that was renamed "Samurai Swords") on computer, I don't think there's still any way to do that. WotC currently has the license for the board game btw.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/ikusa