MII:TW - Disappointed?

[Lonely Soldier]

Are you disappointed with the rehash of the Medieval setting for the next Total War game? I know I'm not! I've always wanted to see the great battles of the Middle Ages fought in glorious 3d!

That said, is there a setting people would have preferred to see in stead of the Medieval one?

For example:
Napoleonic

Chinese Warring States

Fantasy?

[Narayanese]

Certainly not!
I those terrific late mediaeval shots make my mouth water.
Plus it makes it more likely that they get their historical research right.

[x-dANGEr]

Of course not. Imagine it, Medieval wars in a more glorius engine.. Ouch! That shall own..

[red comyn]

Im in the NO camp too. Think the added flexability on the campaign map alone is worth it.... and its just been too long since ive been excommunicated, used to happen to me all the time.

[King Ragnar]

It all depends if they can get the same great gameplay that MTW had, if its just like RTW but with new skins and map etc but with the same sh**t gameplay, everyone will be dissapointed.

[tai4ji2x]

eh, i'd have liked something else, but i'm willing to wait and see.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

Does anyone know when the game is predicted to be released?

[boastj]

Released Christmas 2006

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

A game set around ancient China would have bored the arse off me to be honest. I want to see Medieval with the graphics it deserves

[Monarch]

I wouldn't have been bored by ancient China. I am glad it's not Napolean though. Since I've not played MTW it's not like a sequel for me, it's a whole new game :D

So yeah, I can't wait until Amazon let me preorder it.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The new map may have China in it, we don't know everything yet. But if they have China in the map they have to have at least 1 faction there. But you never know.

[CrackedAxe]

I think MTW II is a great idea. all the time I've played RTW I've wanted to see those graphics draped across MTW (with MTW's gameplay, of course!).

What I really wanted next, though, was WORLD total war. I don't mean a game set in the future or WWI or WWII, but a continuation of where MTW left off, right up to and including the Napoleonic era.

Think of it, a mammoth game that encompasses the new world on it's map, and all the conflict between European nations there, as well as local factions (native Americans, Aztecs etc). A game that also includes the conflict between England, France, Spain and those nation's naval and land battles. Think of the types of conflict and wepaons of the Spanish Armada, the English civil war, the conquest of the new world, the Napoleonic wars, among many other conflicts. The Americans could even emerge as a later faction.

The technology would start with pikes, swords, and cavalry then go on to include muskets, cannons, bayonet charges. Local new world factions could even have horse archers and the like. You could have EVERYTHING!

C'mon CA, you know you want to tackle this!

[Attalus]

OMG..MTW on steriods!

I hope they take the perfect TW game and....LEAVE IT EXCTLY AS IT WAS!!!, but with better looking graphics.
The old fmv's from STW'd be nice too, but I could live without that.
I do sort of miss the 'ol throneromm too.

The possibilities are endless...fingers crossed!

[Mahrabals apprentice]

I think MTW II is a great idea. all the time I've played RTW I've wanted to see those graphics draped across MTW (with MTW's gameplay, of course!).

What I really wanted next, though, was WORLD total war. I don't mean a game set in the future or WWI or WWII, but a continuation of where MTW left off, right up to and including the Napoleonic era.

Think of it, a mammoth game that encompasses the new world on it's map, and all the conflict between European nations there, as well as local factions (native Americans, Aztecs etc). A game that also includes the conflict between England, France, Spain and those nation's naval and land battles. Think of the types of conflict and wepaons of the Spanish Armada, the English civil war, the conquest of the new world, the Napoleonic wars, among many other conflicts. The Americans could even emerge as a later faction.

The technology would start with pikes, swords, and cavalry then go on to include muskets, cannons, bayonet charges. Local new world factions could even have horse archers and the like. You could have EVERYTHING!

C'mon CA, you know you want to tackle this!

I would love to see this aswell, scramblimng for colonies and the like sounds fun.There either have to a gargantuan map or very few settlements per country.
But I am very much looking forward to MTWII. So long as the AI wises up. The opposition in single player RTW has always had me laughing/chewing on my fist/shouting at the stupid stupid stupid AI phalanx manouveres.
This new game is either going to be awesome (MTW with better graphics than RTW) or a MASSIVE dissapointment :2thumbsup:

[teja]

A new MTW will be great. I love this setting. The series had been best working in ages where hand to hand combat was required. With Napoleonic settings firepower became mainly part of a battle. For me I would like to see the following ages for a TW game:

MTW
(as read above)

30 Years War
(1618 till 1648, where whole central europe was on fire. A war that finally broke the Spanish domination in Europe and the future of Germany. It lead to the age of the French absolute monarchie.. Lois XIV)

Napoleonic
(will be fine too, because hand to hand combat is still a bit alive)

I dislike the chinese art of war, so no need for me :p

[Ludens]

Released Christmas 2006
So we should probably expect it around august 2007 ~;) .

The screenshots are beautiful, and the features sound nice, but I am rather sceptical. The initial screens we saw of R:TW were also nicer than what we've got (and I am not refering to the movie on the VI disk). A map extending to America sounds good, but why just the Aztecs? And why is nothing said about the R:TW's main faillings: battle speed, A.I. and hard-coded restraints to modding?

But no news does not necessarily means bad news, so I suscribed to the newsletter and I'll probably buy it.

[TinCow]

I'm very happy they chose to remake MTW. TW games just aren't made for gunpowder and the other suggested areas just don't inspire me as much. Chinese Warring States, Greek City States, etc. just don't do it for me quite as much as medieval. Imagine... decent castle sieges for once!

[SirGrotius]

It sounds great to me too, though as another poster stressed, gameplay, gameplay, gameplay is key!

I wonder what the expansion pack will be...

I don't think it will be Vikings again, just a little too boring and too similar.

I'm thinking Renaissance/Early Modern warfare would be cool. I like a little gunpowder, and all the costumes! CA would love that.

[Doug-Thompson]

I think CA realized that having one or two big empires in the middle of a bunch of weaker powers didn't make for good gameplay, tactically or strategically. The Medieval period is much richer in options.

The Roman factions in R:TW were safe. There was never any danger of getting wiped out. You also fought outclassed barbarian's much of the time.

And if you didn't play Rome, you fought AS outclassed barbarians.

The Medieval period is simply great, tactically and strategically. The factions have enough differences to fit a great variety of playing styles. The map has more strategy options, and the numerous factions have rough parity in technology, at least at the start.

I enjoyed playing the Almohads, the Egyptians, the Turks, the Danes, the Hungarians, the Byzantines and the Spanish in M:TW. I only really enjoyed the Parthians in R:TW. The Brutaii were interesting at first, but once you conquered Greece the game as good as over. Nobody could stop you.

[lars573]

I'm disappointed. The last thing I wanted in a new TW game was MTW:redux. MTW while good was not the best TW game, that is either STW or RTW. Anything would have been better. I would have prefered a game that started in 1530 and went till 1850.

[Mahrabals apprentice]

I'm disappointed. The last thing I wanted in a new TW game was MTW:redux. MTW while good was not the best TW game, that is either STW or RTW. Anything would have been better. I would have prefered a game that started in 1530 and went till 1850.

I have never tried STW, but if you enjoyed RTW more than MTW I think your out of your tree :dizzy2:
RTW looked slicker but doesn't play aswell. Whereas MTW looks very dated nowr days

[elbasto]

If this game is going to be to Rome TW what MTW I was to Shogun... it's going to be outstanding.

[Sand]

Kinda dissapointed - I had hoped for something new rather than a rehash - Napoleon:TW would introduce gunpowder warfare as a major facet (not the side show it was in Shogun) along with cannons and cavalry and might well have seen the end of the Total Seige aspect of the other games (cannons > stone walls). With M2:TW I can see myself storming another 1000 or so fortresses with the rare, rare field battle.

If there was going to be a rehash, Id have preferred for them to do Shogun over again. With less variety of units the work on the battle AI, which is badly required, would be easier.

But M:TW2 is what we got. I just hope they dont repeat the annoyances from M:TW. I wept with joy when I loaded up RTW and saw Princess units were not reflected and marraiges were abstracted. The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted. Diplomats should be abstracted as well - send them to open an embassy, then they "dissapear" and you conduct dip thru that embassy rather than chasing the faction round the map. Given how pointless diplomacy is in TW games why clutter the map with useless units? Merchants and Priests? Again, map clutter. And boost the units speed *dramatically* on the strategic maps. Its hard to imagine running a Crusade using RTW speeds. The trip to the New World would take 14 or 15 game years in RTW. One way.

Id like to see a bit of a change in unit recruitment to reflect the feudal structure and the fact that standing armies were hideously expensive/rare - make upkeep *very* high to prevent the forming of large standing armies, but offset it by having "mercenaries/vassals" recruitable in the summer period, that then disband in the winter. The core of the army would then be the "kings own", fleshed out by his vassals troops which campaign for the summer, returning to the harvest in the autumn/winter. The quality of vassals depends on the prosperity of the province/loyalty of the populace. It would reflect reality, and act to nerf "rushes".

If theyre thoughtful and work to improve the game in more than eye candy, then eventually it could be well worth the grave digging. If its just M:TW pimped up to look like R:TW itll be a case of why bother?

[ajaxfetish]

As the middle ages is my favorite period, I'm excited. A more modern game (Napoleon, etc.) would be great, but not till they have a new engine and can incorporate naval warfare and a gunpowder-based army. What they've got now is perfect for medieval fighting and I'd love to see medieval with improved graphics, as long as there's no loss in gameplay.

I'd still prefer an expansion to be set earlier, in the dark ages, as this is a huge and fascinating chunk of the medieval era that is somehow ignored in the original release of both medieval games. I'd like to see it incorporate all of Europe, though, not just a small part like the British Isles (and possibly be playable through the other periods, even).

Ajax

[Servius]

I agree with the posters happy for a return to MTW, but I also am very cautious about the gameplay. Personally, I thought STW was good, MTW was really good, but then RTW was crap, gameplay-wise at least.

So yeah, if it's MTW's design team and game play, but just with new skins, I'm happy. If it's all that AND a better AI, I'm even happier, but if it's anything like RTW, I'm affraid it'll just be more junk treading on the good name of CA's last best game.

[Templar Knight]

No way! I am somewhat relieved.

I love the middle ages and a game set in ancient China or some fantasy nonsense would not be my cup of tea. I would have loved a 16th-18th century one but Im happy :2thumbsup:

[Mithrandir]

I like it, because of the options.

However, a fresh idea would've been welcome as well.

Ofcourse a perfect LOTR total war (as if that could happen,seeing how perfect is in the eye of the beholder) would be my choice :).

I'm also hoping someone will mod MTW2 to STW 2 :D.

[Craterus]

No way! I am somewhat relieved.

I love the middle ages and a game set in ancient China or some fantasy nonsense would not be my cup of tea. I would have loved a 16th-18th century one but Im happy :2thumbsup:

Maybe that could be the expansion.


The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted.

I don't like the sound of that, or priests. I never had the original MTW, and this priests, princesses and merchants business does sound like "map clutter". I think I would prefer the way RTW does this..

[Templar Knight]

Maybe that could be the expansion.

I hope so, but it will probably be an earlier period similar to VI

[Craterus]

I hope not.. but yes, that is more likely.

[Paul Peru]

I hope so, but it will probably be an earlier period similar to VI
The Viking II Invasion :laugh4:

I'm not at all disappointed.
The screenies are lovely.
M:TW + VI + mods is still a great game.
Medieval Europe(++) is a great scenario for a TW game.

Will I be disappointed around this time next year, though? :inquisitive:

[lars573]

I have never tried STW, but if you enjoyed RTW more than MTW I think your out of your tree :dizzy2:
RTW looked slicker but doesn't play aswell. Whereas MTW looks very dated nowr days
RTW does play better. The infinitly better battle interface and improved AI made it possible for me to fight tactical battles and enjoy them. MTW and STW had the craptastic battle interface and moniter punchingly bad battle AI. What saved STW was the videos of the ninjas and Geishas and the Japanese setting.

[Ulfang]

The games only just been announced and we're already talking about Expansions lol!!!

I LURRRRRRRRRRRRRV the idea of Med II. I've wanted this ever since I played RTW and realised I couldn't go back to playing Medieval which is my primary interest in history (though I have to admit RTW developed my interest in the Ancient Era).

Screenies look awsome and I just hope battles inside of cities are actually playable now. I loved the idea of full blown sieges when I first saw RTW. Yea Medieval had them but it just mean't your troops were on the ground behind the walls rather than up on the walls. The problem with RTW is once you get troops inside the city walls the chances of them doing what you actually want is next to zero!

Roll on Autumn!

[Steppe Merc]

I really wanted Medieval 2, but this is pathetic. I wanted Medieval, not Reneisance and New World crap. I may buy it once some good mods come out, or if I'm working with a mod to fix it, otherwise I won't buy it, just like BI.

[Rilder]

Medieval Era and Aincent era are the only good time frames for well any game... Modern, American Colonization, any thing with guns, what have you is bad time frame for ANY game. so yea... Mevieval II: Total war is the only game i would of bought besides Rome II: Total War , witch I pray they do for 2008

[KSEG]

I really wanted Medieval 2, but this is pathetic. I wanted Medieval, not Reneisance and New World crap. I may buy it once some good mods come out, or if I'm working with a mod to fix it, otherwise I won't buy it, just like BI.

No disrespect, but what the hell are you talking about?
The game starts at 1080 and it ends in 1530.
IT IS MEDIEVAL.

[SirGrotius]

No disrespect, but what the hell are you talking about?
The game starts at 1080 and it ends in 1530.
IT IS MEDIEVAL.

I didn't follow his post either, but he's so experienced, it got me worried!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I honestly believe that the next Total War game in the revolutionary stage will be Napoleonic total war. The American Civil War could be the "expansion" to that game as the dynamics of the game would be very similar. Alternatively as an expansion, they might use the European Colonial Period as a jump off for a more global approach.

Although I am a European History Major and would love to see relatively obscure periods covered in a strategy war game, the various European wars prior to 1789 are not covered with much depth by the History Channel. The Roman Republic/Empire and Medieval Europe are much more frequently covered by mainstream commercial historical programs. For epic war games that capture the interests of video gamers, these hold the most potential for profit-making (gamers are the target, Historians are an afterthought). Many gamers are familiar with the revolutionary wars of Europe through popular movies and popular culture (Napoleon, The French Revolution, Nelson, The Count of Monte Cristo, Horatio Hornblower, Various Hist/A&E channel programs) and there is a severe shortage of games in this genre that are interesting, aside from:

1)the third rate cossacks
2)the third rate imperial glory
3)the semi-letdown AoE III.

*American Civil War games, athough potentially profitable and easily implemented in the genre have been neglected by all but the most hardcore or talentless companies.*

I feel as though the Total War franchise will only tackle widely known historical periods in their main games, such as Rome, Medieval, Napoleonic etc while leaving room for less widely known periods for the expansion packs. Shogun came out when the Creative Assembly was more product oriented than profit oriented and I doubt that such a "from the heart" title will come out again unless either:

1)Hollywood and the History Channel begin promoting the events and characters of East Asian military history with as much or more frequency as they do those of Western Military History
2)the Asian strategy gaming market becomes the number one target of historical strategy games instead of the western market
3)the sentimental call for a re-hash of an East Asian theme translates into serious green

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm excited, but would have liked STW 2. But I will enjoy this if it has MTW game play with RTW engine.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not at all. I don't think they could have made a better choice. All they need to do now is take the goodness of MTW, improve the AI, make an interesting campaign, and take advantage of the possibilities. And make it moddable.

Crazed Rabbit

[_Aetius_]

Hopefully its similarities with RTW will be at a minimum, i've always wanted MTW to get a remake which I think it truly deserves. But only if it stays true to what made MTW so enjoyable and not go the path of RTW, great on the surface, total mess everywhere else.

BI just made me more angry at how below par RTW was to what it should of been, if they mess up MTW2 it'd be hard to get my confidence back because weve been here before with RTW. We saw the screenshots and thought it looked amazing, most will admit though that it failed to meet even their minimum expectations.

I really hope they pull this one off properly.

[buujin]

RTW does play better. The infinitly better battle interface and improved AI made it possible for me to fight tactical battles and enjoy them. MTW and STW had the craptastic battle interface and moniter punchingly bad battle AI. What saved STW was the videos of the ninjas and Geishas and the Japanese setting.

I Utterly Disagree with that. RTW has much worse Battefield AI then its predecessors. The enemy units dont even work in cohesion they simply charge one at a time at your line of troops and rout. MTW and STW may have had a less pretty interface but it was more practical and more complex.
In RTW they are using single buttons to perform several different functions, none of which actually work very well.

Talking of routing! in RTW when a unit routs it gets utterly crushed by any opposing forces which are near it, leaving very little chance to rally. One thing i prefered about the MTW battles was the re-grouping of your forces and often successful counter attacks. In RTW is seems like as soon as a unit starts routin the game is over.

[Mithrandir]

Let's focus on MTW 2 , not on how some of you were dissappointed by another game

Bashing RTW isn't doing anyone any good. Be contructive (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102), it's easier than it seems ~:rolleyes:

-Mithrandir.

[lars573]

I Utterly Disagree with that. RTW has much worse Battefield AI then its predecessors. The enemy units dont even work in cohesion they simply charge one at a time at your line of troops and rout. MTW and STW may have had a less pretty interface but it was more practical and more complex.
In RTW they are using single buttons to perform several different functions, none of which actually work very well.

Talking of routing! in RTW when a unit routs it gets utterly crushed by any opposing forces which are near it, leaving very little chance to rally. One thing i prefered about the MTW battles was the re-grouping of your forces and often successful counter attacks. In RTW is seems like as soon as a unit starts routin the game is over.
That's why it's better. I'm saying that bring back any of the AI or control interface of MTW to MTW2 is a bad idea. It will make the game crap.

[Ser Clegane]

I am very pleased by CA's decision to make M:TW 2 the next TW-game ~:)

I would have loved to see a new S:TW as well, but I do not have too high hopes that we are going to see that one in the coming years.

Realistically, the TW-series moved from being a kind of "niche"-product (S:TW) to a game that appeals to a broader customer base (M:TW and R:TW) , and I think future TW-games will stay on this path, which will make a new S:TW or something like "China: Total War" very unlikely (I am not saying that those aren't interesting, but they would rather be niche-products).

There are not that many potential topics for TW-games that would guarantee broader popularity. If we rule out modern warfare (WWI and WWII, which - at least IMHO - do not go wuite well with the TW-concept in its current form) what's left is basically:

- Medieval era

- Napoleonic era

- Rome/Greece

- Fantasy

We just had Rome/Greece. so out of the remaining options "Medieval" would have been my favourite choice (Napoleonic era doesn't appeal to me that much, a Fantasy:TW I would probably also enjoy, but I have the feeling that it would somehow lack the immersion factor of the other TW-games)

[Steppe Merc]

No disrespect, but what the hell are you talking about?
The game starts at 1080 and it ends in 1530.
IT IS MEDIEVAL.
1530 is not the Medieval period, it is the Renesiance. The Medeival period ended about 1453 (or a bit later, depends on what your go by) with the fall of Constantinople.
The Reneisance is extremely different from the Medieval time period, especially in Europe, and it is charactrised by a growing number of gunpowder units (which are boring, though necassary at the end of the game for a Medieval era), as well as an economic change.

And how pray tell would they have the Aztecs if it is Medieval? The Medieval era is not just a time, but also a geographical area, from Europe to North Africa to Central Asia (and probably to China). The Aztecs have no cavalry, and should not enter in any game about the Medieval era.

[Dutch_guy]

I'm excited, but would have liked STW 2. But I will enjoy this if it has MTW game play with RTW engine.

You know, you could also wait for the Jidai no Ran mod to be released, it's a mod based on Shogun total war.

Looks pretty good imo.

Visit their subforum, right here at the org. :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=120

:balloon2:

[player1]

1530 is not the Medieval period, it is the Renesiance. The Medeival period ended about 1453 (or a bit later, depends on what your go by) with the fall of Constantinople.

Wow, is it soo big problem why MTW2 streches from medieval to first 80 years of renessance.

That's acutally an interesting thing, since near the end of the game (if you don't conquer the world in first 100 years like in can happen in RTW), you'll get some interesting new game elements like gunpowder or discovery of new world.

[Steppe Merc]

Yes it is. CA will not reflect the social and military changes from the feudal period to the Renessance accuratley. The main reason they are doing this is to allow more gunpowder units, to have more flash bang bang. They should concentrate on accurate AI formations and diplmoacy, and focus on cavalry warfare which was vital to all groups of people during the Medieval era. Which is another reason why the Aztecs should not be in, their lack of cavalry will make it extremely difficult to make them at all a challenge.

And biggest of all, far more important people to the rest of the factions are being excluded for the Aztecs. Extremely important people such as the Qipchaqs, the different Russian principalties, the Ayyubids, the Abbasids and many others are being left out to make room for a superfoulous faction like the Aztecs.

[The Hun]

I didn't follow his post either, but he's so experienced, it got me worried!
Do not confuse 6000 posts as experience. I look at content and see not much from endless posts about how bad this game is. It is another case of the same whining about this is wrong, that is bad. Nobody forces anybody to buy games and endless posts of limited content are boring. The so called 'extremely important' people quoted are maybe not so important. So important that anybody who is not historian probably never heard of them.
First time I ever heard Medieval era described as geography too. What is this all about? Aztecs have no cavalry? What is this? I could make countless post such as I hate this game, I wanted this. We are getting MTW II, that is that.

[Mithrandir]

Back on topic without baiting/bashing please.

-Mithrandir.

[lars573]

First time I ever heard Medieval era described as geography too. What is this all about? Aztecs have no cavalry? What is this? I could make countless post such as I hate this game, I wanted this. We are getting MTW II, that is that.
Without getting into how much of whiner Steppe is I'll say that there were no horses in North america from like 20000 BC until the 16th century. The paeleolithic peoples of north america ate the horses instead of riding them. The Spainish brought them back here with them. All those native tribes they show with horses in western movies didn't have them until they stole them from the Spainish. And yes medieval was geographical. It was, like the dark ages, a european phemomenon.

[Steppe Merc]

Thank you not making me reply his post, Lars.

[Steppe Merc]

Mithrandir, sorry I couldn't play well man, good luck with this forum.

:juggle2:

[Mithrandir]

Warnings have been issued to various people.

We plan to keep this forum as peaceful as the main hall.
Which means zero tolerance to flaming/baiting etc.

[tai4ji2x]

You know, you could also wait for the Jidai no Ran mod to be released, it's a mod based on Shogun total war.

Looks pretty good imo.

Visit their subforum, right here at the org. :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=120

:balloon2:

yes, but a mod can only do so much. many hardcoded things will probably still not be overcome.

ah well, MTW2 it is. let's just wait and see.

[Hurin_Rules]

I'm not disappointed at all. I think it was a good choice.

While I also thought that CA could have easily pumped out a fantasy TW with the RTW engine, thereby eliminating much of the griping (much of it from me :smile: ) about historical accuracy, I still like the idea of a new version of MTW.

I do hope, however, that they make the gameplay more like MTW. RTW battles are too fast and the AI is poor; I played MTW for a year and a half, but after about 4 months of RTW I was bored. I'll have to go the modding route to regain my interest (probably RTR or EB). At least, I hope they give us the option of slowing down the battles.

[Lochar]

I am all for MTW being redone.

I am hoping for all the castle defenses during that time as well as the siege engines. A knights charge with different heraldy is something I want to see in its full glory. Plus theres a variety of weapons during this era.

I am also looking forward to see if they can pull off this individualism like they advertise.

What would be awesome tho is if they could mix the east with the west so we could have STW meet MTW but not sure when the shogun era ended.

A musket age is ok but I prefer the down and dirty sword bashing melee over musket fire and bayonet charges.

I wonder with different factions will we see different castle designs, as well as if we can control the layout in anyway.

[Duke John]

Definitely pleased! I have no doubts that the AI will improve somewhat. It probably still won't be able to pose a big challenge to anyone who has played a TW game before.

I am looking forward the most to finally saying goodbye to clone armies. This is a big step towards more immersion and less abstraction of military units. I am hoping that we can even make it appear that the units are composed of different types of soldiers (men-at-arms mixed with militia).

I think CA wants to focus a bit on the arms race that occurred in medieval times (they said something like that in an article or on a website). Stretching the game period to 1530 is in that sense a good move as the player can experience the rise and fall of the medieval knight.

My biggest worry is that CA will focus too much on the Aztecs, but on the other hand this feature might introduce a few cool modding options.

[player1]

I doubt Aztec would be playable faction in any way.
(no fun in to wait until Europian arrives 400 turns later)

Exempt maybe in mutiplayer, but then I don't think it would be properly balanced to be used there (they are supposed to be inferior).

[AntiochusIII]

I kinda agree with Steppe Merc's worries here, but I'd like to be optimistic.

They are, after all, the good old Creative Assembly. I have bought their games since Shogun: Total War, and since then, I love Japan. :yes:

But the Aztecs have no place in this game, in my opinion. Cortez visited them like, what? 1512? THAT's definitely Renaissance, not Medieval. They also have no cavalry, as Steppe said: a major balancing problem sighted ahead.

And CA, unfortunately, has never been that skilled in portraying the development of civilizations and the changing nature of the European world at the time. It is hard enough to present the urbanization of Medieval Europe, not to mention the complexities of the Renaissance; a completely different game is worth it for that period.

Bloodyhell, I want my knights and not the Aztecs obsidian-armed warriors. As much as I'd like to sack, or expand, Tenochtitlan into a great city or a great heap of ruins, I'd rather go for a more perfected Constantinople anyday -- at least in a Medieval game like this one is going to be. I also worry about the map scale.

And gunpowder turns me off when it comes in smaller guns. Volleys of gunfire can't compare to the fun of sword and spears. Cannons, of course, are tolerated, since they are big and easy to take down. That's why I've never been a Napoleanic enthusiast.

So I have to say, I'm not disappointed at all. Just worried.

Of course, I'd like to have a China: Total War someday (*cough*close-minded people*cough* -- Pffftghhh!!!), but Medieval is as good a choice as any.

Looking forward to it. Take your time, CA. I can wait for the best.

[Subedei]

What i am really looking forward is, to play the Mongols. They are part of the game, right? Maybe they'll get their own Mod....but that's a bit 2 far into the future. I really like the Medieval setting....loved Medieval, love RTR....

[DukeofSerbia]

No, no and no. I just wanted Medieval with Rome engine.

[Templar Knight]

Hmm, perhaps the Aztec campaign will be somewhat part of the larger campaign but on a separate map. Aztec gold will also be of great use when reforming your armies from feudal ones into a somewhat professional force with guns and cannons.

[Gen_Lee]

As the most enjoyable times I had with Mtw engine are when Im playing Ntw, Atw and now Pike&musketier v1.0, I really dont mind they focus Mtw2 till 1580, that will probably allow for even better versions of above mods.
About Rtw, I really hope they can keep the look while making Mtw combat style.
I was a very disapointed Rtw player (I pre ordered the game, instaled, played the toturial, started a campaign and was terrible bored by the asteroid pace of the units, unistaled the game more then a year ago and only after this Christmas I give it another try, this time much more enjoyable with Rtr or Biv1.6 Atilla's mod).
So for Me, Mtw2 will hopefull allow for real great mods to be done on the time I enjoy most, from the birth of My country, Portugal (That I hope this time can be playable, not a freaking spanish province, for Christ's sake Portugal is independent since 1143!!!) till the Xix century with the look of Rtw and the feel of Mtw.

[Gen_Lee]

No, no and no. I just wanted Medieval with Rome engine.
If I played only the strategic part of the game, I would be with You, but the real time combats are really (On vanilla game) anoying and boring compared with Mtw ones.
Some fights I had with Mtw+vi Bkb or med mod (Let Me say I never played vanilla Mtw, lol) where oustanding, taking more then 2 hours to finish them, watching Ai really play as it should.
Some applies to Nap Tc or several Atw custom battles and most of all to the 1st P&m battle i did, where the diversity and way of enployment of the units where a real chalenge, both to me and to the Ai.
So I really understand any wants the look and feel of Rtw startegic part over Mtw (2 simple) but no way I want the Rtw combat feeling, let single players think and enjoy a fight, while being chalenged. Not all players are online ones!!! (There I really beleave Rtw looks better then Mtw, at least no Ai to fight).

[Butcher]

Lots of promise, could be a great game..

Mind you, i've said that about a certain game before..

[Butcher]

*dble post*

[Hunter KIng George]

Best choice CA has ever made...just look at all the buzz this has created. Just hopes the MP side is as great as its original! SP is fun and all, but Mp is just in a whole different level and experience. I love the Medieval era and to include the Aztecs...just perfect! Let's just hope for the best!

[DukeofSerbia]

If I played only the strategic part of the game, I would be with You, but the real time combats are really (On vanilla game) anoying and boring compared with Mtw ones.
Some fights I had with Mtw+vi Bkb or med mod (Let Me say I never played vanilla Mtw, lol) where oustanding, taking more then 2 hours to finish them, watching Ai really play as it should.
Some applies to Nap Tc or several Atw custom battles and most of all to the 1st P&m battle i did, where the diversity and way of enployment of the units where a real chalenge, both to me and to the Ai.
So I really understand any wants the look and feel of Rtw startegic part over Mtw (2 simple) but no way I want the Rtw combat feeling, let single players think and enjoy a fight, while being chalenged. Not all players are online ones!!! (There I really beleave Rtw looks better then Mtw, at least no Ai to fight).

Actually, I want strategic map from MTW and battles from MTW, but with RTW engine in battles.

[player1]

I doubt they'll ever revert to Risk type campaign for future games.

[The Hun]

Without getting into how much of whiner Steppe is I'll say that there were no horses in North america from like 20000 BC until the 16th century. The paeleolithic peoples of north america ate the horses instead of riding them. The Spainish brought them back here with them. All those native tribes they show with horses in western movies didn't have them until they stole them from the Spainish. And yes medieval was geographical. It was, like the dark ages, a european phemomenon.
I know full well that no horses existed. My point is so what? Horses do not make Medieval period. And for time frame I say there is no exact cut off date. Myself I do not like the Aztec thing but that is a part I will not bother with I suppose. I am sure it will have good and bad things like Rome.

[Viking]

Yeah, I`m sort of dissapointed. I`ve played this stuff before, and it`s called MTW. :wall:

Oh well, I`ll probably buy it anyway.

[AquaLurker]

Disappointed? Quite... Supprised?? Definately not. Like KOEI, they will always remake "interesting" periods of histories over and over again e.g Three Kingdom, Nobunaga, Genghiz Khan, Chu & Han etc.

Well I did hopped that they will make something like "Mongol Total War" with the campaign map stretching from Japan to eastern europe which will definately be more interesting then Europe alone. Maybe they will but I doubt so, I think CA will focused on the European Market, its more practical to sell something they and the majority of their fans are more familiar with which is also easier to identify.

I like idea about the aztec campaign, just hope it is not too one sided in terms of game play.

[Nelson]

Revisiting Medieval is a good choice by CA. I’m glad it will reach into the 16th century. The Renaissance was an interesting period. Gunpowder was important but infantry and cavalry melee often determined who the winner would be. Early firearms were anything but boring.

I am also pleased to see that units will no longer appear as clones of one man with one weapon style.

[alman7272]

We don't even know how the Aztecs will be used in the game, so calm down guys. Maybe it will be "discovery" at a certain year in which a portion of the campaign map gets revealed and you can spend some time trying to conquer the Americas. But I wouldn't worry...you're still going to be fighting the medieval peoples for 99% of the game, I'd say.

and yes it does look good, but so did RTW; however, since I like the MTW period better than the Roman period I'm optimistic. plus, the pope's back. That's enough to make me buy it.:2thumbsup:

[Favre]

I kinda agree with Steppe Merc's worries here, but I'd like to be optimistic.

They are, after all, the good old Creative Assembly. I have bought their games since Shogun: Total War, and since then, I love Japan. :yes:

But the Aztecs have no place in this game, in my opinion. Cortez visited them like, what? 1512? THAT's definitely Renaissance, not Medieval. They also have no cavalry, as Steppe said: a major balancing problem sighted ahead.

And CA, unfortunately, has never been that skilled in portraying the development of civilizations and the changing nature of the European world at the time. It is hard enough to present the urbanization of Medieval Europe, not to mention the complexities of the Renaissance; a completely different game is worth it for that period.

Bloodyhell, I want my knights and not the Aztecs obsidian-armed warriors. As much as I'd like to sack, or expand, Tenochtitlan into a great city or a great heap of ruins, I'd rather go for a more perfected Constantinople anyday -- at least in a Medieval game like this one is going to be. I also worry about the map scale.

And gunpowder turns me off when it comes in smaller guns. Volleys of gunfire can't compare to the fun of sword and spears. Cannons, of course, are tolerated, since they are big and easy to take down. That's why I've never been a Napoleanic enthusiast.

So I have to say, I'm not disappointed at all. Just worried.

Of course, I'd like to have a China: Total War someday (*cough*close-minded people*cough* -- Pffftghhh!!!), but Medieval is as good a choice as any.

Looking forward to it. Take your time, CA. I can wait for the best.



You guys are forgetting one huge ass thing - The AZTECS HAD NO STANDING ARMY

The Aztecs formed a triple alliance with Tlacopan (sp?) And Texcoco (?), And after conquering the tribes in central america they used their ritual human sacrifice to keep conquered tribes from rising up against them. That's the main reason the Spanish conquered them. They had no standing army, no military training, and no means of fighting other than what they happened to have lying around. Whenver they had to fight they drafted from the peaseants (This rarely happened because their conquered tribes were afraid of them).



How are the Aztecs supposed to fight with no stadding army?

Not only that, but they were so weak that when they migrated to Central America, They were defeated and driven back 3 times by the Toltecs, and they never once defeated the toltecs until they formed the triple alliance which gave them 3x the power and 3x the numbers.



Im just trying to enlighten all of you as to why CA might ahve made a bad decision.

[player1]

So big what?
Like Peasants and Town Watch from RTW are somehow satnding army.

Why should that take out fun of europian standing army crashing aztec natives, drafted or not?
They are not surely supposed to be playable anyway.

And you talk about tripled power in numbers.
I guess you don't talk about "economic" might, but the military one.

I'm glad that MTW2 is not just MTW reloaded.

[Favre]

They didnt draft, Their peasents fought when attacked, They had no army. Sure, Europeans can crash the natives, But Its going to be quite an easy fight.


When the Spanish got into the capital city of the Aztecs, they holed themseleves up into the temple. When escaping they left one of their men with a disease to spread through the Aztecs. Like 30 Spanish died on thier way out of the city.....And they had thousands of Aztecs swarming at them. Most of these Spanish that died during the escape were actually because they were so weighed down with gold that they had taken from the temple that when they were pushed into the series of water canals, they couldnt stay above the water.


Then when the Spanish came back with re-inforcements, (Only a couple hundred more men) The aztecs wouldnt give up their defences and the Spanish only lost a handful of men while staggering numbers of Aztec men died.



Jsut saying that either CA will protray the aztecs very badly, or it wont even be worth going to america to kill them.

[Justiciar]

I'd rather not get myself hyped up about it, or else I might find myself deeply depressed when I find it to be less than I'd hoped for.

[Papewaio]

I would have liked to see the engine being able to break the 10,000 men on the field mark after so long... more sprites would enable some of the bigger battles to be done, and it would make a bigger emphasis on why flanking was so important... with smaller armies it is rather easier to outflank... if the enemy is large enough they can anchor against cliffs and forests... this in turn means larger battles would require better tactics and explotations of gaps.

[Perplexed]

Whoever here says that they are dissappointed with the return to Medieval times probably never played MTW at all. This of course, makes me very sad, because MTW was without a doubt the best computerized strategy game ever made by human hand. I am consumed with joy at the prospect of a new MTW, in full 3D, and full of anxiety over the question "will CA mess it up?".

[Favre]

I am actually very very very excited, despite what my posts above make me sound like, I ordered MEdieveal: Total War 1 just because I couldnt get enough of RTW and BI, Even though the graphics are worse, I heard the campiagn's on MTW Were much more fun than RTW

[Perplexed]

I heard the campiagn's on MTW Were much more fun than RTW

You heard right, my man.

[Favre]

Well thats good to know, Im even more excited and more angry with Amazon for being so slow :P

[Viking]

Whoever here says that they are dissappointed with the return to Medieval times probably never played MTW at all. This of course, makes me very sad, because MTW was without a doubt the best computerized strategy game ever made by human hand. I am consumed with joy at the prospect of a new MTW, in full 3D, and full of anxiety over the question "will CA mess it up?".

I have played MTW; though after RTW. The Medieval era is not my favourite time period, and there was just another TW game about it. That`s why I`m dissapointed.

[Trajanus]

So long as they take parts from MTW, parts from RTW and add interesting new concepts and ideas that haven't been included before I'm happy to check it out.

I've played STW, MI, MTW, VI, RTW and BI I'm not gonna stop now. ~:)

[pdoan8]

For me, In all 3 TW, Medieval is the most interesting period. Shogun has great atmosphere but lacks a bit of variety. Rome has so much nice features but seems like one power nation vs all others (idea). So, I'm happy with M2TW.

As for CA, I think M2TW is a good move. MTW seems to have drawn the most gamers (most STW owners move on to MTW and many RTW owners go back in time for MTW). MTW is something that CA has done before and could have done it better if given the chance. With lesson learned from RTW (in many aspects), CA could make M2TW the best of the best.

[Butcher]

With lesson learned from RTW (in many aspects), CA could make M2TW the best of the best.

Could.

Here's hoping..

[The_B@fU$ ®]

What about ESPIONAGE!?
In RTW there was a absurd difrence between spy and assasin, spies had very little options, ando these two caracters could merge as one.
Is there any possibility that spies gain a bigger participation in states diplomasy, i meant as infiltrating as a opposit state's generals, priests?

PS. Sorry for my bad english im from Montenegro.

[Troy Lawton]

Maybe the aztec incorporation into MTW2 is the base for the expansion into the Americas????

[econ21]

Maybe the aztec incorporation into MTW2 is the base for the expansion into the Americas????

Yes, I was wondering that. The expansion could have a standalone map of (south?) America only - European source countries being represented in a more abstract way. It would be a fairly incremental change but an interesting campaign. Quite a suitable theme for a beefy expansion like BI was. Maybe the Aztecs are a teaser to get us in the mood for that?

[Powermonger]

I'm only going to be disappointed if they sacrifice the great MTW gameplay just so they put more flashy 3D graphics in.

Personally, I'd prefer a MTW2 that holds closer to MTW then RTW, with a better battle interface, more trading options and greater sea battles.

I hope they get the original music composer back too, the soundtrack was a crucial aspect in making the game such immersive atmosphere.

[cannon_fodder]

Yes, I am very disappointed.

MTW was the one TW game I didn't like. This was mostly because medieval Europe doesn't interest me at all, unlike Sengoku Jidai (an interest which STW started for me), or the ancient Mediterranean.

I don't think it's a good thing that CA have gone for a straight-up rehash. I liked how the Total War games always covered a completely different region and\or time period. I'd rather something really limited or obscure over medieval Europe. Ah well, it could be worse- it could be Napoleanic!

The features announced, however, are nice. I'll almost certainly buy this game at some point.

[Hôjô Ujimara]

I'm not disappointed at all, MTW is my favourite game in terms of gameplay, span and coolness. I've spent lots of time playing MTW, in comparison to the small amount of time for the not-so-great RTW. However, I would've prefered a Shogun 2 instead. A Chinese Warring states one wouldn't be too bad....

[Sand]

Whoever here says that they are dissappointed with the return to Medieval times probably never played MTW at all. This of course, makes me very sad, because MTW was without a doubt the best computerized strategy game ever made by human hand. I am consumed with joy at the prospect of a new MTW, in full 3D, and full of anxiety over the question "will CA mess it up?".

Ive played it. TBH, I dont understand why MTW is hailed as being so fantastic. All the battles were extended mountain climbs, and if anything the risk style map made it far easier to exploit the AI. The Scottish training grounds for example, or faking attacks on a province. The map being hidden under the amount of pointless agents like princesses. That all peasant stacks the AI would build...

It was a grand game, and I liked it but like I said I seriously wonder about all the praise the game receives as being some unrepeated moment of brilliance. There was a *lot* of improvements from MTW to RTW and theres no doubt which is the better game. And its been done - whats going to be in MTW2 that wasnt in MTW? Aztecs? End game cannon fodder tbh.

Mithrandir:Edited insults.

[z2ei]

I agree with the above poster about the map. It's just swamped with the agents, which gets annoying. I like Rome's map much better, but they need to make the province borders more visible.I've been reading these boards for a while, but never registered. *waves*

Anyway..

Personally, MTW's battle map AI isn't nearly as good as people remember it being. Both Rome and it have the same problem where the AI will just stand there when you attack them, which gets annoying. That needs fixed.

I agree with the above poster about the map. It's just swamped with the agents, which gets annoying. I like Rome's map much better, but they need to make the province borders more visible. Thinking about it, would it really be that hard to have some sort of toggle on/off overlay that looks like the old-style map for people that keep complaining about it? Maybe someone should ask CA that.

Now, where MTW was more fun was the campaign map. The AI there was just fun to play with, because it was so much more random than Rome's is. That, and with the excomunnications, faction re-emergences, crusades and the like made it more dynamic.

Rome's interface knocks the crap out of MTW's, though. Especially in the battle mode. Rome was also easier to control, especially in terms of building things. Where it fails is the little annoyances, like having Rebels absolutely everywhere, even in my domain with ungodly happy people.

It would be nice if there wasn't a limit on the map (or factions), though. Being able to stretch it all the way from Japan to England would be kind of neat, but can you imagine fending off a real Mongol invasion? Yikes.

I'd like a more political system, too. MTW's was nice because you could actually ally with someone, and not have to watch your back every other turn. Princesses are fairly useless, but being able to take someone's faction over (via strategic marriages and assassinations) would be neat.

To sum it up, both had good parts, but Rome was just way more refined.

[tutankamon]

I love the medieval times, and therefor this is a fantastic game for me, infact I loved this period in human history so much that I became a medieval archaeologist ;) but it could be fun to se something different like a WW1 or 2 or perhaps a bronceage game..

[King Yngvar]

I would personally prefer a Dark Age: TW, with f. ex four starting dates; 500, 632, 780 and 900. But... the Medieval period would be my second choice, so it's ok...

[Anti-hero]

Are you disappointed with the rehash of the Medieval setting for the next Total War game? I know I'm not! I've always wanted to see the great battles of the Middle Ages fought in glorious 3d!

That said, is there a setting people would have preferred to see in stead of the Medieval one?

For example:
Napoleonic

Chinese Warring States

Fantasy?

Not at all disappointed by the setting. I'm more concerned that while repeating the setting from the first game, they'll also repeat many mistakes the first game made.

I don't think, and I don't aim to say that CA have done a bad job. MTW is a very ambitious concept and I don't need to be told that one can hardly get things done perfect from the first time. I'm criticising the game because I like it, have spent many hours with it, and want it to be better.

[GFX707]

It all depends if they can get the same great gameplay that MTW had, if its just like RTW but with new skins and map etc but with the same sh**t gameplay, everyone will be dissapointed.

I couldn't agree more.

[Silver Rusher]

Can I just point something out here?

If you played RTW before MTW, you aren't going to like MTW. But if you played MTW before RTW, the chances are you will prefer MTW. This is because really they are different games put under the same title and made by the same developers. The gameplay of MTW (in the campaign) is almost completely different from the campaign gameplay of RTW.


It all depends if they can get the same great gameplay that MTW had, if its just like RTW but with new skins and map etc but with the same sh**t gameplay, everyone will be dissapointed.
Sh**t? What is that supposed to mean?

And don't bash RTW. MTW might be a better game but RTW was still very enjoyable to play.

[Mithrandir]

Must be short gameplay...

otherwise, it'd be in violation with Forum Rules.

:inquisitive:

[AussieGiant]

Guys...

It's going to be great!!

Lets face it...MTW 2 is going to "slap the Lama's ass!!!" as they say on the Winamp ad!!

[Orda Khan]

At the very least it is a chance for CA to do it right this time

........Orda

[dagiz]

disappointed? no.

curious yes.

looking forward to actually getting the game when it comes out rather than three years afterwards (as I did with medieval and rome) - yes.

interesting about the aztecs. looking forward to it.

[babarian34]

Kinda dissapointed - I had hoped for something new rather than a rehash - Napoleon:TW would introduce gunpowder warfare as a major facet (not the side show it was in Shogun) along with cannons and cavalry and might well have seen the end of the Total Seige aspect of the other games (cannons > stone walls). With M2:TW I can see myself storming another 1000 or so fortresses with the rare, rare field battle.

If there was going to be a rehash, Id have preferred for them to do Shogun over again. With less variety of units the work on the battle AI, which is badly required, would be easier.

But M:TW2 is what we got. I just hope they dont repeat the annoyances from M:TW. I wept with joy when I loaded up RTW and saw Princess units were not reflected and marraiges were abstracted. The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted. Diplomats should be abstracted as well - send them to open an embassy, then they "dissapear" and you conduct dip thru that embassy rather than chasing the faction round the map. Given how pointless diplomacy is in TW games why clutter the map with useless units? Merchants and Priests? Again, map clutter. And boost the units speed *dramatically* on the strategic maps. Its hard to imagine running a Crusade using RTW speeds. The trip to the New World would take 14 or 15 game years in RTW. One way.

Id like to see a bit of a change in unit recruitment to reflect the feudal structure and the fact that standing armies were hideously expensive/rare - make upkeep *very* high to prevent the forming of large standing armies, but offset it by having "mercenaries/vassals" recruitable in the summer period, that then disband in the winter. The core of the army would then be the "kings own", fleshed out by his vassals troops which campaign for the summer, returning to the harvest in the autumn/winter. The quality of vassals depends on the prosperity of the province/loyalty of the populace. It would reflect reality, and act to nerf "rushes".

If theyre thoughtful and work to improve the game in more than eye candy, then eventually it could be well worth the grave digging. If its just M:TW pimped up to look like R:TW itll be a case of why bother?

I agree with you, especially the part about standing armies and recruitment in medieval times.
However, I know already that CA won't do anything of the things you said (maybe the reduction of diplomat/princess micro, but thats it)
Why i know this? - Because CA is a conservative games studio, like most of the studios on the market. Why try something really new and exciting if the majority of players is happy to play the same sort of game again.


Mithrandir: edited language & insult.

[kurko]

I can't say I'm disappointed for something that I haven't played anyway.

But I have an idea since STW. I think one aspect of the game should be implemented for advanced users. Runs as follow:

In the heat of the battle things end up going too fast. You order Cav to flank by the right side, then clicks on the infantry and order them to attack each enemy infantry, then sets the archers to fire at the enemy archers, so there won't be friendly fire, thenyoucomebackatyourCavontherightflankandorderthentogobehindtheenemy lines,, then you start sweating, then you come to the left flank to see how disastrous the things are, and discover that a infantry unit is idle, then you go crazy of so many actions needed when you have only ONE mouse and ONE hand to give all the orders(actually, i don't count the keyboard hehe) :sweatdrop:

Well, I think there should be an "Tactical Manouveries Editor"! Há! I mean, for example, that I use the archers in front of my infantry in the begining of the battle. Then my archers fire and enemy cav charges. I need to order them to move behind the front line, while I order my infantry to move a bit forward to make the sequence faster. I mean, it's not hard at all, when you have the P button at your disposal. What about Multiplayer when you can't pause? I don't like it when i have to pause to fix things up.
This tactics editor could be an script file or a interface full of coloured arrows, then you assign the key corresponding to the tactic(a hotkey) and then adjust the arrows, setting the manouvering the way you want, because in the past, soldiers when training formations, they used to train this kind of manouvering. I can feel the Triarii's pain, hearing every day phrases such as 'Don't let you formation to break! Keep the Line!'! :wall:
As in reality, thus could be in Medieval 2! A more complex battle system.

What do you think about it?

[LadyAnn]

It is not too hard to control multiple units, although there is a learning curve. From what you described, I think you zoomed in too much and you didn't use either unit grouping or/and way points or/and hot keys.

Annie

*waves to Orda, Mith* lost orginal email addy and forgot password so am a renewed newbie :D

[Gaiseric]

The battles in RTW do go by pretty fast compared to MTW. I hope they slow them down so that I can get a chance to see the differant looks of each individual unit.

I am also looking forward to the town/castle siege aspect. In RTW most of my battles are sieges and they get old because the cities all are laid out the same. CA mentioned that that they might be looking into terrain effects for sieges so that each siege would be differant.

I am very exicited for MTW2 and I know it could be a great game if CA improved the battles/sieges......and a few other things as well:laugh4:

[JR-]

The Medieval setting is exactly what i wanted.

I would have liked all of Eurasia to be represented in the map tho.

plenty of funky stuff happened in the far east during europes middle ages, and most of it impacted on europe anyway, so it would have been great for MTW2 to refelect this.

[Zenicetus]

The battles in RTW do go by pretty fast compared to MTW. I hope they slow them down so that I can get a chance to see the differant looks of each individual unit.

I am also looking forward to the town/castle siege aspect. In RTW most of my battles are sieges and they get old because the cities all are laid out the same. CA mentioned that that they might be looking into terrain effects for sieges so that each siege would be differant.

I am very exicited for MTW2 and I know it could be a great game if CA improved the battles/sieges......and a few other things as well:laugh4:

That's one of the big reasons I'm looking forward to MTW2 also... the sieges! Well, that and the fact that I never played the original MTW, so it's a new period for me. I enjoy the sieges in RTW but there are just too many of them. They should be more of an epic event, and I'm hoping CA is figuring out a way to balance the game so you're not fighting or defending a siege on every turn.

Maybe that's what the castles vs. city choice is about? Some settlements will be pushovers if you manage to defeat adjoining armies in the field, and others will be more of an "epic" siege encounter?

[runes]

the only real upgrade in RTW from MTW, for me, was control.

control during battles made much more snes in RTW.

graphics really mean little to me.

sure, its good to have some nice looking little characters, and i DID prefer rtw for that, but i'd prefer to see the current graphics optimized.

that way, MORE troops could be handled/processed at all levels. For a game like TW where massive battles are key, it's quantity over quality. I'd like to see some simple, nicely aliased, colourful- but not uber-rendered graphics that would be..maybe more "representational" that actual. That kind of thing reminds me that im playing a good, hardcore strategy game, rather than some dumbed down flash fest.

[Kommodus]

I wouldn't say I'm disappointed per se, but I would have preferred them to tread new ground. Chinese military history would have made excellent subject matter for their next game. They could have expanded on that if they wished, including India and parts of the Middle East - there have been some great empires in that area of the world. But Medieval Europe is still a good choice.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I had a few wishes for the next TW game. One of 'em was a medieval setting.

So totally happy here. :balloon2:

[The_White_Knight]

Are you disappointed with the rehash of the Medieval setting for the next Total War game? I know I'm not! I've always wanted to see the great battles of the Middle Ages fought in glorious 3d!

That said, is there a setting people would have preferred to see in stead of the Medieval one?

For example:
Napoleonic

Chinese Warring States

Fantasy?

I'm not disappointed at all, just as you. Imho Total War excels in the medieval era. :2thumbsup:

[General4Hire]

I wouldn't have been bored by ancient China. I am glad it's not Napolean though. Since I've not played MTW it's not like a sequel for me, it's a whole new game :D

So yeah, I can't wait until Amazon let me preorder it.

even if you have played MTW, it's not a "sequel" heh...it's not that kind of game.

oh and no, I am not upset at all, MTW2 will easily be the 06 strategy game of the year. Hands down.