View Full Version : The History of MTW
While reading some posts, I've noticed several posters who probably started with RTW and never played the first MTW. So, what I was thinking was that it might help the community in general, but folks who've only played RTW (or never played a TW game at all) in particular, to review some of the game mechanics from MTW. If this turns out to be a popular and useful thread, maybe we can get it stickied.
So, for some structure, perhaps MTW veterans could elaborate on some area of the game. In general, try to provide a brief description of how a particular game mechanic worked in the game. For example...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PROVINCES
Provinces in MTW differed from those in RTW in several ways. First, you either owned a province or you didn't, and if you did, you controlled the whole thing, border to border. You could have as many army stacks as you wanted there, but no other faction (ally or not) could leave a stack in your province. Other factions could invade your province, but one way or another, only one army would control the province at the end of the turn. The one semi-exception to this is that, if the defender of a province had a castle, and they lost the battle, a certain number of their forces could retreat to the castle (the rest had to retreat to a friendly neighboring province). In that situation, the retreating defender would be in the province's castle, but the attacker would 'hold' the province until the defenders were killed through siege or assault. The attacker could not earn any taxes or build any units in such a province until the defenders in the castle were utterly wiped out.
In MTW, the province was all their was. There was no differentiation between province and city. Gameplay-wise, there never really were any cities. Battles used a castle map only when someone had retreated to a castle. There were never any city fights like there are in RTW.
Each province had it's own stats: Farm value, trade goods, tax rate, loyalty, zeal, and sometimes Iron.
Each province had a base farm income. Farm upgrades would increase this base value by a given percentage. Therefore, the first farm upgrade would generate more money in a province that had a large base value (like in Flanders) than in Scotland (which had a low base value).
Trade goods were only useful if your province was on the coast and you had a port, a merchant building, and shiping lines to connect your port to the ports of other nations. The start-up cost for building a good trading network was very high. Ships cost a lot of money to build and weren't cheap to maintain either. However, once established, trade networks could rake in the dough. Also, the same ships that acted as your trading fleet also doubled as your troop transport network. Units were never loaded onto a ship. Ships occupied sea zones. If your army started in one province with a port, and you had an unopposed chain of ships between your home province and the one you wanted to invade, the entire army could invade in one year.
Each province had a sliding scale tax rate (Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High). The higher your tax rate, the more money you made (off of farms and trade goods), but the lower the loyalty of the province.
Loyalty could be modified by the variable tax rate, loyalty-improving buildings, the size of the garrison, the Dread rating and vices/virtues of the governing unit, how far away the king was, the presence of agents (spies and inquisitors), the Influence rating and vices/virtues of the king, whether your faction was at war or peace with its neighbors, and the success or failure of active crusades. I know that sounds like a lot, but in reality, it was much easier to control the loyalty of the people in MTW than it is in RTW. The two tower improvments, a friendly spy, and a garrison of 100 men was enough to gaurantee the loyalty of almost any province.
Zeal wasn't very important. It only came into play if you built a crusade. For instance, if I own Wessex, and Wessex has high Zeal, the crusade was more likely to have crusader knights and order spearmen and less likely to have Fanatics (uber peasants). Also, if you moved your crusade through provinces with high Zeal, the crusade would suck up more troops from whatever armies were in that region. But outside of crusading, Zeal was unimportant.
That leaves Iron. Iron was like a trade good, but you couldn't trade it. Instead, if the province had it, it allowed you to build an Armory which could add +1 to every unit's attack value produced there. Each armory upgrade added another +1 to subsequent units produced there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hope this is useful. If you think so too, adopt a game feature and tell the uninitiated how it used to be.
Reenk Roink
02-05-2006, 19:59
Thank You for this, I am one of those people who you mentioned, and I have gotten some heat for saying that I like the speed of RTW battles...:furious3:...:shout:...:oops:
Anyway, this helps, and things I would like clarified is the difference of the maps (RTW has a nice lush terrain map, while MTW has more of a Risk style map as I've seen in screenshots).
On speed of battles, both games have a base speed at which units move and kill each other. MTW had a super-simple .txt file which contained all the unit variables (attack value, defense value, walk speed, run speed, charge speed, turn speed, etc.) In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders.
RTW battles are, on average, much faster than MTW battles. Two RTW units can collide and one can wipe the other out in like 2 seconds (depending on units). RTW units break (morale) a lot quicker than MTW units did, which makes the battles even shorter. RTW infantry move at lightening speed, almost as fast as cavalry, whereas MTW units move at more realistic relative speeds. For an easy comparison, you can generally think of RTW units as having much lower morale and armor compared to MTW. They run away quicker and they die quicker.
Also on speed, MTW had this very simple but very cool and handy speed bar. You just slid this little bar to the right and the battle speed accelerated. You had complete control between the standard and max speed. In RTW, that was simplified to like two pre-set speed acceleration rates. So, like in many things, at least in my opinion, RTW was dumbed down and options were taken away from players.
As to maps, the MTW map was very Risk-like. As I said above, you either controlled a province or you didn't. In RTW, there mind as well not even be provinces, since you only 'control' cities and whatever part of the country-side you have a dominant army in. There were no roaving bands of annoying skirmisher rebels in MTW. There were your armies, allied armies, enemy armies, and occasionally rebel units would spawn if the province was pissed off/disloyal.
In RTW, if your army was in a forest tile and a fight ensued, the game used a forest map that roughly approximated the surrounding area. In MTW, you either fought a battle in Flanders or in Normady. The game randomly selected maps from a set (like lush_european_flat_river or desert_hills). While I like the ability in RTW to have a bit more control over the kind of battlefield you'll fight in, I think the actual battle maps in RTW were crappy, because there were hardly any significant terrain features besides rivers and their bridges. In MTW, hills and forests had a much more significant impact on the outcome of a battle than they do in RTW. So, given the choice, I prefer MTW battle maps.
Last thing about maps, if I attacked Flanders from Normady, there's a variable that says whether there are rivers between Normandy and Flanders. If there are rivers, the game pulled up a river map with the appropriate climate. If not, no river. The terrain (lush, arid, hilly, flat, etc.) was determined by the terrain in the defending province.
More differences:
- Excessive maneuvers in RTW doesn't seem to be penalized.
- RTW units rarely get exhausted.
- Both RTW and MTW campaign map difficulty is the initial expansion phase. However, beyond that, RTW campaign is longer without using the "exterminate" the city function.
- Mercenary recruitment in MTW isn't as important.
- Princesses are useless and unnecessary (other than to spy on neighbors).
- You can groom any general unit in MTW.
- You can only trade with foreign factions in MTW (not perfectly sure of this since I didn't do specific tests). And there's no land trade between your cities.
- Ransoming (was one of the few improvement of MTW over STW).
Some similar aspects:
- Both are easy to build the economy (because building, training and upkeep are relatively low).
- Good players are penalized with economic vices (Aren't good players supposed to be rewarded not punished?)
On speed of battles, both games have a base speed at which units move and kill each other. MTW had a super-simple .txt file which contained all the unit variables (attack value, defense value, walk speed, run speed, charge speed, turn speed, etc.) In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders.
RTW battles are, on average, much faster than MTW battles. Two RTW units can collide and one can wipe the other out in like 2 seconds (depending on units). RTW units break (morale) a lot quicker than MTW units did, which makes the battles even shorter. RTW infantry move at lightening speed, almost as fast as cavalry, whereas MTW units move at more realistic relative speeds. For an easy comparison, you can generally think of RTW units as having much lower morale and armor compared to MTW. They run away quicker and they die quicker.
Also on speed, MTW had this very simple but very cool and handy speed bar. You just slid this little bar to the right and the battle speed accelerated. You had complete control between the standard and max speed. In RTW, that was simplified to like two pre-set speed acceleration rates. So, like in many things, at least in my opinion, RTW was dumbed down and options were taken away from players.
As to maps, the MTW map was very Risk-like. As I said above, you either controlled a province or you didn't. In RTW, there mind as well not even be provinces, since you only 'control' cities and whatever part of the country-side you have a dominant army in. There were no roaving bands of annoying skirmisher rebels in MTW. There were your armies, allied armies, enemy armies, and occasionally rebel units would spawn if the province was pissed off/disloyal.
In RTW, if your army was in a forest tile and a fight ensued, the game used a forest map that roughly approximated the surrounding area. In MTW, you either fought a battle in Flanders or in Normady. The game randomly selected maps from a set (like lush_european_flat_river or desert_hills). While I like the ability in RTW to have a bit more control over the kind of battlefield you'll fight in, I think the actual battle maps in RTW were crappy, because there were hardly any significant terrain features besides rivers and their bridges. In MTW, hills and forests had a much more significant impact on the outcome of a battle than they do in RTW. So, given the choice, I prefer MTW battle maps.
Last thing about maps, if I attacked Flanders from Normady, there's a variable that says whether there are rivers between Normandy and Flanders. If there are rivers, the game pulled up a river map with the appropriate climate. If not, no river. The terrain (lush, arid, hilly, flat, etc.) was determined by the terrain in the defending province.
Just a few comments on that post...
In RTW cavalry are not a similar speed to infantry when running, go into a custom battle and give them a race.
I'll give you the fact MTW made more use of surroundings, but still, the ability to generate whats on the campaign map onto the battle map is a great feature, adding realism/ I've even seen a battle fought on the shorline where my navy, floating around nearby, has been generated into the battle map.
Due to the risk style format of mtw, this is obviously impossible, but randomly generating a map from a set pack is hardly wonderful.
Also I think that in ancient times there would have been more 'tribes' rebels/brigands. However in Medieval with united kingdoms there would have been much less. Perhaps this is the reason for more rebels appearing in Rome. Once more, realism.
" In MTW, those variables were easily moddable. In RTW, many were hard-coded in with the 3D animations, so they couldn't be easily changed by modders."
Heh, comes with the 3d territory imo. MTW engine was relatively 'super simple' in comparison with Rome.
Yes, I agree that the speed bar should be brought back. Run and walk is not enough. Also in agreement that battles should be longer.
Anyhow, good idea for a topic.
Edit: Oh and dont forget the weather. MTW had more realistic 'storms' and such compared to rome.
Perplexed
02-06-2006, 04:20
- Both RTW and MTW campaign map difficulty is the initial expansion phase
This is true. In all of the TW games the most challenging part was the initial expansion. However I, like, I am sure, many others here, take challenging to mean more fun. Therefore, I say that the most fun in any TW game is in the preliminary stages of a campaign.
Unfortunately, the preliminary stages of a campaign are obviously only preliminary, so the fun does not last long. One way to fix this would be to create a feature by which empires which have swollen to an unchallenging level go into decline as a result of certain stimuli.
For example, say one empire, controlled by the player, is expanded from one province to twenty, in the reign of one influential king or a short line of influential kings. Under the enlightened rulership of these rulers, the empire is stable, but when a strong king dies and a weak monarch takes the throne, there should be more of a penalty for the empire, such as decreased morale in armies, less income, more unrest in frontier provinces, riots, civil wars, etc. This would work for the computer as well. A computer empire that grows too large will inevitably decline just as a player kingdom would.
Of course, it isn't necessarily only weak monarchs that make this decline possible. A large kingdom that suffers a disastrous defeat in battle should also suffer from the penalties of decline (this would also give crushing victories more of a meaning, as it would not only take away the enemy's fighting men, but would cause unrest in the kingdom as well. Massive victories would be more rewarding and have more gravity). Other examples of decline-causing stimuli include droughts, plagues, remnants of past monarchies who were overthrown by the current line causing unrest and rebellion; the list can go on for a while.
This step (which I expect to be opposed by many on this forum who don't like their hard work to be "destroyed" in such a way) would keep the action fresh nonetheless, and keep the campaign map a colorful and exciting place (less countries annihalated by larger empires, more prolonged conflict, etc.) and it would keep, as is the point of my post, the game more fun with many challenging stages throughout the campaign.
On generals...
In MTW, every time you built a unit, any unit, it had a chance to have general stars. The liklihood was determined by a LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH setting in the massive .txt file that had every unit variable in it (which is also why MTW was way easier and better to mod). So for example, spearmen had LOW but Royal Knights had HIGH.
So you could build Royal Knights and some would come out with one or two, maybe three stars.
Then there were pre-set heroes, like William Wallace, Strongbow FitzGilbert, El Cid, etc. which the game would assign to a unit, again based on their liklihood to get a general, after a certain date. So for the English, the first Royal Knight unit you build after like 1098 will be Strongbow I think, something like that. Strongbow came out with 4-6 stars. Each faction had different numbers of these historical hero units waiting to be spawned after certain dates. Also, in MTW, the characters could die, but the units retained the stats. So Strongbow would die, and random person X would take over that unit, but still have all of Strongbow's Command stars, Accumen, Dread, etc.
Then on top of all that there was a system of assigning governorship. Once you captured a province, a little icon appeared on the game map that looked like a scroll. This was the title of Lord for that region. You could also build certain buildings which created additional titles, like Constable of the Tower or Marshall of the Horse, Warden of the Clinque Ports and so on. Anyway, each of these titles conveyed stat boost to which ever unit you granted the title to. Every title granted some boost to the unit's loyalty. Some granted additional Command stars, Accumen, Dread, and Peity.
EVERY unit in the game has a Command, Accumen, Dread, Loyalty, and Piety stat. So, a common practice was to make cheap 100-man units with at least 4 Accumen the governor of a province. The lordships and other titles that granted Command start could be given to your top commanders to increase their power on the battlefield.
It was an awesome system, very flexible, very realistic too, and very simple. As a king, you could make even a peasant unit the lord or a province if you wanted (if they had high loyalty and high Accumen). Only the king and his immediate heirs could not be granted these titles. However, former heirs no longer in the line of succession could be granted titles. I really hope that system comes back.
ZombieFriedNuts
02-06-2006, 16:26
I played Rome total war first and couldn’t get the hang of medieval I tried though :embarassed:
Dutch_guy
02-06-2006, 17:09
well it does take some time to love Medieval, the graphics are killing especially if you - and so you have - play Rome before Medieval.
However once you play a little further in the campaign you learn to love those foreign civil wars, the re emerging factions, the crusades, AI ( yes even the AI ! ), Golden horde ( :yes: ) and the diversity between the Katholic, Muslim and Orthodox factions.
:balloon2:
The graphics really aren't a problem, they don’t do anything negative to the gameplay. (Maybe a little on unit recognition, but that’s really insignificant)
Then there were pre-set heroes, like William Wallace, Strongbow FitzGilbert, El Cid, etc. which the game would assign to a unit, again based on their liklihood to get a general, after a certain date. So for the English, the first Royal Knight unit you build after like 1098 will be Strongbow I think, something like that. Strongbow came out with 4-6 stars. Each faction had different numbers of these historical hero units waiting to be spawned after certain dates
Strongbow isn't ristricted to royal knights, I had him as feudal sargeants unit.
Don't forget the really bad (counter intuetive with far too many buttons in your face) battle interface. Coupled with the cheating AI (when higher than medium) made MTW battles unplayable.
Don't forget the really bad (counter intuetive with far too many buttons in your face) battle interface. Coupled with the cheating AI (when higher than medium) made MTW battles unplayable.
Actually, the AI only receives artifical bonuses on the Expert level. It doesn't cheat on Easy, Normal, or Hard.
And I wouldn't call MTW's battle interface counter-intuitive, although I agree Rome's overall was easier to understand. Medieval's interface simply had a lot more options than Rome's--various different unit/army formations, standing orders (hold position/engage at will), etc.
Ironside
02-06-2006, 20:53
In MTW auto-calc is actually useful compared to the human played battle. AKA it don't cost you an arm and a leg, unless even the battle you played played cost you atleast an arm.
You get your initial 16 units and every unit over that is given as reinforcements, that is basically unlimited (had once over 1000 units as reinforcements, required more than the entire map to support that army though) so the battles can be more epic and decisive. One big battle can break the neck of an empire for decades. 3000 vs 5000 isn't an unusual battle size (when one stack = 960 men).
The downside is that the enemy general often dies as even the rearguard was killed (he often joins the fray as one of the last units), weakening the AI that already have problems with doing well with his reinforcements.
The victories are often way less loopsided.
In both games the AI cheats a bit in the 2 higher levels. Nothing really major. Only on the battlefield in MTW though.
Every faction have morale improving buildings (it was the religious buildings). It's good as it makes the troops more reliable, but you still had to guard them as they will still rout if things went bad.
The terrain features on the MTW battle map was affecting tactics much more.
The difference between running and walking was less in MTW. Thus walking was more useful.
Cav actually get tired in MTW. And cav charges are less powerful. A frontal charge is only lethal vs very weak units (or with very strong cav). A flanking charge is another matter though. Flooding with multiple cav with frontal charges doesn't work well.
On the more downside stuff in MTW, here's some examples
Generals (often kings) can occationally have alot of hitpoints and valour and as only 2 men can engage the same enemy at the same time, those generals could last forever and killing up to hundreds (claimed, "only" seen dozens myslef) of enemies before fleeing or dieing. They are commonly known as jedi-generals.
With a massive trade-network and with some time, money never gets a problem in MTW, sadly the AI isn't as good on this. Modable fix on this though and I pesonally actually prefere this, but it isn't balanced and weakens the challange.
While I appreciate the opinions of others, I would appreciate it even more if future posters followed Ironside's example of staying on topic and merely posting about MTW game mechanics. If at all possible, please refrain from comentary posts. Some topics not covered yet:
The Royal Family (the number of heirs is not tied to the number of provinces as it is in RTW, how if your king marries a foreign princes your heirs will have higher stats than if the king marries a commoner, that heir units don't disappear when the heir dies, etc.)
A more detailed description of the role of ships (combat, controlling sea zones, trade network, troop transport network, support costs based on distance from friendly port, etc.)
Unit Types (of the standard breakdown of spear, sword, missile, siege, cavalry, polearm, etc., and how much better each type performed vs it's preferred adversary, i.e spear vs horse)
Agents (princesses, emisaries, priest, inquisitors, assassins, spies)
Crusades (how you build them, how you target them and move them accross the board, the effects on your faction if the crusade suceeds or fails)
The Interface
Morale and Fatigue
Moddability
How to fight river battles (one or two bridge maps, being able to move spear units onto the bridge, IN FORMATION, on Hold Position Hold Formation)
spacekraken
02-07-2006, 01:29
I don't think anyone has mentioned the ransoms yet.
In MTW after an army routes any enemy troops that are mopped up can be sold for ransom after the battle. In RTW I think it just counts as kills and fractional experience points for the units. You could make some good money in MTW, especially if you caught a king or a sultan.
You also had the choice of buying back troops ransomed by the enemy. If a lot of your good units got captured, if you had the money it was a good idea to buy them back.
Oh wow, I totally forgot two other things that are very different between RTW and MTW:
1) In RTW, you are charged for units and buildings you place in your production queue, even though they're not being built yet. In MTW, you only have to pay (and pay the full price up front) for a unit or building once production actually begins. Queueing things is free in MTW.
2) In RTW, the quantity of troops you can build from a city depends on the population of that city. In MTW, there are no cities really, so no population statistic, so the only cap on the number of units you can build from a province is the amount of money you have. While less realistic, it required much less micromanaging of cities.
That raises a grander point of difference between the two games. In general, there is FAR less micromanaging in MTW. Loyalty is much easier to control and maintain in MTW. There are fewer Vices and Virtues and no ancillaries to deal with (MTW is not an RPG). There are no pidly bands of rebel skirmishers aimlessly wandering around your province destroying your infrastructure. Your family is easier to manage. The governorship of your provinces is a snap. In many, many ways I think RTW added complexity where it wasn't needed, and took away flexibility where it was so handy. RTW feels more like Civilizations or SimCity; less about fighting, more about governing. Personally, I think it should have been called Rome: Total Management.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-07-2006, 02:11
Liked in MTW
Importance of battles - less of them, and generally more meaningful than RTW battles.
Dismounting (some) mounted units - Chivalric knights became an impressive anti-armor, anti-cav death squad when dismounted. Perfect when you have lots of knights facing spearmen - have them dismount, and a weakness becomes a strength.
Capture/Ransom - capturing instead of killing routers makes more sense (and was handled better than in RTW). Plus, ransoming back prisoners, especially members of the Royal Family is a great way to make quick money. More than one king has been forced to make me rich to be ransomed back.
Multiple Time periods - you don't have to start at 1080 every time. There was also a start time at 1231(?) and 1321(?), giving you different technologies, factions, and amount of time to finish a campaign.
Rally units individually - Instead of pinning your hopes on a general, the assumed commanders of single units could rally that unit. Very useful, and you can still rally and make a stand if you general dies.
Funky naval movement - Setting up ship lines connecting oceans was a little weird, but I think it works better than the broken naval work in RTW.
Agent movement - moving agents between any province with a port really worked, connecting empires and letting diplomacy and agent interaction happen without the micromanagement involved in shipping agents overseas and back like in RTW.
I like some things in RTW, like city population, being charged to queue units and buildings up front (I hated the "Insufficient Vespene Gas" messages ~;p :sweatdrop: ). There are more things I dislike in RTW, but I won't bring them up (other than what I've mentioned so far.)
Cowhead418
02-07-2006, 02:18
About Crusades and the Pope: You can only build a crusade if you have built a Chapter House and only Catholic Factions can do this. Crusades take 4 turns to build and then become a cross icon in the province they are in. When you want to start a crusade simply click the icon and drag it onto the province owned by rebels, orthodox factions, islamic factions, or excommunicated factions.
The Crusade will start with about three troop units you can only get through Crusades (Order Foot Soldiers, Teutonic Knights, Fanatics, etc). You must move the Crusade in the shortest path to its destination. The AI, however, does not have this restriction and can move anywhere they want, even in circles. In my Hungarian campaign the English sent a Crusade to Morocco from Brittany but instead of moving through Iberia it went all the way to Kiev to fight the Cumans until it eventually withered away from desertion. As a Crusade travels through another faction's province you must ask permission to pass through. If a Crusade is refused then the province is attacked. With permission granted the Crusade will take units from the province, some from the armies present in the province and some from the population. How many you get depends on the zeal of the province. The higher the zeal, the more troops you get. This leaves your Crusade with many units ranging anywhere from 2-100 men. However, every turn the Crusade loses men to deserters. I'm not sure what factors determine the amount of deserters per turn but it is usually about 50-100 men per turn. The desertion will stop if the Crusade has taken the destination province (even when you have a several turn siege). Once the destination province is taken the men in a Crusade turn into regular army stacks. Crusades can also jump from one port from the next as long as their is a clear line of allied/neutral fleets to that port.
A victorious Crusade will give your King lots of influence while a failed Crusade will do the opposite. I've had several Civil Wars in a row after a failed Crusade. Occasionally the Pope will ask for Crusades against a certain faction. This will usually be an Islamic faction but can also be a recently excommunicated faction. Before you can start a Crusade you have to pay the Pope. The amount you pay depends on how the Pope feels about that faction. The less he likes them the less you pay. There can only be one Crusade at a time. Crusades can be disbanded if the Chapter House that created them is destroyed. When this happens the armies will go back to the nearest friendly province and become regular army stacks. You don't have to pay upkeep for the troops in a Crusade until this happens. Crusading to a specific province is also a GA goal for many Catholic factions. I'll let someone else explain Glorious Achievement mode.
A note about Jihads: you can have as many Jihads as you want but they can only be used on provinces that were once owned by an Islamic faction and currently owned by someone else. Only Islamic factions can use Jihads and they work almost exactly the same way as Crusades. Unfortunately there is no Crusade or Jihad equivalent for the Orthodox factions.
Excommunication: Only Catholic factions have to worry about this. If you attack a fellow Catholic you will often receive a warning from the Pope. You must withdraw your troops within two turns and not attack for another ten. The Pope has a short memory though and can only keep track of one warning at a time. This allows you to attack as many other Catholics as you want during that time. The Pope will only issue a warning if you are more than twice as large as the other Catholic faction and if you attack them. Defending is perfectly fine as long as you win the field battles, relieving sieges is a big no-no to the Pope. Not letting Crusades pass through also results in excommunication. Being excommunicated is bad. You can't Crusade, you are hated by all the other Catholics, and there will be lots of enemy Crusades headed your way. Excommunications are voided when either the Pope dies or the King of the excommunicated faction dies. Being a good Christian will result in you occasionally getting 1000 florin gifts from the Pope.
Note on the Pope: Taking out the Papacy and taking control of the Papal States and Rome is generally not a good idea. After you take out the Pope a puppet Pope is put on the throne and no more Crusades and excommunications can happen. However, in about 10-20 turns the Pope will return (you cannot control this) with usually an army of many full stacks. No matter how many times you take out the Pope he will come back. This is why many players leave the Pope for last when conquering all of Europe.
This leads me to a note on faction re-emergences: if you take out a faction, it doesn't mean they are gone for good. If any of the provinces they used to own has population loyalty below 120%, there is a chance they will re-emerge. An unknown heir will raise an army of varying sizes and if they conquer a province they will act like any other faction. Unfortunately, your own faction cannot re-emerge.:laugh4:
I hope I covered everything on this subject.:book:
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-07-2006, 02:24
Gah! GA mode!
How could I forget?!
Glorious Achievement mode (GA mode for short) was a way to win without necessarily conquering everything in sight.
Essentially, you get points for doing certain things, and the winner is the nation with the most points at the end of the game.
The most common kind of GA goal was called "homelands." Nations recieved GA points every specified interval (usual every 25 years) based on holding certain "homeland" provinces. For example, Sicily had to hold Sicily (among others) to get points.
Other goals include crusading (and holding) certain provinces in the Holy Land, like Antioch and Palestine (=Jerusalem).
Some factions had to build certain buildings in provinces, like France must build a Cathedral in the Isle-de-France province to fulfill the "Notre Dame" GA goal. There was always a time limit ("points counted between 1150 - 1250) for these kinds of goals.
Those are the basics of GA mode. I almost exclusively play it, because I find it adds flavor and takes away from mindless conquering.
I totally forgot about GA mode too, but you're right, that added a bit of personality to the game. Anyone want to take on a remaining topic:
The Royal Family
Unit Types
Agents
Interface
Morale and Fatigue
Moddability
OK, I'll have a go at the UNIT TYPES.
MTW essentially followed RTW in the types of basic units available, although there were less "exotic" units (no elephants, for example). Hence any description here should probably emphasise the slight nuanced differences.
MTW had four main unit classes - spears, swords, missiles and cavalry. Typically, spears beat cavalry, swords beat spears, cavalry beat missiles and missiles hurt anything at range but needed protection from melee. The "rock-paper-scissors" nature of the combat was more marked than in RTW, with cavalry in particular being less effective against spears. Missiles - at least early archers - were also less effective. However, the BI expansion has brought RTW closer to the balance of arms in MTW.
Within the "spears" class, pikes made only a very late appearance and although the Swiss Armoured Pikemen (SAPs) were one of the strongest units in the game, peopled tended not to see the phalanx based armies of RTW at least in the SP campaign. Spear units tended to be larger than other infantry units (e.g. 100 compared to 60). Early unarmoured spears could just about fight knights to a standstill. Mailed spears could do so more comfortably. However, spears performed poorly against swords especially in multiplayer (in SP, their larger unit size offset their weaker stats).
The "swords" class was arguably one of the most powerful - especially for its points in multi-player combat - despite seeming essentially ahistorical (few units in that time had swords as their primary weapons). Although most sword units were smaller than spears, the Byzantines benefited from overstrength sword units that were one of their main strengths. The Almohads had formiddable urban militia with half-plate armour available an era before it was accessible to infantry of their rivals. Both these units were arguably ahistorical but gave their respective factions an edge in combat in the early period. In both cases, these advantages were offset by an absence of good spearmen (and cavalry, in the case of the Almohads). Later on swords tended to be replaced by polearm units, which served a similar purpose as "shock" infantry but were armour piercing and more effective against cavalry. Janissary heavy infantry (JHI) - elite well armoured Turkish halberdiers - rivalled SAPs as the uber-infantry.
The "missiles" class was dominated by the arbalest - a powerful crossbow that arguably appeared an era too soon - and could tear through even the most armoured foes at a considerable distance. The crossbow was sadly redundant as you could get arbalests at the same period (although the mounted variant in the early period provided a highly desirable unit of fast cavalry). Unlike RTW, there was relatively little differentiation in the effectiveness of standard bows - for example, there was no separate modelling of composite and shortbows; and elite archers could shoot no better than lowly vanilla ones. Bows were useful against unarmoured foes, but rather ineffective against those with chain and shield or better. Uniquely, the English did get access to fast firing, armour piercing longbows; these were balanced by an alarming rate of ammunition depletion. Firearms made a late appearance and could shatter morale, as well as pierce plate armour. Javelin armed units were less common than in RTW, as might be expected from the history, although a few more became available through the VI expansion and they could be effective if used correctly (javelin armoured jinettes from Spain were a favoured fast cavalry).
As in RTW, "cavalry" could be divided into heavy, light and horse archer. The heavies were predictably dominated by knights, although these took a surprisingly long time to get in the SP game (with formiddable building prerequisites). Consequently, players often had to make do with the "free" knights that escorted their generals. The most powerful cavalry were those armed in full plate - Gothic knights restricted to Germany and Italy; lancers specific to Spain (although available to all Catholics as late period escorts for generals). Arguably, heavy cavalry was less prominent and less powerful in MTW than one might expect from one's images of knightly combat in the era. A cheap spear unit could halt their charge and they seemed to lack some of the speed and devastating impact of heavy cavalry in RTW. Horse archers were also arguably less useful in MTW than RTW - there was no "Parthian shot" and the skirmish AI appeared less well developed. Even armies such as the Mongols that were heavy in horse archers got more of their punch from their formiddable heavy cavalry. Arguably cavalry's most important purpose - as in STW - was in chasing routers. Infantry alone could deliver victory, but cavalry was needed to make it decisive.
Of the missing "exotic" units, there were no dogs, elephants, druids, screeching women or combustible porcine units that so offended some grognards when faced with RTW. Rather drab camel units were about as "exotic" as it got. The Viking Invasion did introduce some questionable horned "Jomsvikings" but otherwise stuck to the unit list in MTW, with more of an emphasis on infantry. Axe-bearing chainmailed elite infantry (huscarles or housecarles) were perhaps the most formiddable units in the expansion.
The unit line up varied over time more than in RTW. Whereas in RTW, there was only the Marian reforms - and these mainly affected Rome only - in MTW, after the first patch, the three eras generally opened (or in some cases, closed through obsolence) new unit recruitment possibilities for all factions. The early era tended to be dominated by unarmoured spears, archers and mailed swords. (Curiously, early mailed spears were largely a preserve of the Muslims or - more rarely - special Crusading order foot). The high era saw the introduction of chain mail for most units, arbalests and polearms, with knights being more accessible. The late era saw firearms, pikes, plate or half plate armour becoming common and the decline of simple spear and sword units. The power of factions' units also varied over time, with the Almohads and Byzantines in particular having early advantages but suffering from some obsolesence in the late period.
Most factions received a special unique unit(s) and often discounts for these or other units. Some provinces also gave particular valour (experience) bonuses for units recruited in them. The aforementioned Byzantine infantry and Almohad urban militia were arguably the most important of these unique units in terms of their impact on the game. Overall, the armies tended to have less distinct unit line ups and more generic fighting styles than those in RTW. The Byzantines were rather different with their sword armed (but anachronistic) legions. However, the Muslims and Catholics tended to be rather similar with perhaps the most marked difference being an absence of well armoured "sword" type units for at least the Middle Eastern Muslims (until the arrival of the JHI, Muslim shock infantry tended to be incredibly brittle, by virtue of being relatively unarmoured). By contrast, RTW factions have more distinct fighting styles - Roman, phalanx, barbarian, horse archer - as well as some factions that can combine these styles in interesting ways.
AntiochusIII
02-08-2006, 02:49
The Royal Family: An Overview (Feel free to correct my mistakes, it's been a while)
Before we begin, I must explain that the Medieval: Total War's (henceforth MTW) version of "Royal Family" is much different from the Rome: Total War's (henceforth RTW) version. In RTW, it is an extended bunch of characters--faction leaders, their heirs, and the adopted ones--that serve as the only source of governers and generals-with-personality available. In Medieval, however, the Royal Family is the Royal Family, with limited size, limited showing, no adoption/men marrying the kings' daughters (that we will go into detail), or such other events RTW players are familiar with. Units trained in normal ways do provide governers and generals--with personality, of course--as usual. They, however, are immortal until slain, unless you use a certain command, which is not the topic at hand: the non-royal generals will live forever, but the Kings and Princes have their age.
- Marriage
- General functions/limitations/influences
- Display scene
- ex-Royals
- Civil Wars & Re-emergences
In MTW, marriage is handled in about three different ways:
1. There is the King. He is single. If he is not married to a foreign princess soon, he will be "automatically marrying" RTW-style, so the dynasty can continue.
2. The Princes. They won't marry on their own until they become king. However, marriage deals will see them married before claiming the throne. For example, you could accept (or propose) a marriage offer to a certain English princess, and if the King is married, the bride goes to the eldest prince.
3. Your own princesses. Princesses, though members of the royal family, are treated as agents on the strategic map, going around as diplomats--though they can offer their bodies to ugly foreign strongmen, or your own generals (improve loyalty significantly), or your own princes (****ed up, but hey! ~D ) for the Kingdom, as well, and that is their primary function.
General Functions...
The Royal Family provides a bunch of those who have claims to the throne so your dynasty (i.e. you) can continue in the game. Their extinction most oftenly cause the defeat of your game, though not if you're just being a rebel with a cause during one of those civil wars. The King, however, is a very special figure. He is the only character in your faction with influence instead of loyalty. Influence is the measurement of your king's power, and it's a very dynamic figure, which I won't go into detail of; also noticable is that the king's other traits: acumen, piety, and dread, will affect the entire kingdom. A successful King has high influence, which is beneficial in many ways, including, but not limited to, favorable diplomatic stances, loyalty among generals, good sons, etc. The last one is especially important: the princes in MTW are not generally decided about their capabilities through complete randomness and inheritance as in RTW, but by their daddy's influence at the moment they come of age. A nine-influence king (such as the early Byzantines, most beloved and reviled among MTW players) often produce phenomenal heirs to take on the dynasty.
The Princes are not the same in MTW as they are in RTW. First and most importantly, they cannot receive offices, neither could the King; this aspect of the game will have to be covered by others, though. Second, they won't marry on their own unless as a diplomatic deal or you force them to marry their sister princesses, like one of those scary anime by some certain name as Sister Princess (or something along those lines) :sweatdrop: . And third, their units do not regenerate like the King's and the RTW generals.
The princesses, well, I've covered them earlier. Something to add: they have their age limit of marriage, until which, should a lady continues to holds on to her virginity until a certain age of 32 (right?), she will have to be a spinster, disappearing from the game equation. Also, Muslim factions have no princesses. Though they can, of course, marry Christian princesses.
The way of choosing an heir is also different, namely: you cannot directly do so. In RTW you can click a button or two and that is finished; in MTW, however, you can't. The eldest prince gets the throne. This leads to many players mass-slaughter their elder, less skilled princes in favor of their better-minded younger brothers through suicidal attacks. And what happens to the younger princes in one generation once their eldest *surviving* brother takes the throne? They become ex-royals.
Display Scene
Not really long, just a note that it only shows the King and his immediate heirs (i.e. the princes) and that the Princes are limited to six per King, no more, unlike RTW, with shows the entire family, though each person is limited to four children. Notice: four children versus six sons (therefore, an MTW King can have more than six children, but that have to be princesses). The princes, if married, may have children: but they won't be shown until that prince inherits the Kingship.
Ex-Royals
What are they? As I've said earlier, these are the princes of a generation which the current King (or earlier Kings) was once the eldest among them, thus becoming Kings. The King's brothers (if there are any) are relegated to a general-with-royal-blood status, and they act like normal generals: meaning, they can take offices and live on forever (unless, again, you activate a certain command prompt). This often translates into very powerful generals and governers with high stats, especially if they are the sons of some great Kings past. However, that is not a limit in them. After all, they DO have royal blood! So, in case of Civil War, they can take the lead of either side. This part, however, is probably incomplete since I have not been in many situations where the generals' royal blood becomes a factor, therefore not having experience first hand. I think they could even take the Kingship, but in what circumstances I am completely clueless.
Also interesting is that these ex-royals will have the last name of a dynasty, which is not shown when they're princes and/or Kings. For example, the English early dynasty is the Plantagenets, as the names will show; the Holy Roman Empire early being Carolinger, the Byzantines early Comnenus, and so on. So "Prince Alexius," when he loses his prince status, will become "Alexius Comnenus."
Civil War and Re-Emergence
This is not really a topic about the royal blood, but anyway, I will explain the parts which deal with the royalty.
First of all, civil war is a phenomenon in MTW which is completely missing in RTW--the Roman Civil War being a completely different thing. Basically, your empire is so messed up (mostly by a failed crusade, or the King is just a dimwit) that the empire breaks apart in Civil War. Generals choose sides--YOU can choose sides, too, backing the loyalists or the rebels--based on their loyalty. A new claimant most often is an entirely new dynasty, though I sometimes see the princes themselves joining the rebellion. It is troubling and very, very fun, and is the only way you can force the appearance of Frederick Barbarossa in the game. ~;)
Re-emergence, on the other hand, seems to be based partially on the existence of a heir of a faction. For example, you crush the French completely, ending their existence of the faction. However, one of the princes (or many, or even the King himself) used to have underage heirs who were too young to be slaughtered in the French defeat. These heirs are watched by the game (though you won't ever really see them until...) and when they are of age, the former French provinces with less than 120% loyalty will be in danger of re-emergence. This is why sometimes Kings of 71 years old show up in a re-emergence. I'm not very sure, however, once the years have gone long enough (say, a hundred years--no Kings live that long) if that faction is still capable of re-manifesting itself.
There you go, as I've said, correct my mistakes if there are any. :bow:
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-08-2006, 03:15
Agents in MTW
--------------
There are several kinds of agents in MTW, more than in RTW but somewhat simpler to manage. All factions could get Diplomats, Spies, and Assassins. The other agents were either Princesses or religious figures. All agents could move one province per turn, or from a province with a port to another province anywhere on the map with a port. Agents only had "command stars" showing their rank. There were no traits nor ancillaries for them, nor could they be bribed.
General Agents
Emissary - RTW's diplomats - they bribe enemy armies and conduct diplomacy. This was much simpler than in RTW (to RTW's credit), and consisted only in proposing alliances, proposing cease-fires to enemy nations, and trying to get a princess of another nation to marry into your nation's royal family (more on that later). Emissaries could also remove titles granted to generals, usually with a hit in loyalty. Successful transactions led to more command stars and (I think) better chance of success.
Assassins - somewhat strangely, it takes longer to get to spies on the tech tree than assassins, contrary to RTW. An assassin still kills people, though they can't destroy buildings. Successful assassinations led to more command stars, increasing the chance of successful execution. There was almost always a small chance of failure, and even 90+% occasionally failed. (:wall: ) Assassins could fail and survive, but more often were caught and executed. Watchtowers and border forts (buildings) increased chances of assassins (and spies) being caught very effectively.
Spies - Very useful, they cased unrest in provinces based on their skill rank. They were also used to reveal any hidden vices a general had. Additionally, they pacified the province they were in. Interestingly, spies in a province occupied by another nation ocassionally uncovered the AI's plans. You could receive messages like "The Byzantines are mobilizing their forces. It appears their target is the Turks and they will attack next year." While useful, it benefitted only the player, since your computer can't read your mind (right? :sweatdrop: ) Spies gained rank by successfully revealing hidden traits, by revealing enemy plans, and if any enemy province rebelled because they were orchestrating unrest there. Spies could be caught when trying to reveal vices and by watchtowers/border forts.
Catholic Agents
Bishop - trained from a lowly church, Bishops spread Catholicism in the province they were in. They could also act as emissaries to propose cease-fires and alliances (but nothing else). Successful diplomatic action increased skill, which increased conversion rates. A level 3 Bishop can convert a Muslim province to Catholicism relatively quickly if left unchecked.
Cardinal - trained at the Cathedral (much later in a campaign) Cardinals were upgraded Bishops. A level 2 Cardinal can convert a province in a few turns by his lonesome. They also counteract inquisitors (see below).
Inquisitor - Church assassin, effectively. When in a Catholic-majority province, they increase zeal. They can be used to put Catholic generals on trial, with results based on Piety. High piety generals aren't executed, but sometimes get bad traits; low piety generals may burn at the stake. Inquisitors can instigate an inquisition in a province, reducing zeal and happiness and killing people. If in the same province as a cardinal, inquisitors rarely successfully stake someone, and don't start nasty inquisitions.
Grand Inquisitor - available later in the game, just a super inquisitor. Very scary. :sweatdrop:
Orthodox Agents
Priest - equivalent of Catholic Bishop, except that they spread the Orthodox faith.
Bishop - equivalent of Catholic Cardinal, except Orthodox.
Muslims Agents
Alim - Muslim equivalent of Catholic Bishop
Imam - Muslim equivalent of Catholic Cardinal, also boosts zeal.
Princesses - as Antiochus touched upon, Princesses are members of the royal family meant for marryin'. You can use your princesses to offer cease-fires or alliances if the target faction has no unmarried heirs. Otherwise, you are offering the poor girl's hand in marriage for an alliance or cease-fire. Conversely, you use emissaries to request marriages for your princes to foreign princesses. Make sure you get them early and often for best results. You don't want your 54 year old only heir to be a bachelor!
If I forgot something or made an error, please point it out. :sweatdrop:
Thanks to Cowhead and Kraxis for corrections.
Cowhead418
02-08-2006, 04:35
Agents in MTW
--------------
If I forgot something or made an error, please point it out. :sweatdrop:
The agent in MTW is known as an Emissary, not a Diplomat. Diplomats are RTW only.
ajaxfetish
02-08-2006, 06:46
Excellent effort, Servius. I think this thread deserves a sticky. :balloon2:
Here's a bit on morale and fatigue, though I'm sure there're things I'm leaving out.
Morale and Fatigue
Morale
In M:TW, you do not win battles by killing the enemy soldiers; you win by breaking their morale. All units had a set base morale, anywhere from –2 for some peasant-types up to 8 for knights and some other elite or fanatical units. This morale could be enhanced or depleted by numerous factors on both the strategic and tactical levels. Morale in battle was tracked by several states from ‘impetuous’ to ‘routing’ that were displayed with your unit’s info. You could only guess at your opponents’ state of morale.
(Both Morale and Fatigue are tracked by unit as an average rather than on a by-man basis like valor)
Strategic modifications
Buildings: building religious buildings in a province gave additional morale to any units trained there. The base levels, one or two additional morale, were easy to come by, but to get the maximum bonus (around 6 but different for different religions) required a major commitment and was limited to one province.
Vices/Virtues: your generals could get vices or virtues that would have an effect on their forces morale, such as ‘natural leader’ or ‘coward.’ Sometimes a general with fantastic command would have to stop leading the troops because he was such an inbred, dishonest, impious, merciless pansy that his troops would not fight for him.
Tactical modifications
Morale was tracked continuously during battle and changed due to numerous features, including:
Casualties
Relative numbers
Fatigue
Missile Fire
Other Routing Troops
Elevation
Death of a General
Current fighting condition (winning or losing and how bad)
Threats to Flanks
General’s Proximity
. . . and many others
In battle you had to keep a careful eye on all of your units’ morale, especially the touchy ones, and try to outmaneuver your enemy in such a way as to lower his troops morale, such as a rear attack or a killing blow to the general early in the battle.
Fatigue
Fatigue also played a critical role. A unit’s freshness was displayed on the battle icon by four horizontal bars. At the beginning of a battle the unit had all four bars, and as it became more and more tired, it would lose bars, down to three, two, one, and finally exhaustion at no bars (think Cingular ads). Until it was exhausted, the unit was able to march or run (significant difference), but when exhausted it could only move at a walking pace. If a unit were to stand still and rest on the field, it could recover some of its bars, but usually not more than two once it had gotten significantly fatigued.
Fatigue had an effect in battle indirectly by lowering a unit’s morale, and directly as a unit lost attack and defense ability along with each bar, so that a totally exhausted unit would be fighting at –8 morale, -6 attack, and –3 defense, meaning that fancy knights and other heavy troops could become very vulnerable.
No units started with more or less endurance than another, but the more armor they were wearing the faster fatigue set in, and the slower they recovered. Fighting in the snow and especially the desert increased the rate of fatigue, making heavily armored troops a bad idea for warmer climes, and at great risk when fighting the mostly light troops of Muslim factions.
Ajax
Excellent effort, Servius. I think this thread deserves a sticky. :balloon2: I second that; this is a useful thread
I don't think anyone has mentioned the ransoms yet.
In MTW after an army routes any enemy troops that are mopped up can be sold for ransom after the battle. In RTW I think it just counts as kills and fractional experience points for the units. You could make some good money in MTW, especially if you caught a king or a sultan.
You also had the choice of buying back troops ransomed by the enemy. If a lot of your good units got captured, if you had the money it was a good idea to buy them back.This also made room for more diverse strategies in battle - do i take in that light cavalry to run down the enemy; is it worth sacrificing a battle slot.
Also, getting your king/undesireable family member caputred provided a good way of getting him executed :laugh4:
-----------------------
People, can we try to keep the commenting in this thread to a minimum, so new players can focus on MTW information. I know i only got into mtw after seeing rtw was coming out and trying the 'prequel' (in my mind), and information like this was very useful...
-----------------------
I'll take a whack at the Interface. Someone else wanna talk about moddability?
INTERFACE
When you started MTW, the main menu had the following options: Quick Battle, Single Player (Campaign) Multiplayer (Battle), Campaign Tutorial, Battle Tutorial, Options, and Quit. In addition to the standard kind of video and audio options, MTW Options included the ability to change the camera movement and rotation speeds (which I believe RTW lacks). The Single Player option took you to a screen that allowed you to choose from a new campaign, a custom battle, historical battles, historical campaigns, and other options. The meat of the game was New Campaign. Choosing that would allow you to choose between three MTW time periods (Early, High, and Late medieval periods) and, if you had Viking Invastion, you could choose that prequel time period and map of England.
So, you chose your preferred dificulty, your time period, and then you got to choose to play practically all of the factions in the game, right off the bat. No unlocking necessary. Some factions were in better or worse strategic positions, and their situation differed depending on which time period you choose. For example, playing the French in Early was kinda hard, but playing them in the High period was easier because France was historically more powerful then and the faction's strategic situation mirrored that.
To cut this short, the interface in MTW was smaller/less intrusive, cleaner, and provided more useful controls/options. For example, in a battle, every unit had a rectangular card at the bottom of the screen. It floated over the terrain rather than being housed within an opaque interface block. Each of these cards had an image of the unit and showed:
1) the number of men in the unit
2) armor and weapon upgrades
3) the fatigue level of the unit
4) whether it was moving, running, fighting, under fire, or fleeing
5) the amount of ammo the unit had (if it had any)
If you held your cursor over the unit or its card, text would appear telling you more informatoin about what type of unit it was, what it was good at (good vs. cavalry, strong charge, vulnerable to missiles, etc.), and it also told you about the morale of the unit and why (impetuous, shaken, happy that flanks are covered, worried by so many casualties, etc.)
At the top of the battle screen was the map, the speed bar, unit control buttons, and a timer. Each of these also floated over the map rather than being housed in an opaque interface box. The speed bar was much more useful than RTW's three speed options. The command buttons applied to whatever units were selected. You had the chance to rally individual units instead of having to hope your HQ's rally command would work. Each unit could Hold Position (would not chase a fleeing unit) or Engage at will. They could be commanded to Hold formation too, which was useful in ensuring that spear units held their block formation and didn't break to engage individual units. Every unit could be in a block formation (the standard) a wedge formation (granted +1 attack but -1 defense) or a loose formation (which decreased their vulnerability to missile fire.
Cavalry units could dismount before battle, usually becoming some kind of spearman or polearm unit. Dismounted Knights were a nasty bunch of infantry, Hospitaller Foot Knights in particular.
There were also handy keyboard commands. One that was VERY handy to me but was removed in RTW was the ability to click on a unit, hold down ALT and click a place on the map, and the unit would automatically face that spot. The ability worked with groups too, so you could arrange archers on the flanks of a bridge, select them all, and ALT-click on the chokepoint at the far end of the bridge. Each unit, though selected together, would rotate on an individual basis to face the spot you clicked on. In RTW, to do this, you have to drag your cursor across the map, which brings up the little triangles that mark where the unit will face when you let go of the button. No where near as useful as the simple ALT-click. Feh.
Imam - Muslim equivalent of Catholic Cardinal
Also ups zeal.
In MTW you got penalized heavily for stacking unit on top of each other, or if they just got bunched up (trying to push through a gate or over a bridge).
That made it a challenge to push into a castle or cross a bridge.
At times you got two bridges, but you never got fords. So the single bridge was very important. It also seemed slightly slimmer and somewhat longer than the RTW bridges.
You would really avoid attacking MTW bridges with 1:1 rates.
Total War Merc
02-09-2006, 18:20
Princesses are useless and unnecessary (other than to spy on neighbors).
Not if u marry a king, then assasinate him and all the other heirs, then u get the land... muhahahaha
Mercenary recruitment in MTW isn't as important
Have to say i found it more important on the viking campaign than i ever did on RTW. I agree that on normal campaing in mtw its not as important once you have established your empire.
I'll take a crack at Modding, but others may want to expand on it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MODDABILITY
IMO, MTW was VERY easy to mod. I'm not very skilled at this stuff, but I can handle Notepad and Excel, which is really all you needed to change almost everything in the game (the exceptions being graphical stuff like maps, skins, models, etc.)
As I said above, the single-player campaign could be started in one of three time periods (or 4 if you had Viking Invasion). Each of these time periods had a massive .txt file associated with it. In each period's .txt file, you could easily change things like:
The kind of maps used when province x was invaded from province y
The buildings each province started that period with
The units each province started that period with
The base farm income value of each province
The trade goods in a province
Which factions were playable
Whether a province is susceptible to floods, earthquakes, etc.
Whether one could walk an army from one province to another (so like whether there was a "land bridge" between Granada and Moracco, or between Wessex and Flanders)
You could easily create and add new factions, pick their religion, etc.
Then there was another massive .txt file that held all the raw combat data for each unit in the game. I found it easiest to edit this one with Excel. Anyway, you could easily change attack values, defense values, morale, number of men in the unit, how likely that unit was to be spawned with a Hero, which factions could build that unit, whether any factions got a cost discount when building that unit, etc. Many of the modding problems people have had with RTW units (changing movement speed, killing speed, etc.) were super easy to change in MTW. CA says this is because the RTW data was hardcoded with the 3D animations. I have Dawn of War, which also has 3D units, and I know you can easily mod melee damage and movement speed in that game, so I think it's a bad excuse. Relic even provided their modding tools to make modding even easier. Anyway, there were two other .txt files that controlled all the features of buildings and of missiles (like how longbowmen's arrows flew, trajectory, stuff like that). So, early on in RTW, there was a big problem with missile units shooting into the backs of their own commrades and killing them. If MTW ever had that problem, you could easily have modded it out by adjusting the trajectory of the missiles.
In short, MTW was extremely easy to mod. There was hardly any aspect of the game you could not easily change just with Notepad or Excel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Someone want to give a description of the general time period, some historical background, and/or describe the strategic situation/style of some of the major factions? Some that immediately come to mind are:
England
France
Germany
Spain
Italy
Byzantium
The Turks
Well, I always play England, so I'll go first. For a constant format, shall we describe each faction from the Early Period on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ENGLAND
In vanilla MTW, England starts the Early period with an interesting setup. The island of Great Britain has 5 provinces: Wessex, Mercia, Wales, Northumbria, and Scotland. Of those, England begins with control of Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria. Wales and Scotland are controlled by Rebels.
On the continent, England holds 3 provinces which are in modern-day France: Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine. The adjacent provinces (and their holders) are: Brittany - France, Flanders - France, Ile de France - France, Burgundy - Germany, Toulouse - France, Aragon - Aragon, and Navarre - Rebel.
In each of these provinces, England has 1-3 units, comprised of Peasants, Spearmen, Archers, Hobilars (Light Cav), Urban Militia, and the Royal Knights of the King.
In vanilla MTW, Wessex and Flanders are joined by an etherial land bridge, which means that armies can 'walk' from one province to another. However, England does not start out with any ships, and I think they only have one port (in Wessex) anyway. This means that England holds 6 provinces, but for military purposes they hold two independent sets of 3 provinces (the 3 on the island and the 3 on the continent).
As far as starting structures goes, Wessex has some rudimentary buildings (it can build archers, spears, and diplomats I think) and Aquitaine has a Fort and can build Hobilars. Other than a farm upgrade in Wessex and Aquitaine, and the port in Wessex, I think that's it as far as starting infrastructure.
So, strategically, you can do many things. You can bulk up your continental forces to try and hold on to those 3 territories while at the same time bulking up Wessex, which means you won't have the money to tech quickly, nor the spare units to take Wales, Scotland, or Brittany. However, my preferred first set of moves was to abandon the Aquitaine and Anjoy, retreating their units to Normandy, while at the same time bringing my units from Northumbria and Mercia down to Wessex. Then, on the same turn, I would move all my units from Normandy and Wessex into Flanders. The French would always run away. This, I think is the best first three or so moves to make. Here's why:
Flanders is the hands-down best province to own in the game. It has a VERY high base farm income value, it has 3 trade goods, and it borders Normandy, Ile de France, Lorraine (German) and Belgium? (German), which means you can force your neighbors to keep expensive stacks in several provinces while you only have to keep an expensive stack in one. Those three facets means that it is a HUGE economic jewel to have. On top of that, all of the borders except the one with Lorraine have rivers on them, which means anyone attacking from Normandy, Ile de France, or Belgium? will probably be slaughtered. Therefore, it's very easily defendable (except from Lorraine!). So, while this will cause a war with France, who will likely take Anjou, Normandy, and the Aquitaine, you're actually better off trading all 3 for Flanders. Flanders is the economic equal of the other three combined, and it means you only have one province to defend now, instead of 4. Remember, since no one has any ships yet, no one can touch Great Britain. Only Flanders can be attacked, and as I said above, it's easily defended by a decent general and a few spears and archers.
After you take Flanders, build your economy, while at the same time taking Wales and maybe Scotland if you want. Wales has a decent economic value and can eventually train Longbowmen with +1 valor. Scotland has a crappy economic value, and a VERY rebellious populace, but you can build Highlanders there, which are pretty decent light infantry (fast, great attack, but poor defense). Also, since it's so rebellious, you can actually use that to your advantage by constantly sending your king in there to kill the rebels, you'll improve his stats, which will then improve the stats of his heirs.
After you control GB, look to a navy. The Danes may have gotten uppity, producing cheap but powerful Longboat, and that puts your island in jeopardy. You'll also want ships to allow you to invade Ireland, which is good economically, provides you access to even better swordsmen (Gallowglasses, normal speed but with armor-peircing swords, which historically should be axes really). Also, the governorship of Ireland and Scotland convey +1 Command starts to their holders. Lastly, ships will allow you to build a trade network, which in the long run will pour money into your coffers, AND ships allow you to project your military power almost anywhere on the map you like (Crusades anyone?)
Okay, so that's the strategic situation. Militarily, Englands gets access to some neat stuff. First all Archer units cost like 25% less than normal to buy and maintain I think. England also has access to Hobilars, which is super nice to have access to even light horse right from the get-go. France can make Hobilars too but feh! to France! Other factions can build Highlanders, Gallowglasses, and Kerns (Irish-only short-range skirmishers, pretty crappy), but no one else is in as opportune position to control those provinces, so they mind as well be England-only units too. All that's just in the Early period. If you choose to go on crusade, you get Order Foot Soldiers (High-period spearman), Fanatics (uber peasants) and Knights Templar. Knights Templar fight with swords instead of spears, which means their charge attack value is lower than other Crusader Knights, but they're still as good or better than Early Royal Knights. And remember, you can always dismount them for Chivalric Foot Knights, which are heavily-armored armor-piercing halberdiers (which rip cavalry apart too!).
The High (middle) period is when England really shines. That's when England gains access to Longbowmen (armor-piercing archers with very long range and decent melee) and Billmen (medium-armor halberdiers, quicker than average). Longbowmen produced in Wales get +1 Valor. So do Billmen produced in Mercia. So, right from the start you should focus military buildings in Wales towards archery and in Mercia towards spears.
Personally I think England was the best faction. It started with a great strategic position, it had access to a lot of special units, and for those LOTR fans out there, it's pretty easy to see yourselves as the Men of the West coming ashore with your badass armies to tear rebels (or better, heretics) a new one!
AntiochusIII
02-11-2006, 00:47
A short notice: Servius1234's reference to a "Belgium" province is known in the game as "Friesland," a small, poor province that, in all three game times, belong to the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Germans).
I'd be glad to do some of them (though the walkthroughs aren't really needed, in my opinion--there is another forum for that. We should concentrate on elaborate descriptions of strengths, weaknesses, appealing factors, unappealing factors, the way the games usually play, and so on) but I don't have an installed MTW close at hand for accurate information. Memories aren't good enough...
Also I think that in ancient times there would have been more 'tribes' rebels/brigands. However in Medieval with united kingdoms there would have been much less. Perhaps this is the reason for more rebels appearing in Rome. Once more, realism.
Hmm. A good thought but I'd have to disagree. Maybe more tribes during ancient times but kingdoms weren't really united until late Medieval/Rennaissance history. Besides Rome eventually became (within the timeframe of RTW) a more cohesive nation than any Medieval country could have dreamed of.
I think in essence the appearance of rebels in RTW was just undertested by CA. I don't think they realized how annoying they were to the gameplay until after the release.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.