MII:TW - Disappointed?

[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.

[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)

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!'!
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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.