true to history

[Paco 2 Chihuahuas]

What parts of this game do you think reflect most closely the way it actually was battlefieldwise? Are there any type units that were left out of the game that you feel should have been included?

[A.Saturnus]

I think the game options menu is quiet historically correct.

------------------
In the name of electricity: CHARGE!!!

[Swoosh So]

Hmm when i think of medieval wars i think of peeps all charging at one another not all moving around seperately... but then again what do i know http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[econ21]

There are a lot of things I like about MTW as a game that captures some of the flavour of historical battle.

I like the "feels like you are there" features - e.g. the adrenaline kick, helped a lot by the music, by the march to battle and onset of hostilities.

I like the army morale and pursuit stuff - cavalry mowing down routers - although I would like some units to have a chance to hold and be the rearguard.

I like the fog of war - the possibility of ambushes - although perhaps this aspect could be enhanced, eg low command generals more likely to be bushwhacked or out of position.

I like the "combined arms" rock-paper-scissors gameplay although agree it could be tweaked a little away from spears.

I really like the importance of timing - judging the moment when the enemy is wavering and a counter-attack will sweep them from the field. Reminds me of Wellington at Waterloo "Now, Maitland, now's your time - they will not stand"

I like the importance of weather, elevation, woods, trees, flanking etc - all nicely done.

Not so sure about the units. I don't buy the swords vs spears vs axes kind of distinctions. I suspect many early medieval men-at-arms had a mish-mash of kit and distinctions of training or experience were more important. Later on, units of Spanish sword and buckler men, Swiss pike, Welsh longbow etc were well-defined.

[arekb]

I miss spear throwers. I don't know if they should be placed in MTW for historical reasons, but I like idea of spera throwers throwing at enemy coming on, and after that fighting with one spear lest and shield as commom sperman does. It's nice to have dreams, though... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------

[amrcg]

Quote Originally posted by Paco 2 Chihuahuas:
What parts of this game do you think reflect most closely the way it actually was battlefieldwise? Are there any type units that were left out of the game that you feel should have been included?[/QUOTE]

I think that the battle engine needs some correction for historical accuracy. As it is now players get maximum effectiveness by using armies that would be very uncommon in the Middle Ages. See for example the discussion at http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002606.html

Other than that I think that defensive field works (e.g. vaults, calthrops, fences and the like) are missing.

I also miss some formations (e.g. shieldwall, circle, etc.).

Besides, the limitation to 16 units per side at once on the battlefield creates some unbalancing. I.e. if I have spent more money in weaker units, I should be able to field more units to face a smaller force composed of better units (e.g. I wish I could field 18 units of peasants and 7 units of knights to face 7 units of knights and 9 units of urban militia).

For example Medieval 2 is much more realistic in this respect. If the MTW developers had looked at it more closely, MTW would be much better.

Cheers,
Antonio

[starkhorn]

Quote Originally posted by arekb:
I miss spear throwers. I don't know if they should be placed in MTW for historical reasons, but I like idea of spera throwers throwing at enemy coming on, and after that fighting with one spear lest and shield as commom sperman does. It's nice to have dreams, though... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[/QUOTE]

Well you've got Kerns which are pretty cool and there are other skirmishers that throw spears......

[Akka]

I like the fact of having armies of hundreds soldiers, and not the usual "it's only one man on the screen but in fact it symbolise a whole unit".

I like to see these hundreds of men moving according to my orders. Seeing these long files of soldiers slowly marching and taking position is a real pleasure. I feel like if I was here, as a general on the top of his hill, sending orders and observing the battle.

I like the fact that fights, unlike in 99 % of other strategy games, do not end in 100 % casualties for the loser and 75 % for the winner. I like that casualties are much closer of what they were in reality (10-15 % for the winner, 25-35 % for the loser), the fact that much of them come from cavalry charging the routers.

I like the morale. Not seeing the units fighting to the death (same issue than the one in the previous paragraph). Seeing bigger army vainquished because of some trick that hurt their morale. Seing units of peasants fleeing before the charge of my cavalry even before the impact happened.

I like the dynasty thing, that you can end up with a sucky monarch and have to deal with it, that princes and kings matures, age and die.

I like how the religion is dealt with. How the designer end up with a system that make it both very important (being excommunicated IS very annoying) but not overwhelming (you CAN do something while being excommunicated).


I dislike the oversimplified diplomacy.

I dislike the usual "me vs world" thing. I'm REALLY stuffed about it, and even more about the shitty ever-present argument "but it's for more challenge !". Nah, shut up with that. I want IMMERSION and I want AMBIANCE, I don't want CHALLENGE, if I need to have challenge I will put on myself some rules.

I dislike the overeffective spears.

I dislike the undereffective cavalry.