Medieval II: Total War Official Thread [Archive] - Page 2

x-dANGEr

01-23-2006, 20:09

The point is that you come across as something of an Islamic fan-boy who seems to think that your boys can do (and have done) no wrong. From the posts you've made around the Org you seem to have a very narrow, biased knowledge of history - to the extent that you were unaware of the Moors & Timurids.
Yea surely I was unaware of Moors and Timurids, but surely I know them in Arabic. Sorry, but we don't study our history in english.

And you keep talking about the "Islamic nation" as if the Muslim world was one unified empire, which was, and is, quite clearly not true. After the initial 2 centuries where Islamic armies where near unbeatable followed a period of consolidation which many would describe as the high point of Islam, as personified by the Moors, followed by a gradual decline (with the exception of the Ottomans) as European civilisation flourished following the renaissance (sp?).It once was and I hope it becomes so again.

I just get a little wound up when fan-boys come along and start complaing about how [insert country of origin here] aren't some uber-powerful faction that can conquer everyone in sight, an omission they take as some kind of racial slur. It doesn't have to be Islamic, I've seen it with Scots, Danes, Swedes, Hungarians, Poles....Well, you do agree the muslims (Almohads) were down-graded in M: TW, don't you?

I mentioned the good people of the Org cos there are some incredibly knowledgable people here, people who know 100x more than me. And allied to that knowledge is a sense of perspective and objectivity. They don't attribute "their" countries victories to some inherent racial or religious superiority, and they don't make excuses for "their" sides defeats. They see the reasons on all sides, cause and effect, rationally and without predjudice. Mouzapherre and Faisal fall into this category.
Well, I salute such people, and you can always look forward to such men. I realise I got a little carried away, and I really do apologize for that. :embarassed:

Mount Suribachi

01-23-2006, 20:29

Yea surely I was unaware of Moors and Timurids, but surely I know them in Arabic. Sorry, but we don't study our history in english.

OK, sorry, I misunderstood you. Your English is very good, which has probably caused some misunderstanding on my behalf whereby, because it is so good, I take what you write at face value, whereas with someone whose English clearly wasn't as good I would be more cautious to check understanding

Well, you do agree the muslims (Almohads) were down-graded in M: TW, don't you?

Yes and no. I'll repost what I said in Faisals unit thread

"I know what you're saying though about the weak Almohad roster in the later game, I always interpreted this as CAs attempt to reflect the decline of the Moors in Spain - they did the same with the Byzantines."

AUMs are possibly the best unit in the game in Early - cheap, easily available, +1 Valour in Granada, Iron easily available in nearby provinces for weapon upgrades...The Elmos also have the excellent Desert Cav. Its very easy to win with them in Early. But they do suffer from their lack of decent Spears and Heavy Cav, especially once you get to high and late, but like I said, I attribute this to CAs attempt to reflict the decline of the Moors

The Egyptians - I've never actually played them, I find their roster and starting position to be a bit meh

The Turks - have an excellent spread of units through the game. Saracen Inf are a decent entry level unit, and we all know Jannisary Heavy Inf are one of the best units in the game, period. And they get better as the game progresses; again I see this as CAs attempt to reflect the rising strength of the Ottomans.

I think if MTW started several hundred years earlier and their relative strength was the same they would definately be underpowered, but as it is I see what CA was trying to do. Now, as to whether their units are historically accurate.....well I'll leave that to Faisal ~:) But every faction suffers from innacuracy to a lesser or greater extent.

Well, I salute such people, and you can always look forward to such men. I realise I got a little carried away, and I really do apologize for that. :embarassed:

Hehe, thats OK. ~:grouphug: I just sit in awe at the knowledge and ettiquette and fair-mindedness of some of the folks here (as long as we stay out the backroom ~;) ). Shadeswolf, Simon Appleton...

Now, back to MTW2... ~:grouphug:

LeftEyeNine

01-23-2006, 21:15

Mount Suribachi :bow:

Minor thing, Mehmet is the turkish version fo Mohammed. I believe we need a turk member to confirm it though.

"Mehmet" (or Mehmed, though words do not end with letter "d" in modern Turkish) consists of the letters "m" "h" "m" and "d" in Arabic. And it is traditionally pronounced as "Muhammed" in Arabic. However, it is just convenient (especially regarding the structure of Turkish) for a non-Arabic speaker to spell the name as Mehmet (m,h,m,t letters remain the same as you see..).

Hope this helps, master Faisal :bow:

Kraxis

01-23-2006, 22:03

Mt. Suri, I'm in agreement regarding the Almohads. Strong early on (damn I still remember the first time their AUM handed my Templars' rears to them) and weak later.

But I think the implementation was wrong. It wasn't as if the Moors were stagnant. They were politically unstable, had civil wars, did fall behind technologically and a host of other factors for making them 'weak'. Yet like the Byzantines they held out for ca. 200 years more than they should have.

Determination and defense of the home could be attributed to this... *ahem* success... But also because they were not that far behind their opponents regarding equipment.
If I'm not mistaken they made plenty use of crossbows, lamellar armour and to an extent knightly styled cavalry (thunderous charge). Sadly, none of this is reflected in MTW. They should not be keeping up with the Spanish, but they should also progress, if not as well as the catholic factions. That would in my mind reflect their true position, instead of fighting with something that can be equated to Dark Age troops.

x-dANGEr

01-24-2006, 09:14

Now I'm lost.. Who do you exactly mean by Ottomans?

@Suri: I'm 13 years old, played M: TW when I was 9 years old, and their isn't much that I remember.. All I can get back is my cav being crushed VS Khawarezmian cav..

Mount Suribachi

01-24-2006, 10:10

Well, for a 13 year old your English is damn good. And playing MTW at 9 years old is pretty impressive. Hang around the Monastary, avoid the Backroom and you'll have no better education in history ~:)

Kraxis - you make valid points about the decline of the Moors and Byzantines. I think lower loyalty generals/princes giving more civil wars and rebellions would be a better way for the game to reflect this decline. As it is I don't MTW has anywhere near enough civil wars for any of the factions, let alone those like the Byzantines who were crippled by them (I've only ever had1, when I stoopidly got my King killed by friendly fire).

I guess its something else to add to the million and one things we wish were in MTW...

Trajanus

01-24-2006, 11:41

Now I'm lost.. Who do you exactly mean by Ottomans?

History of the Ottomans (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/ORIGIN.HTM)

Hope that helps. ~:)

Vladimir

01-24-2006, 13:34

Kraxis - you make valid points about the decline of the Moors and Byzantines. I think lower loyalty generals/princes giving more civil wars and rebellions would be a better way for the game to reflect this decline. As it is I don't MTW has anywhere near enough civil wars for any of the factions, let alone those like the Byzantines who were crippled by them (I've only ever had1, when I stoopidly got my King killed by friendly fire).

I second that. While there was the 60% loyalty drop and civil wars for other reasons I think that the factions were much too stable. One of the mail reasons the "Christians" (quite often in name only) were unable to expel the Moors was due to internal upheaval; Spain was a cesspool of politics. Yes the Elmos or whatever you call them did suffer a decline later on as their culture/religion was very conservative and did not change rapidly enough. They were quite advanced in other areas while brutally oppressive in others.

Even early on the different Islamic regions did not always cooperate. They mostly received their guidance from the Caliphate in modern Iraq but they were far from one cohesive empire (much like Christendom).

On Muslim expansion and trade: MTW 1.1 was right to put a lot of emphasis on trade as the closure of the Mediterranean trade had horrible repercussions for Europe. It would be nice to see an AI that can trade better when at peace. Historically Christians did not trade with the Musulman (or however Pirenne spells it) early on except for the Venetians et al. I also think that the Black Death should feature prominently in the game. The increase in trade after tensions cooled allowed it to spread into Europe. After it hit, everything changed. I know the game should still be "fun" and that would be a real downer but more attention to the plague and the Medieval cooling period would provide another welcome challenge to the game.

The Blind King of Bohemia

01-24-2006, 13:35

I can understand the Moors being chosen as the name at least. The dominate force in North Africa circa 1080 would have been the Almoravids but they were to be slowly edged out by the Almohads around the 1160 mark. But i can understand just having one faction there.

I hope with the game they get rid of the faction colours in battle as i hated seeing the romans in blue, purple red or green or at least downgrade the brightness and colour.

Could any of the CA lads, IS, ECS, etc tell us if they plan to have more than 21 faction slots?

Darius

01-24-2006, 13:48

God this is great, I almost crapped my pants when I saw this while installing RTW:BI on my new computer! Can't wait to start zoomin in while my heavy cavalry starts mowin down unruly peasants in-game. I'd also like to hope that since the game is still in development, that by the time we get it, the graphics will have only improved and the AI becomes almost impossible to match (at least compared to it's predecessors) !

On a side note, I'm rather pleased they included the Americas, the Aztecs were always there and the Europeans had the ability to travel there for a good long time, they just never really thought about it (or even cared) to actually head out across the ocean. Naturally this will give the player somewhat of an advantage as they'll obviously KNOW that the Americas are out there and can gear themselves up toward headin there while the AI is undoubtedly going to focus on the more immediate problems (example: You) and more likely only find the Americas by pure accident as seems to be the case with how it worked IRL.

Kraxis

01-24-2006, 14:21

Perhaps more civil wars would be nice... I kind of loved to hate them. I was constantly thinking of them if I got a bad king, and as the HRE I got plenty of those. Then Civil Wars were just around the corner, but sadly they tended to come when another faction had decided to give it all to crush me.

Anyway, my point is that I believe the Spanish could still have won in the end even with no civil wars. Prior to them they were slowly taking back land and suffering few strategic reverses (but they did suffer tactical reverses often enough). So inherently it seems the Spanish were just a bit stronger, that woud in my mind equate fair enough to the Moors being slightly behind in technology, but not stagnant as in MTW.

So the Spanish get Chivalric Knights? Moors get a units that is somewhat weaker but stronger than their earlier units. The Spanish get CMAA? The Moors get an upgraded AUM.
This doesn't need to be fitted to M2TW directly but the system should work.

x-dANGEr

01-24-2006, 16:48

History of the Ottomans (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/ORIGIN.HTM)

Hope that helps. ~:)
Oh thanks.. Then Ottomans are the turkish? Not the Omaweyyeen.. (Anyone who can understand Arabic around the forums?? :dizzy2: )

@Suribatchi: Thanks for your complements.

@Subject: I see you all are talking about things from the angle of SP, while I'm looking at them from another angle, which is MP. In the history of total war, the faction in North Africa was always 'weak', in MP at least. In M: TW, we got Almohads and in R: TW we have Numidia. Maybe give them Mercenary units or soo.. But if we are going to do this depending on historical accuracy, then we should just decide who won depending on it. I say (From a SP view), that the fair thing to do, is give every faction same possiblities, with variety. Like, some factions would have uber units but many rivals, and so on..
Practically, if we are to give every faction the units it acutally had after 300 years of the start of the game. Then, we simply aren't bearing in mind, that if that faction acutally did things in another way, may have had better millitary equipments and so on.. So in short, just build the starting world in the starting year on historical events, but not anytime forward. Because that should be decided by you, as the player, to what do next and what to achieve next.

Subedei

01-24-2006, 17:00

Practically, if we are to give every faction the units it acutally had after 300 years of the start of the game. Then, we simply aren't bearing in mind, that if that faction acutally did things in another way, may have had better millitary equipments and so on.. So in short, just build the starting world in the starting year on historical events, but not anytime forward. Because that should be decided by you, as the player, to what do next and what to achieve next.[/QUOTE]

I agree there, but -out to CA- integrate such things as the Marius Reform in R: TW, as it affects the gameplayin a positive way (it's fun 2 play with new units) too.

Mount Suribachi

01-24-2006, 18:03

Yes the Elmos or whatever you call them

lol, sorry about that. Way back when MTW came out, someone (I forget who) started referring to the Almohads as the Elmos, and the name kinda stuck. You'll often see 'em referred to as the Elmos round here ~:D

I think the argument about what units a faction should have available is an interesting one. To my mind there are 2 solutions to the issue of factions that were historically in decline, neither of them mutually exclusive.

1) All factions have the ability to recruit the standard, vanilla unit types throughout the game. eg the Byz and Almohads have no decent anti-cav unit in high and late. So give them the ability to recruit bog-standard Pikemen and Halberdiers, but they don't have access to the unique anti-cav units, such as, say SAPs or JHI (halberd equipped IIRC).

2) The RTW solution using mercenaries. I quite like the way RTW handles this, whereby any faction can recruit mercenaries, provided they are in the right part of the world. So Briton doesn't have cavalry, they need to recruit merc cav.

The_B@fU$ ®

01-24-2006, 19:53

Will we be able to kill pope like in medieval 1?

JR-

01-24-2006, 22:03

Maybe, but it'll be funny fighting them nonetheless. Again, hope there's no hard feelings about that.

And sorry about the Serbians thing, I always thought it was a real term.:dizzy2:
none at all. :)

Martok

01-25-2006, 00:11

Perhaps more civil wars would be nice... I kind of loved to hate them. I was constantly thinking of them if I got a bad king, and as the HRE I got plenty of those. Then Civil Wars were just around the corner, but sadly they tended to come when another faction had decided to give it all to crush me.

I'd like to see more civil wars too, although they need to be a bit more realistic than what we saw in Medieval. For one thing, I don't want them randomly occuring simply because you're the biggest faction on the map. If my empire is bloated and over-extended, and/or I have a number of disloyal but powerful nobles/generals that could form the core of a rebellion, that would at least make sense. But please don't give me a civil war just because I've conquered a certain amount of territory!

Another thing: I really hope the Rebel side will act as a coordinated faction, as opposed to simply turning into a bunch of independent provinces! It sounds like Barbarian Invasion already does this, so hopefully CA has this implemented already, but I get nervous about assuming such things.

LeftEyeNine

01-25-2006, 01:16

Oh thanks.. Then Ottomans are the turkish?

You can't be serious about the question..

Kraxis

01-25-2006, 04:19

I'd like to see more civil wars too, although they need to be a bit more realistic than what we saw in Medieval. For one thing, I don't want them randomly occuring simply because you're the biggest faction on the map. If my empire is bloated and over-extended, and/or I have a number of disloyal but powerful nobles/generals that could form the core of a rebellion, that would at least make sense. But please don't give me a civil war just because I've conquered a certain amount of territory!
Actually I have never experienced either Civil Wars later in the game, nor have I experienced reemergent factions (you would just need to keep loyalty at 120% for 60 years). All my civila wars came when I went from a high influence king to a low infleunce king. Loyalty across the board went down, especially if the king's brothers were strong commanders. Then I would just need to fail in a single battle and it would be over.

x-dANGEr

01-25-2006, 09:18

I think the argument about what units a faction should have available is an interesting one. To my mind there are 2 solutions to the issue of factions that were historically in decline, neither of them mutually exclusive.

1) All factions have the ability to recruit the standard, vanilla unit types throughout the game. eg the Byz and Almohads have no decent anti-cav unit in high and late. So give them the ability to recruit bog-standard Pikemen and Halberdiers, but they don't have access to the unique anti-cav units, such as, say SAPs or JHI (halberd equipped IIRC).

2) The RTW solution using mercenaries. I quite like the way RTW handles this, whereby any faction can recruit mercenaries, provided they are in the right part of the world. So Briton doesn't have cavalry, they need to recruit merc cav.
1) Nah, this will 'kill' the game. The way it is in BI, one of the main things I hate is the fact that all factions (Most of them) have the same/all kind(s) of units, from Cavalry, Infantry, Foot archers to Mounted Archers.. Which is a really annoying thing. And yes, they mostly all of them also have anti-cav units..

2) But still Mercenaries are too expensive, even in R: TW (Right?). I never played a campaign where I used Mercenaries so I'm not sure, though.

A good sollution would be, is to give every faction a specialisation. I find R: TW the best game in this area. Most factions had a fair roster and can kill any other faction. If they manage to make it that way, I'd be satisfied. Surely, they may need to outcast a faction or two, but I hope if they do, those aren't from the same religion/region. So their is still competetion in that religion/region.

Martok

01-25-2006, 09:42

Actually I have never experienced either Civil Wars later in the game, nor have I experienced reemergent factions (you would just need to keep loyalty at 120% for 60 years). All my civila wars came when I went from a high influence king to a low infleunce king. Loyalty across the board went down, especially if the king's brothers were strong commanders. Then I would just need to fail in a single battle and it would be over.

Well I haven't experienced the whole "half-your-provinces-spontaneously-rebel" type of civil war personally (thank the gods!), but I've seen it happen to at least a couple of my friends a number of times. And of course, about a gazillion people here at the Org have mentioned (and complained bitterly about) the phenomenon as well. ~;p

The only times I myself have gone through a civil war is when my king dies--either in battle, or more often from an assassin's blade (usually my own ~D )--leaving his surviving uncles to fight among themselves for the crown. I've found it's often the lesser of two evils to take out a crappy monarch, even if it means you have fight to win back half your empire! Now if only the Rebels would act in a coordinated manner, civil wars in Medieval 2 would be much more interesting....

doc_bean

01-25-2006, 11:53

1) Nah, this will 'kill' the game. The way it is in BI, one of the main things I hate is the fact that all factions (Most of them) have the same/all kind(s) of units, from Cavalry, Infantry, Foot archers to Mounted Archers.. Which is a really annoying thing. And yes, they mostly all of them also have anti-cav units..

2) But still Mercenaries are too expensive, even in R: TW (Right?). I never played a campaign where I used Mercenaries so I'm not sure, though.

A good sollution would be, is to give every faction a specialisation. I find R: TW the best game in this area. Most factions had a fair roster and can kill any other faction. If they manage to make it that way, I'd be satisfied. Surely, they may need to outcast a faction or two, but I hope if they do, those aren't from the same religion/region. So their is still competetion in that religion/region.

I preferred the original medieval system, it was imho also more realistic, if your opponent had a type of unit that was superior to yours, you would try and copy that too.

Of course, giving everyone units like horse archers or longbowmen would be unrealistic, they required intense and/or special training, but I don't see why everyone shouldn't at least get a basic type of pikeman if they survive long enough.

x-dANGEr

01-25-2006, 13:17

Kraxis

01-25-2006, 14:52

Well I haven't experienced the whole "half-your-provinces-spontaneously-rebel" type of civil war personally (thank the gods!), but I've seen it happen to at least a couple of my friends a number of times. And of course, about a gazillion people here at the Org have mentioned (and complained bitterly about) the phenomenon as well. ~;p

The only times I myself have gone through a civil war is when my king dies--either in battle, or more often from an assassin's blade (usually my own ~D )--leaving his surviving uncles to fight among themselves for the crown. I've found it's often the lesser of two evils to take out a crappy monarch, even if it means you have fight to win back half your empire! Now if only the Rebels would act in a coordinated manner, civil wars in Medieval 2 would be much more interesting....
I know... and I tried to teach people to preemt their civil wars, but it seems that many people were set in their mind that they were just somthing that happened when you got big enough. Something that won't happen if you are careful (and if I'm anything then it is careful). The same goes for reemergent factions.

The whole civil war structure was just rather complex and many people never bothered to find out what it really took. If a strong general has a strong army and low loyalty he would often cause a civil war. End of story...

Shahed

01-25-2006, 15:25

awesome!

Templar Knight

01-25-2006, 19:35

Some new screenshots :2thumbsup:

http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm

ah_dut

01-25-2006, 20:15

This looks really, really good. Fingers crossed on how it really works out and a new pc will probably be around by then...woot!

Antiochius

01-25-2006, 20:20

looks great, but the left person looks different to the others and it seems to me that the person is the only one next to them. Perhabs it is a special fight unit, but i hope not, also perhabs only a commander of a unit.

Templar Knight

01-25-2006, 21:24

It looks as if he is some sort of handgunner with the gunpowder arcoss him :2thumbsup:

ajaxfetish

01-25-2006, 23:23

Hmm I don't know.. I think every faction should have it's own unique units which has it strengths and weaknesses, in addition to the mercenary-recruitable units which you can get from your enemy lands instead of 'copying'.
I think the MTW1 system was reasonable. The vanilla version of a unit would be available to a broad number of factions, but more specialized and effective versions would be more diverse and limited to just one or two countries.

Ajax

Kraxis

01-26-2006, 00:10

Job done...

Zain

01-26-2006, 00:12

Why are they from imageshack and not their 'rightful' owner's website? This could be considered an infringement of the copyright. The org has had it's fair share of problems regarding this, so unless you have a very good reason for this I think you remove these images and post the right link.

Tattle-tail. :smile:

-ZainDustin

PS: Their just pictures, it's not big deal.

Templar Knight

01-26-2006, 00:22

screenshots edited, my apologies

Mithrandir

01-26-2006, 17:30

Tattle-tail. :smile:

-ZainDustin

PS: Their just pictures, it's not big deal.

Please read :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102

Thanks for the edit Templar Knight.

-Mithrandir.

Templar Knight

01-26-2006, 17:46

Please read :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102

Thanks for the edit Templar Knight.

-Mithrandir.

Sorry about that, I wasn't thinking :shame:

Kraxis

01-27-2006, 01:41

Do not worry over it more... he meant ZainDustin.

Zain

01-28-2006, 19:14

Please read :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60102

Thanks for the edit Templar Knight.

-Mithrandir.

I know what the rules are. I was just saying ethically copying pictures isn't much of a big deal. But, I know the rules must be followed.

-ZainDustin

Alexanderofmacedon

01-29-2006, 05:26

What? M2:TW?!?!?!

No fair! Thanks for telling me. I'm going to be pulling my hair out for months!:laugh4:

sapi

01-29-2006, 05:30

Gaulgath

01-29-2006, 22:47

Wow...

This looks incredible! The soldiers don't just look like a bunch of clones, for the shields and lances seem to have many different colors shapes ect. The graphics in general seem flawless, and the castles look fantastic. I'm going to be waiting in anticipation for this! :knight:

Incongruous

01-30-2006, 13:12

I dunno the graphics look about normal, nothing special. do they?
But the cities look very nice, I doubt the gfx are that great a leap from RTW, I guess the chugger is the personalisation of units.

z2ei

01-30-2006, 14:07

I just hope the neat touches from MTW are back. Like the different titles for each factions, the taunts during battle ("The craven son of a whore is running away!"), the different music..

Please kill the insane number of rebel popups from RTW, though. Please? Having random rebel stacks wandering around my provinces with 150%+ happiness was annoying.

econ21

01-30-2006, 14:52

Please kill the insane number of rebel popups from RTW, though. Please? Having random rebel stacks wandering around my provinces with 150%+ happiness was annoying.

Well, at least the 1.5 patch for RTW made it possible to reduce the rebel spawn rate (see the Ludus Magna thread on rebels for details).

z2ei

01-30-2006, 15:30

Well, at least the 1.5 patch for RTW made it possible to reduce the rebel spawn rate (see the Ludus Magna thread on rebels for details).

I didn't know that. :bow:

Been away from RTW for a bit. Played some after BI released, then uninstalled it for a while. Just now getting back into it.

Though, since I found out my brother had a copy of MTW still laying around, I haven't played Rome much.

z2ei

01-30-2006, 18:41

Thought I'd put my nose into the Trebuchet debate.

The wheels on the base are there to allow the trebuchet to fire (much)further and also allow it to deal with the strains of firing with less stress on the structure. It allows the weight to drop almost vertically, as it moves through the firing motion.

I saw this on TV, so it must be true.

This may be a bit late, but I've seen a program with the same information that he's talking about.

They actually build one, from a picture found in a 13th century Spanish manuscript. It was an episode of NOVA (a PBS show) called "Medieval Siege".

Templar Knight

01-30-2006, 19:18

Yea, there was a program filmed at Urquhart Castle on Loch Ness in which they added wheels to see the difference. I believe they chose that particular castle as it was bombarded by Edward I using a trebuchet during the Wars of Independence.

sephirothno12000

03-03-2006, 07:51

I like BKB would like to see the timeframe start at the coronation of Charlamagne. I'll try to add some info on the Teutonic order and the HRE whenever possible.

The Spartan (Returns)

03-25-2006, 02:00

if you could play the Aztecs, maybe you could fight the Tlaxcala and other rivalries. rather than the Aztecs being an emergent faction.

streety

03-30-2006, 05:55

I think the introduction of Mexico/Aztecs, whilst seeming like a good idea, will only be a disappointment if done realistically. After all, it was a complete mismatch technologically and militarily, with a couple of hundred Spanish slaughtering thousands of Aztecs. Whilst dramatic, this could soon get boring to play in terms of battle tactics. Playing as the Aztecs could be interesting, but holding off against the Spanish would get old real quick unless, like Spartan says, they can fight against other New World factions - after all, they're not likely to be able to conquer Europe by 1530.

How I wish CA would just introduce proper sea warfare into their system instead of just rehashing/expanding pretty much the same theme. Now that reaaly would be something to get excited about............

Samurai Waki

03-30-2006, 06:24

But looking at the modding aspect of the Aztecs it does introduce a new possibility for modders out there, and that is Jungle warfare will now be possible:2thumbsup:

streety

03-30-2006, 11:24

You're right of course, Wakizashi, the potential Mexico would give to modders could be a good benefit.

And it could be useful especially to later period mods (17th-19th centuries) - though again, the lack of real naval battles, and attacks on ports by ships and/or their landing parties etc, would severely limit the playability of any campaign that tried to emulate the wars between the European powers over the New World...... but I'm just moaning because I guess I like fighting with ships and I can't have them:cry:

Alexanderofmacedon

04-08-2006, 21:09

Probably already said before, but I think with the use of the Americas they should have that part of the map available only after a certain year, like the Marius reforms.

Good idea?:inquisitive:

Dooz

04-09-2006, 00:16

Probably already said before, but I think with the use of the Americas they should have that part of the map available only after a certain year, like the Marius reforms.

Good idea?:inquisitive:

I believe that's somewhat how it will be. You'll only be able to go to the Americas after achieving a certain level of technology, mostly naval I'd assume, which makes sense. There won't be a certain year because the game won't be using years.

allfathersgodi

04-10-2006, 20:44

My MTW2 Wishlist.

First off, it is good to be the king, but sometimes just for fun I'd like to be able to play as a mere General, Provincial Governor, a Unit Commander or perhaps a Mercenary.

Secondly, have a campaign option that scripts all the countries for historical accuracy, meaning the English never pushed so far East that they met the Byzantines in battle.

Thirdly, a better way of capturing a defended castle other then a frontal assault, a long drawn out siege or a spy. Perhaps under-mining the walls to bring them down and allow your troops a quick way in. Perhaps even night assaults?

Fourth, Naval Battles, I don't want to hear about them, I want to fight them.

Fifth, get rid of the entire having to have a line of ships. If you are English and you want to Invade Constantinople, how about building ships, embarking your invasion troops on said ships and sailing for the enemy...

If other kingdoms can re-emerge, why can't I?

I'd love for CA to do a Total War game set in the post-Medieval period, say from Christopher Colombus to Napoleon?

MP Campaign or a better AI. The Byzantines are facing a crap-load of Mongols to the East and to the West is my HRE Procinces. I wed two of my princess off to them in exchange for a pair of theres and we have been allied for 20 years. I am their biggest ally, and instead of asking for my help to defeat the Mongolians, they attack me!

Which brings me to another point, if I am allied with another country and they are getting hammered, why can't I send troops through their provinces to engage our mutual enemy? Example, the Spainiards were fighting the Alohamads in Cordoba, in Navarre I had over a thousand Hobilars, Archers, FMAAs, and Frydmen, why can't I march them through Castile and into Cordoba to help the Spanish against the Alohamads?

A mini-campaign as the Crusader States would be awesome!

I will now shut up...

David

04-11-2006, 09:57

My MTW2 Wishlist.

First off, it is good to be the king, but sometimes just for fun I'd like to be able to play as a mere General, Provincial Governor, a Unit Commander or perhaps a Mercenary.

Secondly, have a campaign option that scripts all the countries for historical accuracy, meaning the English never pushed so far East that they met the Byzantines in battle.

Thirdly, a better way of capturing a defended castle other then a frontal assault, a long drawn out siege or a spy. Perhaps under-mining the walls to bring them down and allow your troops a quick way in. Perhaps even night assaults?

Fourth, Naval Battles, I don't want to hear about them, I want to fight them.

Fifth, get rid of the entire having to have a line of ships. If you are English and you want to Invade Constantinople, how about building ships, embarking your invasion troops on said ships and sailing for the enemy...

1
I dont think TW is designed for that. Its called TOTAL war, but youre right thats not always good to be king.
2
Thats the fun part of the campaign. My best campaigns in MTW were when something like that happened, like the Almo's fighting HRE or so. If script the campaign like that every game would be the same.
3
They were in RTW BI so they might be M2TW
4
True, but i prefer good land battles first.
5
Again, with map like RTW, that'll probably be the case.

allfathersgodi

04-11-2006, 13:42

A few others, especially for Diplomacy. Back in the day it wasn't unheard of for kings to foster one another's children if they wanted to cement an alliance.

Why must I bribe an oppossing army to get them to switch sides? Shouldn't the spy be able to coerce the general by taking hostage his family? Or the Emissary appeal to said General's Ideology or Ego?

Religion, if I am King, why can't I change it?

Better AI... I am sick and tired of seeing the Byzantines getting their butts handed to them by the Mongols, the Turks and the Egyptians... And the Byzantines initiating a third front by attacking my HRE that is pushing south into the Balkans... They are fighting against Muslim Factions, a Pagan Faction, and instead of calling on support from fellow Christians (albeit from a different Sect) they initiate war?

RedCoat

04-16-2006, 22:37

I hope that they spend more time on the Eastern/Central European factions...and Austria, not any German state, should be the powerhouse of the HRE.

They need to be distinctive, yet historically accurate.

Servius

04-16-2006, 23:25

I believe CA is incorporating America into this game because they plan to have their next game be based mostly in America. Think of the colonial period. European armies fighting each other for colonies, fighting natives just cause, using a more strategically-interesting map (because of all the island hopping potential, different terrain, etc.). It would also be a good transition into firearms warfair, like Napoleon TW (I bet it's coming).

I don't mean to sound racist, but the native americans were a pushover. The Europeans came with huge ships, cannons, steel armor, guns... The native were still fighting mostly naked with stick and stone weapons, give me a break. I really think this whole Aztec thing is really intended to put a foothold idea in players' head, which will be the jumping-off point for the next TW game.

The Blind King of Bohemia

04-17-2006, 11:25

Furious Mental

04-19-2006, 17:07

"Secondly, have a campaign option that scripts all the countries for historical accuracy, meaning the English never pushed so far East that they met the Byzantines in battle."

That would be lame. As was said above, this would just detract from the fun and unpredictability of the game.

buujin

04-19-2006, 17:42

If england could have pushed that for east, they would have.

Hatchet

04-20-2006, 07:40

I don't mean to sound racist, but the native americans were a pushover.

Not really, although the Spaniards did have cannons their guns were useless in forests and had very bad aim. Their armor was actually not strong enough to push back a rock and a sling shot, and since you could reload faster with a slingshot they were more deadlier than the guns.

Horses proved useless in tree crowded areas and in hand to hand combat the Aztecs had some superiority.

The main reason that the Spaniards won was the disease that they brought, which is what is consider Montezuma's revenge.

Today the Mexican water will poison any outsider who drinks it, yet back then the outsiders brought poison to the mexicans.