Medieval2 ~:cheers: [Archive]

Armenian Warlord

01-20-2006, 17:48

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

Check it out guys, medieval 2 is the next game. It sounds awsome:jumping:

Byzantine Mercenary

01-20-2006, 17:54

wow it looks sweeeeeeeet!
wonder what the system requirements will be like!

jebes

01-20-2006, 17:59

That's what I am woorried about. My system has a hard time with 5,000 guys that all look the same and do the same animations.

Salazar

01-20-2006, 18:01

The Textures are definitely vastly better than in Rome. :2thumbsup:
Also, in my opinion, medieval was the best of all tw games till now, and i seem to be not the only one with that opinion.

Big_John

01-20-2006, 18:24

.. the 21 factions makes it sound like it is simply built on top of the RTW core.. which makes sense, but i fear the hardcode limits. :worried:

lancer63

01-20-2006, 18:34

Time to start saving for a new machine.

Armenian Warlord

01-20-2006, 18:58

Here are some screenshots for you http://www.tothegame.com/screenshot.asp?id=4972 :2thumbsup:

LorDBulA

01-20-2006, 19:29

Damn nice ss.
To bad we will have to wait one year before good mods will be made afther MTW 2 is releasd.

LordElrond

01-20-2006, 20:44

Aztecs...

Jebus

01-20-2006, 20:51

Dayve

01-20-2006, 20:54

Welp... It all looks very good on CA's nasa machines that can handle more than 5000 men... But how will it look on the machines of people like me (and probably most people here) who won't have the money to buy all the lovely new graphics cards and stuff that will no doubt be released in the near future... I wonder if they have improved the ai? Is there a release date at all yet?

cunctator

01-20-2006, 21:21

Conquering the new sounds great, one of my dreamed features for M:TW and units looks much better than vanilla R:TW too. Let'S hope that it's playable without a realism mod.

Salazar

01-20-2006, 21:26

I know that things like "greatest tw experience ever" don't mean much, but i'm pretty sure that they'll have some good improvements over Rome. I trust Sega much more than activision.
Also the units definitely do look much much less comiclike than in Rome.
Seems like theyve learned that bit from all the mods.

Lord Adherbal

01-20-2006, 21:27

well I guess this explains why the BI units sucked, their GFX artists were busy on MTW2 units (which take a LOT more work). Let's just hope their programmers actualy do anything usefull too, other then adding a few features no one cares about. Until that is proven I'll stay far away from this game, no matter how nice it looks or sounds.

Reverend Joe

01-20-2006, 21:30

Dayve

01-20-2006, 21:41

Yeah i thought that looked a bit dodgy myself... The game won't be realistic i tell you that now... See if i'm wrong... And battles will still be over in a matter of seconds probably, but maybe they have learned from mods on that by now... We shall see... Either way... I'm dreading the minimum specification requirements... :sweatdrop:

Salazar

01-20-2006, 21:44

I hope that this is just an overly enthusiastic way to say that combat moves will be put together more fluently, which would be good.
If not... :furious3:

Antagonist

01-20-2006, 21:49

Salazar

01-20-2006, 21:57

Simetrical

01-20-2006, 22:05

Guys, stop peeing your pants.

We've all seen the Rome: Total War pre-release screenshots, we all read the Rome: Total War pre-release promises, and we all know what we got.

This game will be Rome: Total war with new units, slightly better graphics, a bit more unit formations and the same ahistorical crap we've seen in R:TW.

I'd bet my head on it.I wouldn't be quite so extreme. There will be new features in MTW2. It will undoubtedly be based on the RTW engine, sure, but with new features. The interesting question is whether it will, overall, be more or less moddable.

I'm betting on significantly more moddable, but still well below Half-Life 2 levels.

As for the graphics, come on. The pictures there are touched up, just like the RTW promotional art. Notice that CA never says the provided images are actual in-game screenshots.

Stormy

01-20-2006, 22:10

It does look like RTW with advance textures. When is this MTW2 in stores ? 2007 ?

Salazar

01-20-2006, 22:12

Supposedly winter 2006, that would fit with the other games.

Stormy

01-20-2006, 22:17

I hope there is more than just 21 faction slots.

Teleklos Archelaou

01-20-2006, 22:24

Looking at the trailers for it, RTW looked like RTW with advanced textures actually. :grin:

LorDBulA

01-20-2006, 22:27

I think that MTW 2 will be much better platform for making realistic Medieval game then RTW is. Then we will have ancient times mods on RTW and Medieval mods on MTW 2. In my opinion Perfect.
I'am sure of one thing though, MTW 2 will not be playable withought mods.
I would really prefer CA to put much more work to code and not so much work in actuall campainge becouse to be honest no mater what they will do it still will be a comercial crap and except buildings, vegetation some animations it will have to be thrown away.

Stormy

01-20-2006, 22:33

If it's the same engine, all mods could perhaps port their mod over and get some new features.

jebes

01-20-2006, 22:47

After having read up what soul calibur is (never had much to do with consoles, though i thin i might buy that game if it would be for pc and relatively cheap), i must say it could be fun to be one of the fighters, as long as you aren't overpowered.
Imagine it as a mmo game, one player is the commander, 5000 others are soldiers ^^
But seriously i dont think that would be too practical, as it might only distract from the core game, the tactics.

Dynasty Warriors

That is basically what you are talking about. a mix between soul caliber and STW, heavy on the Soul caliber part.

Kessen III Is the opposite, you control the units like the total war series, but you can take over fighting for any particular unit in the battle, or just watch the whole thing take place as commander. It is more like STW than sould claiber, but still a mix.

RandyKapp

01-20-2006, 22:49

Theres an awful lot of critics here alright.

Frankly i think it looks FUN

RandyKapp

01-20-2006, 22:50

Seydlitz

01-20-2006, 23:03

Well, I've read that this game has been in production for 7 years already!! Which probably explains why RTW was so buggy :inquisitive: They were busy working on this while they were at it!

Looks spectacular though!! Units get bloodier and muddier as the battle progresses, each soldier in a unit looks different from the other. It's probably not going to be terribly historically accurate, but by golly it looks like a shitload of fun! I know I can't wait.

And yeah, it's a beefed up RTW engine. You can tell in the screenshots at (They also say in the summary): http://www.sega-europe.com/en/Game/262.htm

Wonder what the campaign map will be like though?

Either way, I can't wait :laugh4: :laugh4:

Dayve

01-20-2006, 23:12

I just hope i'll be able to play it with at least large unit sizes with my setup... :no:

Antagonist

01-20-2006, 23:14

Obviously my previous post was intended as a joke, when I read that my mind somehow formed the image of somebody frowning at the chaos of battle and executing maneuvers with mouse and keyboard, but then the music suddenly changes, the game zooms in and the guy drops the PC stuff, picks up a gamepad and starts bashing out combos. :dizzy2:

Incidentally, this (http://pc.ign.com/articles/682/682437p1.html) interview came out a few minutes ago and is worth a look. While the screenshots certainly look very nice, the accompaning blurb with comments like "...designed to appeal to all gamers, not just hardcore strategy fans" inclined me to a certain cynicism about how the game would play. But this interview makes me feel a little better about it. It confirms that the talk of combos is an aesthetic innovation intended to make the battles look better, as against a surreal platform-jumping genre-blurring synthesis of real time strategy and beat-em-up. Also the faction list, they have Venice and Milan instead of "The Italians" and also appear to be featuring a nation I've never even heard of, which surprises me.

My main hope is still for increased modability though, since it's unlikely to be the game I really want to play in it's original form.

Antagonist

Chester

01-21-2006, 00:35

I agree with many posters comments here. Don't start typing with adreneline in your blood. It looks good, but whocares. Every single game that has come out in the past 5 years has looked good.

Quality Graphics are now industry standard. It's nothing new. All that's ever mattered was the gameplay. And being lovers of history, why else are we here?, I'm sure we will all find that the game is going to be watered down for brain dead 13 year olds.

And one more thing. These new models look very complex, I hope we can find people in this community that can skin them properly.

Jebus

01-21-2006, 00:51

Also the faction list, they have Venice and Milan instead of "The Italians".

Yet, they still have 'Spain'.

A crime against the grand battlefield the Iberian peninsula was in the Middle Ages...

Kralizec

01-21-2006, 01:00

Religion certainly played a major role in the medieval period and subsequently the religious system in Medieval 2 has more depth than previous Total War games. One aspect of this involves the Priest characters you'll control on the Campaign Map. Priests can be used to spread your religion in their surrounding areas. However, they may turn heretic, in which case they fall under AI control and spread heresy instead, undermining the established religion. If you are deemed to have a problem with heresy in your lands, the Pope may send out an Inquisitor to deal with the situation. As well as reducing heresy, these characters may also denounce nearby characters, and have them tried and executed. Senior Catholic priests can become Cardinals, giving the player influence in the Papacy, and they can even get elected Pope, improving their original faction's standing with the Papal States.

Now this just sounds awesome.

Notice how I said sounds awesome.

Kralizec

01-21-2006, 01:03

Yet, they still have 'Spain'.

A crime against the grand battlefield the Iberian peninsula was in the Middle Ages...

They have Portugal in it, and Navarre as an emerging faction. It's certainly an improvement over the original MTW. Just mod your copy of MTW2 and replace "Spanish" with "Castillian" ~;)

the_handsome_viking

01-21-2006, 01:21

It looks like a fun game and its pretty darned likely that everyone here will buy it when it comes out.

Whatever flaws are found in the game will eventually be corrected through mods.

Stormy

01-21-2006, 02:07

Faction list ?

Dayve

01-21-2006, 02:15

England, France, Scotland, Holy Roman Empire, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Milan, Venice, Papal States, Sicily, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Byzantium, The Turks, Egypt, The Moors, The Mongols, The Tumurids, The Aztecs.

Lord Winter

01-21-2006, 02:33

:wall: why must every single game make a big deal about graphics. Why cant they focus on something much more importent such as gameplay.

LordElrond

01-21-2006, 02:41

Because graphics dazzle over-eager consumers into quickly buying the 'pretty' game.

Chester

01-21-2006, 02:45

Graphics are also easier to make now. Like I said, every game as of late has good graphics. Gameplay is always the challenge. It's what keeps you coming back for more.

In RTW, the only time I really marvel at visuals is when I'm following my calvary into a group of foot soliders. The horses move so nicely, the sound makes it feel more real, the clash between the two groups is exciting.

But in the end I value AI and movement of animation.

LordElrond

01-21-2006, 02:51

I really hope they spent a lot of time developing the ai. I feel like RTW suffered a lot from the lack of tactical ai. So far the interviews and game announcements that I have read haven't mentioned anything about the ai that is going to be implemented in the game.

Ypoknons

01-21-2006, 03:12

Doesn't it have non-uniform units? EB could really have used that for the barbarians, and the difference would be far more pronounced than during MTW's timeframe - it'd make the Roman uniformity of equipment much more shocking.

One improvement in historical accuracy is getting rid of Italy and making it Venice and Milan.

Give it a chance- without CA, we would have no Total War. Whatever they do to make it better only benefits us, and the units themselves are quite artistically beautiful.

Modestus

01-21-2006, 03:18

The Aztecs that’s my biggest worry what the hell are they doing there, that’s very peculiar I think their part of a mini campaign not sure but if their somehow part of the main game then that’s a good indication that any underlying programmes dealing with religion or politics could be very basic once again.

Wardo

01-21-2006, 03:35

Looks spectacular though!! Units get bloodier and muddier as the battle progresses, each soldier in a unit looks different from the other. It's probably not going to be terribly historically accurate, but by golly it looks like a shitload of fun! I know I can't wait.

Exactly, if it's as good as RTW then it's only a graphics update, but better graphics are better than nothing, as long as it doesn't play worse than RTW. The "combo" thing must be like Black & White 2, while units in BW2 are totally unrealistic and arcadish, they look AWESOME, you can actually zoom in all the way and watch them FIGHT, of course, they do some unrealistic moves, but it's a fantasy game anyway.

My only concern are the Aztecs and the strategic map, somehow I think it would be easier to code a good AI for a "province", risk type of map (even hexagons) than this free-roaming map, of course, it would need TONS more "provinces" than the Original MTW had so that we could actually manouver around, maybe a free-roaming mode within a province mode? Something never tried before, two armies move into the same province, then they take turns free-roaming inside that province untill they retreat or engage in battle, nah, this is too complicated, too complex and too hard to be made in a pleasant way, but it would add supply issues, ie. if you cut out an Army by conquering the provinces behind it (encircle) he would need to supply itself from the province he's in and if that province doesn't have enough food for his army they die or start deserting, of course armies could have their own supply wagons, so they can survive X number of turns, like a garrison in siege can survive X number of turns.

But the Aztecs, what the hell, how is this going to work? A Mini-map? A "Viking Invasion" of sorts?

No offense, but I find the Aztec war much more boring than other conflicts, personal preference I guess, if I was in CA, I wouldn't pick the Aztecs for a mini-campaign, but I guess we'll have to wait and see, who knows, maybe it's fun, I hope...

Stormy

01-21-2006, 06:05

Mr Jones

01-21-2006, 07:17

lots of these new features don't seem all that important to me... i mean, is it really that great that troops will hav individual faces?

Ypoknons

01-21-2006, 07:49

lots of these new features don't seem all that important to me... i mean, is it really that great that troops will hav individual faces?
Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Lord Winter

01-21-2006, 08:16

lots of these new features don't seem all that important to me... i mean, is it really that great that troops will hav individual faces?
I agree why cant CA focus on other things instead, the majority of people will probably turn done the visual quality just so they can play without any lag. :wall:

LorDBulA

01-21-2006, 09:36

Personally i find it good that MTW 2 is based on RTW engine and not on some new one. It means that they dont have to put as much work in the engine, and they can concentrate on more important things like adding new features, impoving AI etc.
RTW is very good engine, i am quite happy with it, and with a bit more complexity like descriped in interview it can be brilliant.
I hope that it will be like STW and MTW basicly similar graphic (the same angine) but MTW was much more complex.
I hope that they will develop features that where cut out from RTW but where most definitely WIP. Army supplies for example. In RTW files we can see clearly that this was planed but was cut out.
And ow boy i really would like them to introduce more complex scripting, if they would do this them MTW 2 would be fabulous platform for modding.

And no, afther RTW i could never go back to province tape campaigne map like in STW, MTW or Risk.

aleh

01-21-2006, 11:57

I think by Tumurid, he means Timurid, as in the Empire founded by Timur...But it only started existing in the late 1300s. Which means it'll be in the Late/High era. Sorta like the Novgorods in the original(I think). I don't know, I have no hope whatsoever for this, it'll look good, it'll perform better. But to bring the gameplay to its full capabilities, it'll have to be a mod. And if the EB team, or another one puts the same effort into that as was put into EB. We'll have to wait till late 2007, early 2008 for something like EB.

And...the Aztecs? I mean come on. They're basically stuck in the Americas. It'll no doubt have to be a non-playable faction there so that the Americas aren't an easy ride for whomever gets there.

I think the hottest fighting will be in the Italian peninsula with three factions occupying a relatively small space. I'm happy they included the Moors, that'll rock.

Though I would love it if a mod(*coughEBcoughEBcough*) expanded the map south and included some of the Central and Eastern African civilizations. Perhaps the Mali Empire, the Axumite(severely weakened of course), the Kanem-Bornu. And perhaps some expanding city-states/kingdoms(a-la Milan/Venice) like Mombassa since it was the greatest trading center in Eastern Africa unless I'm mistaken. But I am biased in favour of that region :laugh4: Or heck, something in the Horn of Africa, that expands eastwards into the Arabian peninsula and northwards into the Nile region(I think). But hey, what am I saying, eh?

EdwardL

01-21-2006, 14:35

No need to be pessimistic here..

lets do some innovative thinking as to how to explain their new ideas and innovations to TW series..

"Spain": the game starts 1080 a.d. at which point this nation would be referred to as the kingdom of castile. However, by the time it will end, 1530 a.d. it has become spain. we'd like to hope that this is worked out through the progress of campaign. lets give CA the benefit of the doubt.

"Aztecs": Alot was going on in the new world in the 1500's.. the age of discovery. The struggle between european nations in the caribbean was just getting under way. Legendary SPANISH conquistadors were beginning to make a name for themselves; Cortez, Pizarro, just to name a few. Desoto and his journeys. The original MTW actually had 3 campaign maps: Early, High, and Late era maps. although only slightly different from each other, one could hope that since CA already has a war engine already established, that they would have time to make a new world map exclusive of europe.

Rome Total War vs Medieval Total War 2: I remember for like a month straight prior to its release that i was making constant phone calls to every game shop in town trying to find out if they would happen to be getting it in earlier than the other guy, learning that it had been pushed back several times grr. I even asked for the strategy guide just to have something to at least keep me occupied prior to its release. When i finally called the day of its release and heard "yeah we have it", sure enough i fired up the camaro and hit 100 on the i-state to get to Gamestop. My girlfriend went with me and thought i was just out of my mind over a computer game. RTW didnt turn out to be what i expected.. games never do, but RTW still ended out a damn fine game.. in some ways better than i expected, and the modding community helped make it that way. MTW2 wont turn out to be what we expect, but modders like the EB team, RTR team, and the great guys at the forge and strat center will make sure a good quality product with result in the end. My girlfriend is no longer with me, but RTW and its mods still are hehe.

Also you should wonder on questions such as when will the Total War series finally be all inclusive of a "total war" it proclaims and finally introduce naval battles

King of the dutch

01-21-2006, 15:23

I really don't get what's the fuss about. Just look at it. It looks wicked! And it doesn't mean you have to buy a whole new PC. Look at R:TW compared to M:TW. My comp doesn't have more trouble with R:TW than with M:TW. Systemrequirements for R:TW are nothing: 1 GHz 256 mbram. That's peanuts!
Maybe now they will actually want you to have 512mb ram! Look at Fear. Now there is a game i can hardly play coz of the high requirements. And all this realism talk. I think EB is cool. But you guys (the history freak tpye a guy, yes i'm one too~:cool: ) are NOT the MARKET. Everyone else is. If CA doesnt sell games to a LOT of ahistorical people that just want to 'kick ass' they WON'T BE MAKE GEMES ANYMORE (Sorry for shouting).

I think the game will be great, aztecs will be great, cannons will be great. It will be massive. IF they do the battles like the original M:TW it's a killer.
I understand (some) of the feelings but i think CA is as realistic as a professional game developer with an interest in money has to be. Without CA, EB/RTR/MundusMagnus/Terrae EXpunthingy/napolenic:TW II/Warmap/LOTR TW/ wouldn't exist. (all IMHO) So be happy for a change. They're back:

:knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: 3

Greetz kotd

Krusader

01-21-2006, 16:52

lots of these new features don't seem all that important to me... i mean, is it really that great that troops will hav individual faces?

I know of some EB members who'd like to sell their souls to create different helmets for Macedonian phalangitai or KH hoplites with different shields.

Proper Gander

01-21-2006, 17:01

cool! cavalry can hover in the air now!

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4972/feature/2006-01-20/screen5_large.jpg

they're not even touched up very well if you look closely....
before RTW i had a "buy it without reading a review" mentality towards TW.

now it's a "read reviews, play demos, visit 5 foras, then think about what else i could do with the money for a week and then decide if i really want to RISK it" mentality....

i don't think TW will ever be the same as it used to, i hope it will, but i doubt it.

TB666

01-21-2006, 17:12

cool! cavalry can hover in the air now!

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4972/feature/2006-01-20/screen5_large.jpg

They are on a hill :inquisitive:
And you can see it quite clearly.

aleh

01-21-2006, 18:40

Look at the small spacing diagonal to the upper-left-most section of the trebuchet. Above and a slightly to the right of the soldier with the yellow brigandine(I think), which seems to be covered up(the right side of his body) by the trebuchet's shadow. There's a small spacing of green, they are on a hill true, but the two horses's hooves are clearly not touching the ground, there's a small(or not so small depending on how you look at it) space between the green of the raised hill, and the darkish-light blue of the sky. Or else the riders have freakishly long legs.

TB666

01-21-2006, 18:48

Look at the small spacing diaganol to the upper-left-most section of the trebuchet. Above and a slightly to the right of the soldier with the yellow brigandine(I think), which seems to be covered up(the right side of his body) by the trebuchet's shadow. There's a small spacing of green, they are on a hill true, but the two horses's hooves are clearly not touching the ground, there's a small(or not so small depending on how you look at it) space between the green of the raised hill, and the darkish-light blue of the sky. Or else the riders have freakishly long legs.
Oh I see it hehe.
That don't even look like a horse.
I see the end of a horse that clearly touches the ground but the other thing don't like like a horse.

Proper Gander

01-21-2006, 18:55

it's not just that, they generally look so wrong in there. clearly not an ingame screenshot.

we were showered with screenshots of RTW with units in them that never managed it into the game. even walls, that didn't manage it into the game. even wonders that were intergrated after complaints!

so basically, it's a lont way to go, these screenshots are merely promotional. let's see what the game actually looks like. i won't be fooled a second time, i'm not THAT stupid.

aleh

01-21-2006, 19:01

There's also something that doesn't understand, but it might just be because I suck at history. Look at the cannon, now it looks pretty high-end to me, and then there's the trebuchet which also looks alright.

But does that fit with the particular style of armor. Unless those are peasants or a very low-end militia, shouldn't they have more armor, and was the kite shield even used in the period of the more modern-lookalike cannons(like that one looks to me). Also, doesn't the horseman's spear look a bit...low-class for the cannon period?

Er, I'm most likely wrong, so please correct.

TB666

01-21-2006, 19:10

But does that fit with the particular style of armor. Unless those are peasants or a very low-end militia, shouldn't they have more armor, and was the kite shield even used in the period of the more modern-lookalike cannons(like that one looks to me). Also, doesn't the horseman's spear look a bit...low-class for the cannon period?

Er, I'm most likely wrong, so please correct.
Or this could be from a custom battle and they just picked a bunch of random units.

GMT

01-21-2006, 19:54

cool! cavalry can hover in the air now!

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4972/feature/2006-01-20/screen5_large.jpg

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

Krusader

01-21-2006, 19:59

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

I prefer medieval period over Reneissance or Napoleonic period (although I like them too). Heck, I still play MTW still as that gives me a challenge compared to RTW.

The crusades, the different Western European, Byzantine & Islamic armies and the very history itself makes it very interesting.

Shigawire

01-21-2006, 20:07

Proper Gander

01-21-2006, 21:30

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

see the good sides mate, it's easier to depict the medieval times properly ~;)

*edit*

the stick insect is a tree, btw.

Dux Corvanus

01-21-2006, 23:35

Mmmmm, the time range covers one of the most interesting periods of military history, that of the 1st military revolution, with the arrival of artillery and the mixed units of pikes & muskets essayed by Castilian commanders -such as the 'Great Captain' Gonzalo de Córdoba- in Italy, and the definitive fall of medieval knights and men of arms as the main tactical resource -with Crécy and Azincourt as milestones.

But I don't feel confident we'll ever see that progression. As an example, that definition of the Catholic Church as an arrogant demanding power in that era -when it was going thru one of its darker moments, with the unending confrontation with the Sacred Empire, the French 'napping' of Popes in Avignon and the cismatic phenomena (curiously enough, the game ends in the midst of protestant Reformation)- gives a somewhat weak and simplistic 'feel' of politics in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Looks like they simply are converting RTW's 'Senate' into the 'Pope'. They won't even bother in change the RTW key city: Rome (nor even when the Pope has his seat in Avignon, or there are Anti-Popes).

I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

:no:

TB666

01-22-2006, 00:11

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

:no:
A guy posted this in the other MTW2 thread
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet/wheels.html

Geoffrey S

01-22-2006, 00:15

21 playable factions I think was mentioned in that IGN interview. Could that mean many more other factions? I hope so.

Hmm, considering the main problem for RTW mods is the lack of modellers this newfound individuality for the troops could be worrying.

Ulfang

01-22-2006, 00:19

....Do I take it then that I am the only person who thinks that the fusion of Total War and Soul Calibur is an idea with extraordinary, near-limitless potential, and that correctly implemented could quite possibly result in the Best Game Ever?

........

~:(

They have more or less.... Kingdom under Fire Crusaders and Kingdom under Fire Heroes. Problem is after two or three battles its BORRRRRIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG. Very Repetative so no I don't think it would be the best game ever ;)

MTW 2 tho has GOTTA BE THE BEST IDEA EVER!!! :)

I just hope a little bit of thought is put into it and we aren't banging our heads against the wall again waiting for Mods to come out to make the thing interesting.

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 00:29

I really don't think I'm going to get a game that will have the Aztecs... That is, unless I'm part of a mod for a medieval era historical mod (without America).

hoom

01-22-2006, 00:55

Looking forward to seeing an EB2 on this engine :2thumbsup:

Krusader

01-22-2006, 01:49

Looking forward to seeing an EB2 on this engine :2thumbsup:

Don't know if the EB team will have the strength or will to make EB2.

The chances for modding Medieval 2 depends entirely on the degree of moddability.

But can guarantee that EB 1 v1.0 will be finished before any work starts on a possible EB2

Jebus

01-22-2006, 02:15

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

Heh, technology wasn't even the most important. I wonder how they will model European germs - if even.

Also, this timeline is - for lack of a better word - nonsensical. If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern. People fought very differently from around the 100-years war onward - in a stile that contrasted greatly from the knight-in-shining armour tactics that we associate with the Middle Ages. Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.

And I also agree with Dux Corvanus on the issue of politics. This whole pass-out-your-princesses and conquer-the-world-because-the-pope-says-so crap is making my toes curl.

Shigawire

01-22-2006, 04:06

This whole pass-out-your-princesses and conquer-the-world-because-the-pope-says-so crap is making my toes curl.

:laugh4:

Cool link about the wheeled trebuchets though. :2thumbsup:

The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data, so that having wheels will mean that these behemoths can move around effortlessly like tanks. Regardless of terrain. While in reality, the wheels in question were only a reaction to the immense recoil. The trebuchet is, like siege towers, dependant on 100% flat terrain. In fact, the terrain would have been prepared beforehand.

So, yes. Have the wheels by all means, but at least make it immobile. Positioning it is a question of labour and time. It's remarkable how easy it is to move these behemoths when the terrain is perfectly flat.. And it's nigh impossible to move them on anything else but well-prepared "runways". The same applies to siege towers of course. Well back into ancient times..

Simetrical

01-22-2006, 06:52

Aztecs?!? :inquisitive: How on Earth are they going to fit them into the map?

Shigawire

01-22-2006, 06:54

Maybe they've increased the max-size of the map?

Or maybe the provinces will be less detailed :no:

King of the dutch

01-22-2006, 11:36

JC i really don't understand you people. Its one big 'well CA prolly won't do that or this. meh they're stupid:

quote: The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data,
How the hell do you know?
quote:If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern.
BS and you know it youreself

quote: I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.
Very simple: as goals like they did in part 1. Worked perfect you know.
Quote: Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.
Yeah why would they bother with anything. They are just a moneymilking machine out to get you're hardearned dollars for a crap game while they're laughing at you. Newsflash: i said it before you are not the market.
How in M:TW did they depict the rise of cities? Never heard anybody about it. Could be very simple though. Larger upgrades from a certain date in certain areas. See?

First of all how many games are out there that offer this depth (which you people complain is shallow) at all. It's fun to marry out you're daughters. You can rig papalelections. It's wicked. The time frame is a bit odd but saying that half the game is in the early modern period is as nonsecal and you know it yourself. EM era has started just 30 years before. I find some of you to behave like spoiled little brats who don't get the exact, correct historical game and start crying. In fact already debating how wack you're christmas present is gonna be. If you find that why do you play R:TW? Why did you bother with any Total War game. Fact is the TW series deliver gameplay that's nowhere to be found but now you're used to that, it's not good enough. Read the website again. It's about immense epic battles. Not about all you're reforms and specific little details happening on the exact date.
I never ever heard anyone complainng tha M:TW lacked anything on the history front. How come? You apparantly feel cheated with R:TW. Well then go play something else.
This is disgusting.

Everyone his/her own opinion though

kotd

TB666

01-22-2006, 12:43

The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data, so that having wheels will mean that these behemoths can move around effortlessly like tanks. Regardless of terrain. While in reality, the wheels in question were only a reaction to the immense recoil. The trebuchet is, like siege towers, dependant on 100% flat terrain. In fact, the terrain would have been prepared beforehand.

Probably yes but who knows, maybe they didn't.
But it would probably be too much work for them to create a animation where they dismantel the trebuchet and then move and then put it together again so CA will have them push them around.

Ludens

01-22-2006, 13:11

EdwardL

01-22-2006, 14:00

Spectral

01-22-2006, 14:46

What I'd really like to see is a complete overhaul of the economy. The system currently used for managing city growth, creating buildings and recruiting units is IMO too simplistic and clearly outdated, being a direct evolution since STW. As in RTW CA took away the Risk-type strategic map, I hope that now they tackles this issue.

infierno

01-22-2006, 15:14

im a medieval times freak, im here cause rome is my second option, and eb tryes to do it its best but mainly i like medieval (age of vikings and fanatics or chivalry, or the crusades) but your quiality makes roman times worth it

i hope AI can match the graphics and the game will be really the game of the year

Jebus

01-22-2006, 15:34

*snip*

Wo-hoo what agression!

quote:If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern.
BS and you know it youreself

Is it really?

Let me give you the most obvious difference between Medieval warfare and Early Modern warfare: professional armies. Around 1080, kings and his henchmen were still driving around the countryside rallying troops for his cause, yet by 1400 -and certainly by 1500- you had a centralized military apparatus with professional soldiers, mercs or not. How are they going to model that? Are they going to change city-based recruitment to a centralised recruitment pool? Are they going to add a promotion system where all military leaders were not nobility anymore, but entrepeneurs and adventures could rise up into the ranks of the army too? Are they going to model the the pre-Early Modern feudal armies and the Early Modern violence monopoly of the state, by not allowing direct control of your recruitment in the Medieval period?

These might seem like ever so slight details to you, but they make a huge difference to me.

Quote: Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.
Yeah why would they bother with anything. They are just a moneymilking machine out to get you're hardearned dollars for a crap game while they're laughing at you. Newsflash: i said it before you are not the market.
How in M:TW did they depict the rise of cities? Never heard anybody about it. Could be very simple though. Larger upgrades from a certain date in certain areas. See?

Hah, if only if it were that simple. You can't model the transition from an agrarian-run economy to a city-run economy like that. Apart from the military matters I've discussed before, there's a whole lot more to the transition from a feudal society to the Early Modern society. How would you model the hard-fought independance of the cities? The fact that each city formed its own mini-government? Work specialisation? Trader economies? Indirect taxes? City militias? Cross-national trader unions? Trade centers?

Good luck trying to do that with the RTW engine.

First of all how many games are out there that offer this depth (which you people complain is shallow) at all. It's fun to marry out you're daughters. You can rig papalelections. It's wicked. The time frame is a bit odd but saying that half the game is in the early modern period is as nonsecal and you know it yourself. EM era has started just 30 years before. I find some of you to behave like spoiled little brats who don't get the exact, correct historical game and start crying. In fact already debating how wack you're christmas present is gonna be. If you find that why do you play R:TW? Why did you bother with any Total War game. Fact is the TW series deliver gameplay that's nowhere to be found but now you're used to that, it's not good enough. Read the website again. It's about immense epic battles. Not about all you're reforms and specific little details happening on the exact date. [
I never ever heard anyone complainng tha M:TW lacked anything on the history front. How come? You apparantly feel cheated with R:TW. Well then go play something else.
This is disgusting.

I don't mind games simplifying history, yet I do mind games distorting history. If they want to make a game about epic medieval battles, then they shouldn't add the whole princess 'n popes crap.

Geoffrey S

01-22-2006, 16:10

King of the Dutch has a point. We hardly know anything about the game and already you are taking it apart. I can already predict that the game is not going to be how you want it to be. There are too many different, and often opposing, wishes, and CA does not have ten years to create the ultimate game. The best I hope for is that they remove the main errors of R:TW: A.I. (including diplomacy) and restraints to moddability. The rest can be modded.
Seconded. It's barely been announced yet some people find it possible to conclude that it'll be awful already. To detractors, calm down a little, take a deep breath, and wait for more concrete information to base your claims on.

Jebus

01-22-2006, 16:49

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

Shigawire

01-22-2006, 16:51

quote: The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data,
How the hell do you know?

Have you looked at the egyptian faction in Vanilla recently? Or any "barbarian" factions? Let's just say they haven't wooed me with their historical research in the past, and I tend to be a realist. If something has changed for the better since then (which is definitely possible with a new publisher), then I'd be pleasantly surprised!

It's always an interesting thing to see someone agressively worked up defending a meme. Even though I personally don't feel that I attacked the meme in the first place.
I don't see what's to be detracted though. It's common knowledge that artillery in the Rome-engine move around effortlessly on almost all terrain. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they have altered this. In any case, let's hope it won't be difficult to mod for those who would be interested.

Although the primary improvements in M2:TW seem to revolve around the graphical, I'm extremely happy to see something as simple as colours are being done right. This suggests to me that CA has acquired some proper art coordinator. Because I no longer see the fluorescent colours of RTW, but rather desaturated, realistic, natural and dirty colours. Good stuff. Of course, it could also be that their art coordinator hasn't been replaced, but rather has learned something from all the modders.

Since they've improved the colours, it may not be such a huge leap of faith to believe they may have improved the historical research as well. ~;) One has to be allowed to dream.

The grit and blood, and variation of soldiers within a formation is an enormous improvement in itself!

I was very happy to see the news about this game's release. Especially reading about the graphical upgrades. I just hope it will be very moddable.
In any case, I look forward to it.

Ypoknons

01-22-2006, 19:07

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.
... and if you didn't notice, most liked RTW. It's core strengths - especially the battle system - is still lightyears ahead of any other game in simulating the mechcanics of classical and medieval combat. It's so easy to bash historical inaccuracies to make yourself feel learned, but would you rather have historically (and slightly modding) troubled engine or no game at all? If CA made TW fantasy from the start instead of mock-history people would even be interested in realism. Goodness be happy that there is a Total War series and that the next game will have greatly improved graphics. Does bad hype actually annoy you even you play?

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 19:11

Well I still have some hopes for the moddability of MTW2, unless they restrict the possibilities even more. And as you point out, it is the best that we have now, and will probably ever have for a long time to create a historical game.

Ryanus

01-22-2006, 19:47

Has anyone else noticed this ?
From totalwar.com-"New Settlement Types
Build through six levels of settlement ranging from humble villages to vast cities and wooden forts to mighty stone fortress. Develop your faction as a feudal aristocracy using you castles to keep the peasants in check whilst conquering your enemies with your powerful armies. Or build cities to develop a wealthy urban society, and battle your foes with diplomacy, bribery, assassination and armies of mercenaries."
It sounds to me that you now have a choice with what you want your settlements to specialize in. Castles for military and possibly agriculture, Cities for commerce and agents. That could also be a way to show some of the changes that took place between the middle ages and the renaissance, Castles could be more important early on when your trying to expand and protect your empire, but when you have yourself established and secure you'll need the commerce from cities to support your empire. Also, castles might give you access to better units earlier on, while cities eventually give rise to well disciplined, professional soldiers. This is all speculation, but i think it is a good possibility something like this will be implemented.

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

All games are announced like that, its simple advertisement, what did you expect them to say "This game improves on some of the flaws of its predecessor"? The reason they are toting the graphics instead of the features is because the game has just been announced. First of all, allot of the features probably haven't been finalized or completed. Second, Pretty graphics are probably more likely to attract NEW players (not just us familiar with the series) to the game. Things like "improved A.I." and "historically accurate units" are less likely to pique people interest initially, especially if they haven't played any of the previous games.
I'm not saying that MTW2 will be the best game ever, that yet to be seen, but I don't think we should be taking every turn of phrase used by CA as a bad omen at this stage.

Proper Gander

01-22-2006, 19:58

So, yes. Have the wheels by all means, but at least make it immobile.

*imagines the humongous amount of "why's my trebuchet not moving" threads that will spawn*

:dizzy2:

paullus

01-22-2006, 19:58

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 21:03

Yeah, for all we know it could mean that you could choose to focus on farms or on merchant buildings. Pretty vague.

Shigawire

01-22-2006, 21:24

I noticed that also with curiosity Ryanus. It certainly sounds like they are going to differentiate between two methods of holding on to power.

Forts and Castles may be like the ones in RTW. Which you may build with your army, on any tile you wish. Except now we get multiple choices of Forts.. Wooden Fort being the lowest level, Stone Castle being the highest.. and so on.

The interview in IGN also peaked my interest.

The defender can counter by developing bigger fortresses with two or three rings of walls. An attacker with a good train of artillery will always be able to blast a hole in the outer wall, but if the assault on the breach is too costly, they might not have the strength to take the second or third ring.

This means we can finally reflect the true might of Qarthadashtim, who used to build three walls around their cities. Qart-hadasht and Thapsos especially.

Dux Corvanus

01-22-2006, 21:29

quote: The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data,
How the hell do you know?

Because we're usually pesimistic, and even so, they always manage to let us down even more.

quote: I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.

Very simple: as goals like they did in part 1. Worked perfect you know.

No, it isn't very simple. Complex economical, social and military organization changes can't be recreated with a simplistic goal system of the kind conquer-that-city or discover-gunpowder. It didn't worked perfect, you know, unless you're easily satisfied, fun gameplay is everything for you and don't give a cr*p about historical immersion. Anyway, one expects a progression, not the same game with a new engine. Because I have MTW yet, and I don't need to buy it again.

Quote: Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.

How in M:TW did they depict the rise of cities? Never heard anybody about it. Could be very simple though. Larger upgrades from a certain date in certain areas. See?

How they will depict that those upgrades are in fact a consequence of things like the plague, that reduced population and made a peasant's work more expensive for his master, changing the relations between masters and servants and giving rise to a new class of citizens that were released from their servile rural duties, fleed to towns and weakened the rural noble estament whereas increasing the power of state, incarnated in the monarchs? That this reduced agricultural production in Western Europe, making necessary to import resources from Eastern Europe, where noble ownlanders became, instead, so powerful that State was almost unextant, and servants lived attached to land propiety? That all this, and the obsolescence of the knight as a weapon, signaled the fall of chivalry and the rise of non-noble units inside the western armies? That the needs of modern war gave birth progressively to a professional, stable and centralized army, instead of trusting exclusively in feudal contingents, militia and mercenary troops?

I don't hope they can recreate all these things, but I'd like to see an effort to imitate it a bit, for the sake of variety and gameplay depth.

First of all how many games are out there that offer this depth (which you people complain is shallow) at all.

Very few, it's true. And I praise CA for that. But I expect them to make progresses in those aspects, too. Since MTW, all I've seen are technical improvements, due to better performances of PCs today. But, as a historical-based strategy game, it has gone worse. In RTW, gameplay may be more fun and attractive for the casual or recent player, but, lacking depth, its appeal decreases more rapidly, and gets more boring and repetitive than MTW after some time.

I don't want that for MTW2, a funny use-and-throw console-like game that makes you happy in Xmas and it's forgotten about February. Maybe that's the market, but that's not the way CA made its name, and they can't repeat the RTW formula forever and ever, without exhausting it. It's lovers of historical warfare who gave CA its fame, and departing more and more from History to woo show-lovers will finally give birth to hibrid products that no one will like: too deep for arcaders and too light in content for the quieter gamer.

The time frame is a bit odd but saying that half the game is in the early modern period is as nonsecal and you know it yourself. EM era has started just 30 years before.

I don't feel comfortable with chopping History in slices as it is pork, since all chances usually happen slowly and have different progressions in different geographic scenarios. But, traditionally, Early Modern Age is usually related to the fall of Constantinople before the Otomans (1453), the end of the Hundred Year War, the beginning of colonial expansion by Portugal and Castile, the cultural changes of Renaissance... all events that happened around mid 15th cantury, and hence, we're talking about almost a full century that changed completely Western World in all aspects. 1530 is so different from 1080 as our days are from the France of Louis XIV, and I can't only understand CA's election as an attempt of increasing variety and fun by incorporating gunpowder and exotic 'supernatives', for making a minimally informed historical game with all those variables in mind is a huge, probably impossible task.

It's about immense epic battles. Not about all you're reforms and specific little details happening on the exact date.

Then why feigning it's based on a historical frame or a timeline? Make it in Mars and put Wargs, Aliens, Predators, head hurlers and chicks that throw fire thru their a**. Immense! Epic! Fun fun fun!

I never ever heard anyone complainng tha M:TW lacked anything on the history front. How come?

Then you didn't put your ear in the proper places. Why do you think there is a 'Medieval XL' mod? Besides, I don't complain about MTW. It's only I want it to progress. Not to sacrifice its best things in exchange for simple adrenaline and spectacle. We can have both.

You apparantly feel cheated with R:TW. Well then go play something else.

Oh yes. I'll play EB. :2thumbsup:

On another side:

The defender can counter by developing bigger fortresses with two or three rings of walls. An attacker with a good train of artillery will always be able to blast a hole in the outer wall, but if the assault on the breach is too costly, they might not have the strength to take the second or third ring.

Oh, wonderful, but that's not the way it worked. In order to protect from artillery, cities were not surrounded by 'rings of walls', but engineers developed a new kind of wall known as 'trace italienne' (Italian shape), which consisted in inclined walls -which deflected artillery shots instead of standing them- and a characteristic 'star' shape -which allowed attacking the besieging enemy from several angles:

http://www.ethesis.net/buskruit/buskruit_afb/buskruit_afb_43.jpg

Shigawire

01-22-2006, 21:58

Dux Corvanus

01-22-2006, 22:17

Indeed Dux. That wasn't the point. This could be useful for EB 2 perhaps? :2thumbsup:

Qart-hadasht had 3 progressively sized walls, as did Thapsus. The outer wall being shortest, the inner wall being tallest.

We'll see, we'll see. I'd also love to see an EB series progressing bith in technology and depth. It depends on motivation -and future moddability- I guess. :2thumbsup:

If they also make posible fortified island-cities -such as Gadir and Tyrus- I'll be perfectly happy. Imagine the tactical posibilities of such an approach.

BTW, no word about sea warfare.

Jebus

01-22-2006, 23:11

... and if you didn't notice, most liked RTW. It's core strengths - especially the battle system - is still lightyears ahead of any other game in simulating the mechcanics of classical and medieval combat. It's so easy to bash historical inaccuracies to make yourself feel learned, but would you rather have historically (and slightly modding) troubled engine or no game at all? If CA made TW fantasy from the start instead of mock-history people would even be interested in realism. Goodness be happy that there is a Total War series and that the next game will have greatly improved graphics. Does bad hype actually annoy you even you play?

I really don't get that attitude. It's so incredibly typically Anglosaxon.

In the Paradox community, for instance, people actually expect good games. There's pressure from players, interaction and player advice to actually make games as good as they can be. And what do players get? GOOD GAMES. If you are expecting a half-assed product and still be happy because half-assed is still better than nothing at all, you will ALWAYS get half-assed products, and they will only become progressively more half-assed as time goes on.

Stand up for yourself, you mindless consumerist drone. They aren't making their games for themselves, they are making games for YOU. For YOUR money. YOUR time. It's all about YOU - not what they want to do with their time. YOU buy their products, so THEY WORK FOR YOU.

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Kralizec

01-22-2006, 23:19

*imagines the humongous amount of "why's my trebuchet not moving" threads that will spawn*

:dizzy2:

The solution is simple. Actually putting that bit of information in the unit description will stop those gamers who have achieved literacy from creating threads about this. If some people do make such threads, we probably don't want them at the forum anyway so we can just ban them :laugh4:

NightStar

01-22-2006, 23:30

Interesting discussion and all but I believe in giving CA the benefit of the doubt until the game actually comes out and I have tested and tried it.

NightStar

01-22-2006, 23:30

Interesting discussion and all but I believe in giving CA the benefit of the doubt until the game actually comes out and I have tested and tried it.

Lord_Morningstar

01-23-2006, 00:42

My main concern now is that this will simply be RTW in the Middle Ages. Not that I didn’t like RTW, it remains one of my favourite games, just that I’m not going to shell out money and possibly buy a new computer to play essentially the same game.

However, until I hear anything about features, I’m reserving judgement. I thought BI was very good, so I’m not going to despair.

There’s a couple of things we’re not going to be getting, though.

We’re not going to be getting a totally and perfectly accurate EB-style game. Sega has to pay heed to the bottom line – they need a game that can be produced and tested in reasonable time, and a game that a large percentage of the potential computer-game market will be interested in. Likewise, they are not going to go too far out of their way to make the game highly moddable.

We’re not going to get MTW that looks like RTW. I wouldn’t want an exact copy of MTW, anyway. I enjoyed the game, but again, I’m not going to shell out for a better-looking version of a game I already own.

Other than that, who knows?

RandyKapp

01-23-2006, 00:53

Havnt read all the replys in this thread so forgive me if its already been said. But this system of giving different shild designs to in the individual soldier while it may sound nifty doesnt make much sense. 80-90% of the infantry in the period were men-at-arms who would bear the standard of their lord. Making units with several different patterns a step backwards =/

Steppe Merc

01-23-2006, 00:57

I disagree, though what you say is true for some Europeans. But rember within each faction there would be a large number of lords, each with his own vassals that he would call up when his lord called upon him.
Also keep in mind the non feudal or not exactly feudal factions.

Kralizec

01-23-2006, 01:37

Besides, that would be easily modded out. Probably you just need to remove the different skin parts for the shields and replace them with a single one, or edit some text so that the engine can only select one shield picture.

Dayve

01-23-2006, 01:42

Good... I'd rather have the same faces/shields/clothes/helmets with no dirt or blood so i can have more units on screen than less units with all that useless stuff... Although i admit it would be nice to have all that and a nice computer able to do both but i haven't the money now or then to buy a new expensive pc to do that..

Chester

01-23-2006, 03:39

Will MTW2 be moddable? Even from a skinner prospective or perhaps a animator's stand point. The models look very complex. Will this cause a problem for modders? I can see RTW models being remade, but the MTW2 models have much more detail and pagentry. Blood and mud forming ontop of armour and cloth over time?, yikes. I hope we can find able skinners and moddlers.

Ypoknons

01-23-2006, 06:23

I really don't get that attitude. It's so incredibly typically Anglosaxon.

In the Paradox community, for instance, people actually expect good games. There's pressure from players, interaction and player advice to actually make games as good as they can be. And what do players get? GOOD GAMES. If you are expecting a half-assed product and still be happy because half-assed is still better than nothing at all, you will ALWAYS get half-assed products, and they will only become progressively more half-assed as time goes on.

Stand up for yourself, you mindless consumerist drone. They aren't making their games for themselves, they are making games for YOU. For YOUR money. YOUR time. It's all about YOU - not what they want to do with their time. YOU buy their products, so THEY WORK FOR YOU.

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
I'm Chinese, if that works for you. Anglo-saxonism, confucianism, whatever, I'm just a hodgepod of values it doesn't matter.

My point is that RTW wasn't so bad - it had huge flaws to be certain, but not to the extent that I wouldn't play it. You're working off the viewpoint that RTW is a piece of crap that noone would buy, and I don't buy that. RTW gives you classical battles in a 3D engine, something not even MTW can give. Yes, the shoddy AI made it boring after a while, but I actually thought that RTW was a rather good game. I am to be called a mindless consumer drone if that is the case? That I happen to prefer a flawed TW-style game to say, HL2 even. People who like Lock-On air combat despite its flaw would say the same thing - what, they will choose to live with those flaws because there is no idealistic dream world giving an idealisticly what you would call a 'good' game. Yes, RTW has more flaws than it should, but whether those flaws are worth your money, is up to you. It's either flawed RTW or no RTW, and the former does in fact, make me happier.

Yes, CA should interact with its customer base more and RTW would have benefitted from that immensely. But that is the realm of the sueprlative developer, and if you only accept games form such developers, go ahead. I don't hold people to the same expectations that you do, and if that makes me a consumerist drone, so be it.

You, in fact, have won me over to the fact that we can expect more from CA. But you won't convince me that RTW is somehow not worth my money, and the same, from current evidence, goes for MTW2.

Shigawire

01-23-2006, 06:45

But you won't convince me that RTW is somehow not worth my money, and the same, from current evidence, goes for MTW2.

Good point. I'd buy MTW2 in a heart-beat myself.. but that doesn't mean I have to be a fanboi all of the sudden. I will keep pressuring CA to be the best they can be, because if they make ONE misstep, they are over and out in this industry. It's that cutthroat. I will admit joyous jubilation over the production of this game, but I will not sit idly by and let them pump me with their stuff. I will expect the fans to be a more active partner in what they do. If we don't expect it, and crave it, it will never happen.

Kushan

01-23-2006, 06:55

I'm personally holding a neutral opinion of MTW II. We all saw the pre RTW coverage, and then we all saw what it came to be. Yes, i'll by MTW II the day it comes out, but I dont want to get my hopes up.

If the hype, for the most part, seems to equal up then I'll change my opinionm until then we'll just have to wait and see.

I personally am planning on removing the Aztecs, and bring the map more on a European/Asia focus. I dont find it realistic to conquer the Aztecs in the Middel Ages.

Kushan

Shigawire

01-23-2006, 07:14

I agree about the Aztecs. It seems like a wild goose-chase to bring them into the game, when there are so many factions that ought to have representation.

Ypoknons

01-23-2006, 07:17

I personally am planning on removing the Aztecs, and bring the map more on a European/Asia focus. I dont find it realistic to conquer the Aztecs in the Middel Ages
Actually the conquest was finished within the timeframe of MTW2, but certainly it made little difference to the historical situation of Europe before 1530 and is much more of a Renaissance thing. I hope I understood you right.

Shigawire

01-23-2006, 07:30

Well yes, it is technically within the period. But how much can be reflected between 1492 to 1530? :inquisitive:

Ypoknons

01-23-2006, 07:35

Well yes, it is technically within the period. But how much can be reflected between 1492 to 1530? :inquisitive:
Sorry, that was my point. The historical signifance of the Aztec conquest to Europe - vast amounts of gold flowing into Spain and its conbritubtion price revolution - do not lie within the timeframe that MTW2 is in. It's sort of a pointless minigame, if implemented well, and probably a waste of effort for us, though I have heard that some people are enjoying the variety.

King of the dutch

01-23-2006, 09:23

Is it really?

It is really. Especially if you claim that that puts 'half' the game in the EM era.
See Dux post about the timeframe.

These might seem like ever so slight details to you, but they make a huge difference to me.
Again how did the original M:TW show this. Did you think that game sucked too? Plus i'm not saying they're slight differences.

Hah, if only if it were that simple. You can't model the transition from an agrarian-run economy to a city-run economy like that. Apart from the military matters I've discussed before, there's a whole lot more to the transition from a feudal society to the Early Modern society. How would you model the hard-fought independance of the cities? The fact that each city formed its own mini-government? Work specialisation? Trader economies? Indirect taxes? City militias? Cross-national trader unions? Trade centers?

Well then tell me how they should exactly recreate that. Cities could rebel for instance from a certain time. Reflecting that they are moving away from their masters. Most things you say can be represented by numbers. City militias could be build from a certain point. If you have a better idea share it in stead of shattering everything from the start.

then they shouldn't add the whole princess 'n popes crap.

Now whats the problem with that.
1 Untill the 'end' the pope tried to be a main power in Europe compelling the feudals what to do. Btw at the end near the renaissance the popes were a decadent bunch.
2 It was very common to marry out you're daughter to other monarchs/princes/lords en so on.

Have you looked at the egyptian faction in Vanilla recently? Or any "barbarian" factions? Let's just say they haven't wooed me with their historical research in the past, and I tend to be a realist. If something has changed for the better since then (which is definitely possible with a new publisher), then I'd be pleasantly surprised!

Good point. Still they already made a game about medieval history. I didn't find any major faults with that one. (r can't remember). The Egyp faction was a concession to battlefield practibility. (see the Q&A in the off. rome forum).
So were all the bright colors for instance. So you could distinguish troops on the battlefield.

"This game improves on some of the flaws of its predecessor"?
:laugh4:

No, it isn't very simple. Complex economical, social and military organization changes can't be recreated with a simplistic goal system of the kind conquer-that-city or discover-gunpowder. It didn't worked perfect, you know, unless you're easily satisfied, fun gameplay is everything for you and don't give a cr*p about historical immersion. Anyway, one expects a progression, not the same game with a new engine. Because I have MTW yet, and I don't need to buy it again.

It seems that with the graphical improvements you want a whole lot of other things too but this:
How they will depict that those upgrades are in fact a consequence of things like the plague, that reduced population and made a peasant's work more expensive for his master, changing the relations between masters and servants and giving rise to a new class of citizens that were released from their servile rural duties, fleed to towns and weakened the rural noble estament whereas increasing the power of state, incarnated in the monarchs? That this reduced agricultural production in Western Europe, making necessary to import resources from Eastern Europe, where noble ownlanders became, instead, so powerful that State was almost unextant, and servants lived attached to land propiety? That all this, and the obsolescence of the knight as a weapon, signaled the fall of chivalry and the rise of non-noble units inside the western armies? That the needs of modern war gave birth progressively to a professional, stable and centralized army, instead of trusting exclusively in feudal contingents, militia and mercenary troops?

is impossible. You know why? Because it takes the game out if the game. THe above is a documentary. Beginning in a set historical situation in whatever year gives you the player the change to make or break history. It's up to you to follow this line you sketch above. On the other hand it's perfectly possible that you don't. CA gives you a situation and you deaql with it. If they would recreate every single event (which are different for all 'nations') it would not be very exciting. Every game would be the same 'coz factions would be as strong and developed as is historicaly accurate. That's never been the aim of the game.

But I expect them to make progresses in those aspects, too.

good point:2thumbsup:

Then why feigning it's based on a historical frame or a timeline?
Like i said above it's about history but it's not about recreating history for you. Also CA makes choices about what they deem is for every faction a necesaay/valueble point in time to elaborate. (like the messages in M:TW)
One of the reasons there are not so many faction specific features is performance. Look now ppl are already wondering/complaining (if) they can('t) play it.

Then you didn't put your ear in the proper places. Why do you think there is a 'Medieval XL' mod?

Well my eyes and hands were cos i played it. In what way did it do this:

How they will depict that those upgrades are in fact a consequence of things like the plague, that reduced population and made a peasant's work more expensive for his master, changing the relations between masters and servants and giving rise to a new class of citizens that were released from their servile rural duties, fleed to towns and weakened the rural noble estament whereas increasing the power of state, incarnated in the monarchs? That this reduced agricultural production in Western Europe, making necessary to import resources from Eastern Europe, where noble ownlanders became, instead, so powerful that State was almost unextant, and servants lived attached to land propiety? That all this, and the obsolescence of the knight as a weapon, signaled the fall of chivalry and the rise of non-noble units inside the western armies? That the needs of modern war gave birth progressively to a professional, stable and centralized army, instead of trusting exclusively in feudal contingents, militia and mercenary troops?

In fact, in what way did it make M:TW more historically accutrate or better depicted the development you are talking about? (it was a cool mod. Not attacking the modder)

We can have both.
i agree.

I admit i was:
agressively worked up defending a meme:oops: (although....what's a meme:inquisitive: )
I meant no insult.

Dux:
Isn't that type a castle not an EM type (maybe late) i thought Early period castles did have multiple rings?

kotd

Proper Gander

01-23-2006, 12:19

The solution is simple. Actually putting that bit of information in the unit description will stop those gamers who have achieved literacy from creating threads about this. If some people do make such threads, we probably don't want them at the forum anyway so we can just ban them :laugh4:

*tries to imagine the new TW generation take their time reading the unit descriptions*

:dizzy2:

~;)

Ludens

01-23-2006, 13:32

Stand up for yourself, you mindless consumerist drone. They aren't making their games for themselves, they are making games for YOU. For YOUR money. YOUR time. It's all about YOU - not what they want to do with their time. YOU buy their products, so THEY WORK FOR YOU.

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
Please drop the belligerence. If you are so frustrated with CA, stop buying their products. If you aren't, give them credit for what they got right.

I am a bit surprised why people are hacking like this at R:TW while seeming to forget that M:TW was neither as bug-free nor as historically accurate as it could have been. R:TW was far more ambitious, so no wonder more things went wrong. Yes, I was disappointed with the game, and yes, I still think many things should have been done better and that a lot of potential has been wasted, but all this aggression at CA is going to do more harm than good. After all, they made the engine for great mods like EB.

I don't expect them to make M:TW II a historically accurate simulation of social, economical and military dynamics in the Middle ages. None of the previous games were, after all, and the public (the majority, anyway) doesn't expect that of them. All I hope for it that they get the basic engine right, and that the rest will be moddable.

Kampfduck

01-23-2006, 15:54

i think its gonna be a great game, but by the looks of it, what are the specs for this game, pentium5 !?!

Salazar

01-23-2006, 18:06

Well, i think it is just an upgraded rtw engine, so it shouldnt be too heavy.
I imagine that most of the graphical improvement comes from better textures for units buildings landscape etc.

Dux Corvanus

01-23-2006, 20:48

Dux:
Isn't that type a castle not an EM type (maybe late) i thought Early period castles did have multiple rings?

Certainly, earlier fortresses did. But that's not what I don't like, but the fact they intend to put them in as an answer to 'a good train of artillery', this is, organized wall-demolishing gunpowder cannon and bombard trains, as Otomans and Castilians started using since mid 15th century.

Concentric rings of walls appeared much earlier -see Shigawire's post- and were not purposedly designed to stand artillery attacks, but making possible intruders face several strong lines of defence.

In fact, several rings of vertical walls only make the demolishing task longer, but don't avoid destruction. Trace italienne was an effective passive response to trains of artillery, and marked the end of medieval fortification, circa 1460. With time, trace italienne was also to show its limitations.

I don't criticize the use of multiple rings in the game, they're historical -if properly done. But I don't agree in the use and counter-artillery effects they intend to give them ingame -which may be effective, given the limitations of engine, but unhistorical.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_italienne

Lord_Morningstar

01-23-2006, 23:56

I wouldn't put too much stock on what these early reports say. 'Train of artillery' could mean anything. For those of who who followed AoM's release, you might remember the Gamespot preview that referred to Greek 'oeltasts'.

O'ETAIPOS

01-24-2006, 00:21

Wandarah

01-24-2006, 00:25

Jebus

01-24-2006, 01:12

Ajantis

01-24-2006, 01:26

I was looking forward to this but now all these negative comments have made me think... well this sucks. im sad :(

Shigawire

01-24-2006, 01:30

Mindless consumerist drone? Seriously?

Anyway, they're obviously not making the game for you. Since you dont like it for the reasons you've given. They're more likely making the game for people that dont give two hoots about the historical accuracy and would rather have an excellent, fun, engaging game.

I hate to tell you this, but the historical accuracy crowd aint making them the money.

Besides, thats why you're able to mod the game. To make it what you want.

Really? If they're making the game for people who "don't give two hoots" for historical accuracy, then I have a special proposition for them. Why don't they just make the game entitled "Balthazar Total War", with special units like Dumbo the flying elephant? Obviously, nobody could criticize them because they were making a game not based on reality. But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.
As Jebus said, they can simplify all they want. But if they cannot make the game without including their nonsensical gleeful ideas which require a tremendous distortion of historical facts, then I feel they might as well go make a fantasy game.

This is very much the reason I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA. But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently. Another great example of this perverse hybrid between history and fantasy is this game:

Lionheart

The game begins with you (a descendant of King Richard) being accused of heresy and escaping prison to Barcelona.

The game commences with a character generation sequence, using the SPECIAL system from 'Fallout'. Lionheart allows you to choose a human or three of the human-esque hybrids on offer as your race. These three hybrid races (Demokins, Sylvants and Feralkins) all provide different statistical advantages and disadvantages for your characters abilities and skills. An example of this are the Feralkins - Strong and good at fighting, but lousy at magic.

http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/2513/39936_full.jpg

Here you see an example of how an unsuccessful game designer can come up with the brilliant idea of mixing the namesake of Richard the Lionheart in the game, to sell a story. A story based on monsters and goblins apparently.
:laugh4:

I really think game designers are underestimating the crowd nowadays. The audience is becoming more and more educated, and harder to please. It's no wonder these game designs with absurd mixes of history/fantasy die out in the long run.

Lord_Morningstar

01-24-2006, 02:34

What a lot of people forget is that RTW is comparatively historical. I have never seen a game that distinguished between hastatii, princeps and triarii, nor a game that included the Seleucid Empire as a playable faction, nor a game that made an attempt to model phalanxes as RTW did. Granted, the portrayal of the Egyptians and many of the Barbarians was way off, but considering the alternatives, RTW is pretty good as far as realism goes. After all, EB is being based on RTW, not Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Civilisation, ect. As such, I don’t quite get it when people start comparing spear warbands or legionary cavalry with wizards or spaceships.

Overall, my standards for historical accuracy are often fairly high, especially in movies (I refused to see King Arthur). However, I am willing to cut game designers some slack. It’s harder to make an interactive model of a period of history that lets you play (and enjoy) it from all sorts of angles than it is to simply show it in a book or film.

Shigawire

01-24-2006, 03:05

Wandarah

01-24-2006, 03:19

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

I dont think you have to follow any set of rules when you're designing a game. I think thats sort of the point. They use real life history as source material, that's it. Theres no contractual obligation for them to make it exact - indeed, thier mainly there to make a game they think would be most enjoyable, for most people.

Maybe you feel it's irresponsible, if so, I can understand that - I just dont think that it *matters* all that much. I think people that give a damn, will be inspired to go and find out anything that they wish to find out.

Anyway, it's going to be an incredible game if you ask me.

Shigawire

01-24-2006, 03:27

I don't mind them the freedom to design the game they want to make.
I just generally mind the nonsensical mixing of 90% real history with 10% utter fantasy, it's just unnecessary when at least 98-99% reality does not take that much more effort, and I see no evidence for this being any less fun - following CA's very own mantra. "Realism and fun can go hand in hand"

I agree with them, but I don't think they are consistent in following their own words and mantras.

It wouldn't take that much effort for example to properly reflect the Ptolemaic kingdom. Even the gauls.. and the efforts seemed very halfarsed. "generic Barbarian infantry" etc.. it's names like that really make me immersed in the universe.. ~:rolleyes:

I think we are on the wrong page here, because these inaccuracies were not ENTIRELY due to "design freedom", they were largely due to laziness or sloppiness in the research department actually.

Ypoknons

01-24-2006, 03:36

Yes, Lord Morningstar has a valid point that RTW has come a long way from most games in showing, fundamentally, that even vaguely historical games can be sucessful in the mainstream (one that isn't based on WWII, that is :sweatdrop:). But I think we must put pressure on CA to make the best game they can, that our voices should be heard and that they should be radical. CA bashing, the attitude that CA is somehow making crap, is totally senseless. CA lobbying, in the original Europa Barbarorum spirit (before it became a mod), can only lead to good things because it makes CA think that the fans want more history, and I believe, based on past experience, that CA can deliever, that though they might screw up a game in other areas, making more historically accurcate graphics and factions, perhaps even gameplay mechcanics, is within their realm. Partially EB contributes to this feeling because they have shown that it is possible to have interesting historical units, even if, in a mass market game I would use English names for the units because inability of most english game players to take the to understand ancient Greek and ancient proto-Germanic and therefore pass up on a otherwise great game outweights the needs of the linguists (whose goals are laudable). Heck, it's not even english players, Chinese players have a hard enough time learning english names, and French names would just confuse them more, never mind Byzantine Greek and Arabic etc...

Lord_Morningstar

01-24-2006, 04:01

Lord_Morningstar: Why "cut the designers some slack"? What possible purpose does this behaviour serve, other than sycophanticism?
I can understand they are humans. But they are also paid professionals who ought to be able to cope with criticism, and to take it to heart.

When I say ‘cut some slack’ I don’t mean ‘be satisfied with an inferior product’. I’m talking about allowing them to stretch history a little in some places for reasons of balance, creating variety, not having too many units, ect. I don’t think that this justifies the Egyptians from RTW, but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet. The majority of the potential market wants a game, after all. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t cool to be able to set up an accurate battle of Agincourt, just that these things can be taken too far.

Ypoknons raises a good point, though, about constructive criticism vs CA bashing. I see a bit of the latter on this forum – people going out of their way to find fault with any decision CA makes, and then exaggerating the faults that they find (“Chosen Swordsmen? Why don’t they just go all the way and include Jedi Knights!”). All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.

King of the dutch

01-24-2006, 06:19

Simplifying I can live with, distorting I can *not*.

Again Jebus. What is wrong with M:TW II?

If a movie relating to historic event is made full of falsums, people cry havoc. If a book is written on history that's full of errors, nobody will buy it.

I don't think you can proof that at all. Look at KoH, King Arthur, troy, alexander. I didn't hear anybody on those (in general not on this forum.)
Whats that book again. The Davinci code. The one that sold like millions. And that was historicaly accurate? hmmmm. 'nobody will buy it' ?

I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA. But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently

It's based on myths. Come on who cares. That game doesn't claim to be historicaly accurate. (i they do i will take this back:2thumbsup: )

I have never seen a game that distinguished between hastatii, princeps and triarii, nor a game that included the Seleucid Empire as a playable faction, nor a game that made an attempt to model phalanxes as RTW did.

agree

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

You can't base a game on historical reality! There is none. (We don't know it at least) You can try to come close to the image that we have created of the past.

but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet.

True. Although when a friend of mine told me there were helmets there that were 200 years off i thought hmmmmm.....then i thought what gives. When i'm playing a battle its Not gonna be a torn in my side. I'm not gonna notice it even.

All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.

I agree. If want to be taken seriously it doenst help if you bash everything CA announces. I wouldn't listen either.

grtz kod

Foot

01-24-2006, 12:26

If want to be taken seriously it doenst help if you bash everything CA announces. I wouldn't listen either.

Yet CA did not listen to the EB team when they wished to help with the historical accuracy of the barbarian factions and what we ended up with was headhurlers, screaming women and Bull warriors (though I never really met up with them in game). I'm not a historical genius, or even any kind of history student, but I do know that such units are just taking the piss. If CA want to be taken seriously then they shouldnt start putting in Graal Knights (or whatever they were called).

The question they have to ask themselves is which have been the most successful mods, those that have tried to increase realism or those that have tried to decrease it.

Real history is so much more interesting than the creative minds of a few games developers. For a start there were a lot more creative people in history. And thats why 'Foucault's Pendulum' is a much better book than the 'Da Vinci Code'.

Foot

Shigawire

01-24-2006, 14:29

When I say ‘cut some slack’ I don’t mean ‘be satisfied with an inferior product’. I’m talking about allowing them to stretch history a little in some places for reasons of balance, creating variety, not having too many units, ect.

For reasons of balance? What's balanced in RTW?
Variety? What's varied about "generic barbarian #41"?
I really don't see the connection here.

I don’t think that this justifies the Egyptians from RTW, but I do think that it means that people shouldn’t be on antidepressants because a knight unit created in 1350 is wearing a 1400-style helmet.
I don't think that would cause anyone to go on antidepressants.

The majority of the potential market wants a game, after all. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t cool to be able to set up an accurate battle of Agincourt, just that these things can be taken too far.
I haven't seen it taken too far, yet I've seen the exact opposite taken too far.

Ypoknons raises a good point, though, about constructive criticism vs CA bashing. I see a bit of the latter on this forum – people going out of their way to find fault with any decision CA makes, and then exaggerating the faults that they find (“Chosen Swordsmen? Why don’t they just go all the way and include Jedi Knights!”). All that’ll do is give the historically-minded fanbase a reputation as being a group of screaming nutjobs that CA can feel comfortable ignoring.
I wouldn't react that heavily to the "chosen swordsmen" who are actually not that unrealistic.

But who qualifies for the "nutjob" label? My money would be on the people who are satisfied with "screeching women", "flaming pigs" and "head-hurlers".

Dux Corvanus

01-24-2006, 14:33

Train of artilery? Maybe they meant "training of artilery" and then this is not very informative, as torsion machines were also called artillery. On multiple rings of walls - if the last ring is early modern fortification then having older rings inside is perfectly historical.

A train of artillery is an Early Modern Age military term referring to an organized assembly of gun pieces destined to put a fortified position under siege.

About multiple rings of walls, they were usually made on purpose -so that secondary line walls dominated the exterior ones and could help in their defense. When a city built a larger wall around was not usually to add another wall to defence, but to allow city growth, since the old ones were now not large enough to encircle the whole city, and exterior buildings and citizens were without protection. Inner older walls were usually demolished to allow new housing and streets, and because of the construction materials being reused -building walls was a very expensive matter. The existence of another smaller but mightier citadel or military keep inside the town was common, tho. That was usually where the city garrison was quartered.

Ludens

01-24-2006, 14:44

Look, I really don't mind them making a battle-game only. I really don't - because that's their niche. Fine by me.

Again, I don't mind them simplifying history either. A lot of people just want to kill pixels and not read any text - fine by me.

But *if* they want to include something - albeit medieval empire management, politics, religion, or even certain unit types, then they at least have to implement them *correctly*. Simplifying I can live with, distorting I can *not*.
I agree. However, this spirit of "M:TW II will be crap and CA are jerks" is not going to improve things. We should indeed point out flaws and provide constructive criticism to the designers, but this torrent of criticism on an unreleased game is not constructive at all. Yes, I am frustrated with the previous game as well, but I think you are demanding to much if you expect the game to accurately portray military, economical and social factors of the middle ages. None of the previous games did, but leaving them out entirely wouldn't be historically accurate either, so we are going to end up with a compromise. If that is not to your liking, than perhaps you should buy another game. It is a design decision, not a flaw.

Now, if CA would team up with Paradox and produce a hybrid game...

But who qualifies for the "nutjob" label?
You misunderstand the point. If all the realism-fans are going to do is complain about how craptastic the game is, CA is not going to listen to us. After all, whatever they do, the game is never going to be accurate enough for us.

Dux Corvanus

01-24-2006, 15:10

If all the realism-fans are going to do is complain about how craptastic the game is, CA is not going to listen to us.

As far as I know, CA has never listened to us, at least about historical advice matters.

After all, whatever they do, the game is never going to be accurate enough for us.

Indeed. But that is not the point. I'm realistic: I don't expect miracles. Technology and entertainment have limits, you can't do something in such scale. It's only that I expect them to do something MORE accurate than the previous ones, instead of doing something LESS accurate than the previous products. That's my problem with CA: their technological progresses run inversely with their position about history. MTW was more complex than STW, and, tho rather simplistic and with important misses, still respected History in general terms. When RTW appeared, I greeted the new look with enthusiasm, but my hopes of the game being, at least, as historically informed as the previous ones, were disappointed. Instead, I had a strange mix of historical research and utter, ridiculous fantasy -that was unnecessary and didn't improve fun or gameplay at all.

That's my fear. I expect MTW2 to be AT LEAST AS GOOD AS MTW, or preferably, better. But what I've seen till now, leads me to believe that CA goes on the same path initiated with RTW: mixing a superficial Hollywood-like resemble of History with pure show, in order to appeal and attract the traditional arcade and RTS player, which will still prefer Warcraft III to it. And we'll end having Merlin throwing fireballs from among the ranks of the English longbowmen in Agincourt.

CA can't compete with Blizzard or Microsoft in their own terrain, but doing so, it's going to lose its position in this narrow niche market, the one where they were masters since the days of STW.

BTW, there are plenty other ages of History still uncovered by CA: from Bronze Age to modern war. That they choose Middle Ages again suggests they lack a bit of imagination, or don't want to make much effort to make a different product than BI. Looks like they're doing a -fully priced- medieval mod of RTW, with some new things and improvements. :inquisitive:

And I miss Aragon. :shame:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-24-2006, 15:33

Ooh, nice. What is it with you guys saying Rome can't be played without mods. Of courrse you can play without mods, thats what I do all the time.

MTW2 will likely not have all the individual moves and visuals it promises now, just as the customised units got cut from Rome, but it will still be a good, fun game.

Ludens

01-24-2006, 15:50

Dux Corvanus, I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that it is unrealistic to expect more historical accuracy when the developers have (in my mind) already shown to be disclined to go beyond the superficial. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is. Bashing them will not change that.

the_handsome_viking

01-24-2006, 16:02

It's cool the way you can upgrade your soldiers in the game and that they will have different skins depending on the upgrades, and that does add a deal of accuracy in the sense that the more wealth heaped upon a unit, the better the equipment they could afford.

the_handsome_viking

01-24-2006, 16:38

Really? If they're making the game for people who "don't give two hoots" for historical accuracy, then I have a special proposition for them.

In fairness, most people care about historical accuracy, they just usually don't have the free time to spend on aquiring vast amounts of historical knowledge.

Why don't they just make the game entitled "Balthazar Total War", with special units like Dumbo the flying elephant? Obviously, nobody could criticize them because they were making a game not based on reality.

HAHA.

But when you base something off reality, or CLAIM to base it off reality, you have to follow certain simple rules of thumb. That is what I and many many others feel.

In fairness to Creative Assembly, they do hire historians to give them details on the time period they are dealing with.

As Jebus said, they can simplify all they want. But if they cannot make the game without including their nonsensical gleeful ideas which require a tremendous distortion of historical facts, then I feel they might as well go make a fantasy game.

They did, it was called Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, Didn't you see the magical sparkles?

This is very much the reason I dislike the design idea behind Spartan Total Warrior, though not a direct brainchild of CA.

When I first heard about Spartan Total Warrior, I wen't to look for screen shots for the game, and I saw what appeared to be someone with the ability to shoot lighting at people, and then said "this is what happens when SEGA gets control of something", but that said, Spartan Total Warrior does look like good harmless fun.

But it is based on a real and proud people, yet it mixes monsters and all kinds of lunacy with it because they think it's the only way to sell the story apparently. Another great example of this perverse hybrid between history and fantasy is this game:

If you were a Spartan, wouldn't you like to be commemorated with a video game that depicts Spartans as magical super warriors that can beat up thousands of men at once with easy and shoot lighting out of their nipples?

Here you see an example of how an unsuccessful game designer can come up with the brilliant idea of mixing the namesake of Richard the Lionheart in the game, to sell a story. A story based on monsters and goblins apparently.
:laugh4:

Heh.

I really think game designers are underestimating the crowd nowadays. The audience is becoming more and more educated, and harder to please. It's no wonder these game designs with absurd mixes of history/fantasy die out in the long run.

Of course, the internet is at the forefront of the information revolution and because of it the esoteric knowledge that ultimatly supports the existance of elite groups is starting to disappear, and the average joe is becoming more educated and his tastes more sophisticated.

Historical accuracy is a selling point without a doubt.

Seydlitz

01-24-2006, 18:43

Well, I'm studying to become a Games Designer, so there is a few things I'd like to point out here!

"Why don't they take our suggestions"

Mainly since the game is mostly finished after the press release. I'm pretty sure they read a bunch of the suggestions, but it would be very risky if CA used them.

Why? Since by press release, all the design documents, models, concept sketches have already been done. And these things cost money! Here in England, a game designer or artist is payed 20-40 pounds an hour. If we assume each model takes only three hours from concept stage to fully modelled and textured, that would mean each model costs at the very least 60 pounds (But probably over 100 pounds at the end). They'd quite literally be throwing thousands of pounds out of the window if they were to remake them all.

What would they say to their Publishers if the game goes over budget, or isn't a big hit? "Yeah, they weren't historically accurate, so we had to throw out a bunch of models and units we spent a crap load of money creating?". You must remember now a days each game costs a publisher 2-10 million pounds to make. These are quite large sums of money! While at EB we can discard bad models with no economic consequences, most game developers literally can't afford to. Why do you think CA suddenly switched over to a much bigger publisher like SEGA? They probably thought the Activision budget wasn't high enough, or Activision couldn't afford to give them all the money they needed.

It is more likely that your suggestions make it into the next generation, which so far seems to be true. M2TW dosn't look as gay colored as RTW looked. And it is reintroducing many things that were in MTW which nobody had copmlained about, and which I missed in RTW (IE. princesses, priests, etc.).

"But it is so Historically innaccurate!"

It is. History though, is a subject that currently has 0 value in the widespread community. Especially in the yonger generations, who are going to be the future consumers and producers of video games. I have yet to meet one person in my class with ANY interest in ANY area of history yet! 70% of them are Final Fantasy fanboys, 30% are Metal Gear Solid Fanboys, and almost everybody is obssesed with Manga and anime. It is quite a sorry sight, and I can assure you that very few games with a good historical grounding will be coming out in the future (I'll try my best to make some though! ~:) )

Besides, few people know more about History than what they learn in High School. Thich is sadly very little. Nothing is done in basic education to remove that hollywoodesque feel to history. You will never learn in history class that the early Roman legions were divided by wealth in to Velites, Hastati, Princeps, Triarii and Equites. Most High School history teachers don't know that themsleves. Most people think that that Gladiator is 300% realistic. Anything more than what CA did might have been to complicated or in depth for most people to understand without a lot of reading. And for a successful game, reading is bad! Nolan Bushnell figured that out with the first arcade game, Copmuter Space. It was too in depth and complicated for almost everybody and the result was it failed catastrophically. PONG on the other hand, was such a big hit since it was simple as hell.

Honestly, if your average gaming Joe saw a Ptolemaic army with Pezhetaroi, Companions, Agemata, etc. he would most likely be "OMG this is GHEY. I'm playing Egyptians, not greek. And they said this game was accurate? GHEY more like it"

"Why the Middle Ages again?!"

Since the money lies in the Middle Ages, since that is the period of time which catches most people's imaginations. Few people can tell you what types of weapons and armour Alexander's companions or the Ptolemaic Agemata wore (Most people would just stare at you blankly if you asked them that. They'd think you were nuts). Everyone can tell you that a knight wore either chain or plate armour, a funky helmet, had a coat of arms, a big horse and charged around with a lance.

In the age of the X-Box 360, the PS3 and the Nintendo Revolution, CA has to come up with something that looks good primarily, and also in a timeframe which will attract the attention of the masses. And what better than a Medieval battle simulator, with all the blood and gore?

I know, personally I can't wait for this game! :laugh4:

- Seyd

Helgi

01-24-2006, 19:37

Love The screenshots for Medieval 2, but I'm going to take a wait and see, given what, Vanilla R:TW was like. Let's hope this was not rushed.

Greek_fire19

01-24-2006, 20:09

Krusader

01-24-2006, 20:27

RTW was unplayable? Really?

Here are a list of review scores at the time:

Gamespot: 9.1
Gamespy: 4.5/5
Eurogamer: 9/10
IGN.com: 9.4/10
AVault: 4.5/10
Gamerseurope:9.5/10
Gamingillustrated.com 96%
ferrago.com: 89%
PC Gamer: 92.0%
Computer Gaming World: 90.0%
The average customer review of RTW on Amazon is 4.5/5, despite, if I remember correctly, an attempt by a group of disgruntled fans to lower it by giving it 1 star because it wasnt realistic enough, or whatever.

Obviously, yes, you can say: 'yes but the poor reviewers were just dazzled by the pretty pictures, they gave it a score before they realised how awful it really is'

But obviously that's not true. Lots of pretty games get low scores because they play like crap.

People act like they were betrayed by CA. In fact we were spoiled by CA, they gave us a game that allows us to depict huge, beautiful battles across epic scenery and use (by and large) realistic tactics to win them. If CA had never done that what would we have? Same old RTS's?

People here moaning that MTW2 Will never be exactly what they really really really want is like the kid who wants a chocolate chip ice cream who cries when he only gets a honeycomb ice cream. It's petulant and silly.

Obviously CA owe us something, I paid £35 for Rome, after all. On the other hand, I would have gladly paid £35 for a game with half the scope of RTW. CA are visionaries, and it really annoys me when people bash them.

Hmm...if I hadn't known better I'd say you were paid by CA to behave like a fanboi :laugh4:

Personally, I never trust reviews. PCGamer gave Deux Ex 2 - Invisible War a good score, even though it had some flaws. And I remember two magazines (one being PC Player, now deceased mag) giving Tiberian Sun 10/10 :inquisitive:

I think Medieval 2 will either be a good game, based on history with believable units and a simplified economic system and so on, OR just simply RTW set in the medieval period with prettier graphics and just as restrictive modding capabilities. It's either going to amuse me or disappoint me. BI for example is a game Ive only played 4 hours total.

And I hope the modding capabilities in Medieval 2 will be far better. People seem to forget that RTW mods were only possible, because a certain Vercingetorix created some set of tools that made it possible to extract the .pak files. The "things you don't like you can just mod out" mentality is a bit "dangerous" as it seems people expect it to be so easy to make MODs.

I think many people also felt cheated with RTW, because of fantasy units & historical accuracy, restrictive modding ability (even though in interviews CA said "moddability" was RTWs middle name) & worse AI (both campaign & battle) compared to MTW. Others again are nigh impossible to please :dizzy2:

And before I round off...
I've also seen some people a bit angry at CA' for 'betraying' them. Meaning it was the fans who bought STW that made MTW possible and CA thus a bigger name in the gaming industry and just as the MTW game and success made them a bigger name again and getting them a bigger fanbase.
I think some are afraid CA will become more mainstream and make the games more like Warcraft3 and betray their original fanbase who bought STW & MTW because of the type of RTS games they were, something similar to other game companies and publishers. A good example is Deus Ex 2, which heavily upset the DX1 fans, by being completely different from the original. Very few DX1 fans (at least among my friends and on forums) seem to like DX2 half as much.

O'ETAIPOS

01-24-2006, 20:49

A train of artillery is an Early Modern Age military term referring to an organized assembly of gun pieces destined to put a fortified position under siege.

About multiple rings of walls, they were usually made on purpose -so that secondary line walls dominated the exterior ones and could help in their defense. When a city built a larger wall around was not usually to add another wall to defence, but to allow city growth, since the old ones were now not large enough to encircle the whole city, and exterior buildings and citizens were without protection. Inner older walls were usually demolished to allow new housing and streets, and because of the construction materials being reused -building walls was a very expensive matter. The existence of another smaller but mightier citadel or military keep inside the town was common, tho. That was usually where the city garrison was quartered.

I havent read the interviev and I was sure they wouldn't ever use "train of artilery" in it's proper sense.
I knew what train of artillery means... feeling so stupid
:embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:

still we dont know if they are mentioning artillery in general or gunpowder part.

I know at least some cities that had both medieval city walls and artilley fortifications in front of them.
In XVII century even those fortificatons could be built in kind of rings - both "holland's schools" and "old-prussian school" (may be wrong term, as I translated this from my primary language)

Wandarah

01-24-2006, 22:14

Historical accuracy is a selling point without a doubt.

RTW is the biggest selling TW game. Yet contains the most amount of 'historical fantasy'.

Personally I find the indignation of the '*snort* not accurate enough!' crowd to be hilarious. Some people seriously need to lighten up.

King of the dutch

01-24-2006, 22:19

Quote:
Besides, few people know more about History than what they learn in High School. Thich is sadly very little. Nothing is done in basic education to remove that hollywoodesque feel to history. You will never learn in history class that the early Roman legions were divided by wealth in to Velites, Hastati, Princeps, Triarii and Equites. Most High School history teachers don't know that themsleves. Most people think that that Gladiator is 300% realistic.

An interesting point. I am (studying to become) a high school history teacher myself. But tell me, what use is it to a high school kid of lets say 'practical level'
(no not dumb they just hate reading) to know that the romans actually divided their armies like that? ('knowledge' provided by CA btw). In fact, what's important about knowing that alexanders troops were armed in that way? To continue why should there be such an emphasis on the ancient period in general. All parts of history are equally important. Given' the time i (we) have in school to teach numerous subjects i fail to see the significance of the info you just provided. The 'hollywoodesque nature' of history is (by myself) employed to enhance the subject. Which basicly means i exaggerate a little. (no i don't purposly distort history, on the contrary). Don't forget that if you're not on eof 'us' history lovers the subject is quite boring and all about dead people. We live in the now come on. If you apply this to CA then i don't find it surprising they employ a less specialized version of history. I agree it shouldn't be wrong though but for a game a little artistic freedom is (imho) not so bad.

grtz kotd

btw:
manga is wicked (and some is even historically accurate)

Lord_Morningstar

01-24-2006, 23:40

I have concerns about MTW II, but they’re mostly that the game will simply come across as a pretty RTW mod. The only thing that’ll stop me from buying MTWII would be the game being too similar to RTW. The changes from MTW to RTW were very significant – the whole new campaign map system, unit movement, sea transport, cities and city levels, the massive step up in battlefield graphics, the Senate and Civil War system, ect. I don’t expect such a big step up from RTW, but I’d like a game with a different look and different feel, and some new features. My other concern is that it’ll be boring – I’d like to see more plot and story elements so that I’m not just taking cities for four hours. Both of those concerns are to do with gameplay first and foremost. It could be perfectly historical, but if its unoriginal or dull it won’t be a good game.

Also, some people are making it sound like there’s two alternatives – one is the accuracte depiction of 39 different types of Parthian cavalry and the other is Marvelous Magical Mighty Mystics of Mazda armed with +3 enchanted swords of slaying. CA will most likely give us something in the middle.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not defending the Egyptians or screaming women from vanilla. I’m certainly not defending the way that the Egyptians could overrun the Middle East every time, which was both unhistorical and dull (I lost count of the number of units of Nubian spearmen I destroyed in my Pontic campaign at about eighty). Also, while I felt that BI was superior to vanilla, the generically named units got on my nerves pretty quickly. My issue is with the people who claim that RTW was unplayable because of them, all gameplay considerations aside, and who are looking for any and every excuse to say the same thing about MTWII. My other issue is with the people who expect CA to make historical accuracy their number one criteria for every decision that they make, with fun gameplay an optional extra.

Seydlitz

01-25-2006, 01:02

An interesting point. I am (studying to become) a high school history teacher myself. But tell me, what use is it to a high school kid of lets say 'practical level'
(no not dumb they just hate reading) to know that the romans actually divided their armies like that? ('knowledge' provided by CA btw). In fact, what's important about knowing that alexanders troops were armed in that way? To continue why should there be such an emphasis on the ancient period in general. All parts of history are equally important. Given' the time i (we) have in school to teach numerous subjects i fail to see the significance of the info you just provided. The 'hollywoodesque nature' of history is (by myself) employed to enhance the subject. Which basicly means i exaggerate a little. (no i don't purposly distort history, on the contrary). Don't forget that if you're not on eof 'us' history lovers the subject is quite boring and all about dead people. We live in the now come on. If you apply this to CA then i don't find it surprising they employ a less specialized version of history. I agree it shouldn't be wrong though but for a game a little artistic freedom is (imho) not so bad.

grtz kotd

btw:
manga is wicked (and some is even historically accurate)

Well, what you just said is what I was trying to say! Most people don't like history, especially kids. I just came out of High School (In The Netherlands actually ~:)) and half of my friends stopped taking history as soon as they could. One of my friends thinks it's ridiculous that I actually read history books because ,like you said, "It's all about dead people anyways. So who cares?". And yeah, he's not a dumb kid at all. He, like most other people, just really dosn't care about history.

So that means not only that most people wouldn't even notice CA's mistakes, but also what CA was showing is just what everyone else thinks the period looks like. It's what's 'true' for about 90% of it's customers, as far as they know anyways. And had they attempted to bring it to 'our' standards of historical knowledge, they would have lost many customers since the customers just wouldn't understand what CA was giving them. Mainly because they don't really care.

And I meant no insult to History teachers either. They are usually the more open-minded teachers, and my High School history teacher is still my favorite teacher ever.

Cheers,
- Seyd

(And I'm sure there is cool manga. It's just that it gets boring when that's all people read, draw or talk about. They have no interest in anything that dosn't come from Japan, which I find a bit ridiculous.)

Steppe Merc

01-25-2006, 03:21

Also, some people are making it sound like there’s two alternatives – one is the accuracte depiction of 39 different types of Parthian cavalry and the other is Marvelous Magical Mighty Mystics of Mazda armed with +3 enchanted swords of slaying. CA will most likely give us something in the middle.
Well there weren't really 39 types. I'd settle for a few logical variations of the two main types they had (in a published game, at least), without potraying them as Arabs.

Shigawire

01-25-2006, 05:57

(And I'm sure there is cool manga. It's just that it gets boring when that's all people read, draw or talk about. They have no interest in anything that dosn't come from Japan, which I find a bit ridiculous.)

A bit OT here.. but...
My take on "manga" is that it's an unoriginal "format" artform. Manga represents a specific style of proportions and animation. There are many variations in the manga "genre", but it is typified by its large eyes and small mouths, as well as exaggerated items such as weapons. Also typified by incredibly gaudy choreography of character-animations, combined with undetailed and bland parallax background animations.

What I find ridiculous, as a 3d artist, is all the people who say "I want to draw a manga character" or tutorials teaching you "How to model a manga character". WHY? It's a pigeon-holing process. You pigeon-hole your artistic idea through an A4 standard format like "anime".

I usually compare this to pressing a piece of meat through a grinder, forcing the meat into many tiny uniform strips, forever ruining the original consistency of the meat. (thus forever corrupting the original artform you had in your head)
It's almost like saying "How do I draw a Picasso character?"

It's in human (and primate) nature to imitate what others do. And there are a lot of imitators out there, and few innovators. But I prefer artforms from the innovators, and there is actually enough of that around that I don't need the massproduced manga to entertain myself.

Three63

01-25-2006, 06:42

MTW 2 will be fine. There are a few clues already that historical accuracy will be better or just as good as MTW 1 (Which was fine in general). If you read the IGN interview they seem to be more knowledge of medieval weapons, the photos and soldiers look more gritty non-vanilla, and there are 100+ more units from MTW 1, possibly meaning they have done a lot more research.
:book:

I have trust that there wise enough to learn from there mistakes, and seeing that this is a sequel that has been under development/in-direct development for a very long time, they will focus more on details. IMO RTW seems to have been rushed (Creating 3d battles, maps, and full cities takes a lot of effort to develop and create in two years), the details (Like historical accuracy) had to take a backseat.

You people should smile :balloon2: and not be doubtful, MTW 2 will be a great game.

the_handsome_viking

01-25-2006, 07:58

A bit OT here.. but...
My take on "manga" is that it's an unoriginal "format" artform. Manga represents a specific style of proportions and animation. There are many variations in the manga "genre", but it is typified by its large eyes and small mouths, as well as exaggerated items such as weapons. Also typified by incredibly gaudy choreography of character-animations, combined with undetailed and bland parallax background animations.

What I find ridiculous, as a 3d artist, is all the people who say "I want to draw a manga character" or tutorials teaching you "How to model a manga character". WHY? It's a pigeon-holing process. You pigeon-hole your artistic idea through an A4 standard format like "anime".

I usually compare this to pressing a piece of meat through a grinder, forcing the meat into many tiny uniform strips, forever ruining the original consistency of the meat. (thus forever corrupting the original artform you had in your head)
It's almost like saying "How do I draw a Picasso character?"

It's in human (and primate) nature to imitate what others do. And there are a lot of imitators out there, and few innovators. But I prefer artforms from the innovators, and there is actually enough of that around that I don't need the massproduced manga to entertain myself.

Essentially manga is just a cartoon language that has grown to huge levels of popularity, I'd imagine because it deals with more mature subjects (as in its not uncommon to see breasts, violence and gore).

By cartoon language I mean a drawing system that shows a clear distinctive style, for example Genndy Tartakovsky has a pretty distinct style in his Star Wars: Clone Wars cartoons, or Samurai Jack cartoons or the comic artist Cam Kennedy, who has his own distinct style, as seen is dark empire or judge dredd.

Whats funny is the way that Western comics and cartoons seem to be more diverse in terms of their cartoon languages, whereas almost all Japanese comic books and cartoons I've seen appear to be drawn in the exact same cartoon langauge.

Oh well, It will die a death sooner or later.

http://www.seizurerobots.com/

Fred

01-25-2006, 15:15

Well, it was looking good until I saw this.

Troops block and parry attack moves and string together deadly combo attacks and finishing moves before scanning the battlefield for their next kill.

:bigcry: :wall: God almighty.

They are probably just implimenting a system like Relic did in Dawn of War, where by in hand to hand combat soldiers and war machines pulled off special moves every now and then and had finishing moves. Made the games hand to hand combat some of the best i have ever seen in a stratergy game, you dont know fun untill you see a marine stab something, and the victin actualy gets caught on the knife and the marine has to kick him off with his boot...or the famouse Giant Robot Impaling Oponent On Big Spike And Swinging Him Round Like A Chewtoy move.

Dux Corvanus

01-25-2006, 19:21

Oh, that's good, then, if purpose is to improve and add variety to animations. Even so, I hope they make it subtle and natural, and don't put too much weight in spectacular, effectist moves. I can't imagine 2000 guys sewing heads, jumping like Brad Pitt in Troya, using their pikes as Jackie Chan or Neo in Matrix... ehem...!!! :laugh4:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-25-2006, 21:36

Variation in animation is fine but it will increase the greatest problem with Total War, what I like to call:

"Go on my son!" Syndrome. Thats when you sit peering intently at your screen watching one hard-arsed bastard with a war axe outnumbered ten to one and when he finally dies you look up to realise the rest of your army are dog food.

There was nothing wrong with RTW, the historical accuracy wasn't all that bad in a general sense, as said above, Gladiator has defined the Romans for this generation. So we have to live with it.

MTW2 will rock, even if you have to fight Dragons.

Shigawire

01-25-2006, 23:52

I believe what CA said about the animations in M2TW, is what we in the CG-language call "NLA" or "Non-Linear Animation".

If they indeed have a system closer to NLA, that will mean much smoother transitions between animations. No longer will the interpolation between animation-clips look abrupt, but rather, they will look entirely seamless. NLA will allow fancier moves to be carried out by the soldiers, without sacrificing the overall feel of smoothness in the "choreography" (if you can call it that).
And I hope that is what it means.

But it could also mean that they simply have more fancier animations, and no improvements to the animation engine.

I'm optimistic, so my bet is on the former.

King of the dutch

01-26-2006, 00:17

@shigawire plz read this:

Origins

Literally translated, manga means "random (or whimsical) pictures". The word first came into common usage after the publication of the 19th century Hokusai Manga, containing assorted drawings from the sketchbook of the famous ukiyo-e artist Hokusai. However, gi-ga (lit. "funny pictures") drawn in the 12th century by various artists contain many manga-like qualities such as emphasis on story and simple, artistic lines.

Manga developed from a mixture of ukiyo-e and Western art movements. When the United States began trading with Japan, Japan tried to modernise itself and catch up with the rest of the world. Thus, they imported Western artists to teach their students things such as line, form and colour (things which were never concentrated on in ukiyo-e as the idea behind the picture was normally considered more important). Manga at this period was known as Ponchi-e (Punch-picture) and, like it's British counterpart Punch magazine, mainly depicted humour and political satire in short 1 or 4 picture format.

Quote: My take on "manga" is that it's an unoriginal "format" artform.

I find this and oversimplified remark saying more about commercialism in manga than of its artistic value. You can read its a symbiose between a 12th century artform (see above and below) and western techniques. If that's not inovating enough than i don't know what is. Off course some visionairies have come up with a totally differnt style (supposedly) but EVERYTHING has its origins/inspirations from somewhere. I agree manga isn't really original anymore, like it was (tome) say ten years ago. None the less this can be said of a lot of graphical art (or literary for that matter). In the end art is what the creator puts in it nothing more.

Ukiyo, meaning "floating world", refers to the impetuous young culture that bloomed in the urban centers of Edo (modern-day Tokyo), Osaka, and Kyoto that were a world unto themselves. It is an ironic allusion to the homophone term "Sorrowful World" (憂き世), the earthly plane of death and rebirth from which Buddhists sought release. The art form rose to great popularity in the metropolitan culture of Edo (Tokyo) during the second half of the 17th century, originating with the single-color works of Hishikawa Moronobu in the 1670s. At first, only India ink was used, then some prints were manually colored with a brush, but in the 18th century Suzuki Harunobu developed the technique of polychrome printing to produce nishiki-e.

grtz kod

King of the dutch

01-26-2006, 00:27

Hey seydlitz

[And had they attempted to bring it to 'our' standards of historical knowledge, they would have lost many customers since the customers just wouldn't understand what CA was giving them. Mainly because they don't really care.

You're right and that's marketing . Something Ca has to take into account

And I meant no insult to History teachers either. They are usually the more open-minded teachers, and my High School history teacher is still my favorite teacher ever.

None taken:2thumbsup: In fact a lot of information in R:TW was new to me. I haven't been really been busy with history for the last three years or so. Although i always liked it and thought i knew a lot. Plus my knowledge has to be very broad 'coz i teach all subjects. My braincells aren't always cooperating

Cheers,
- Seyd

(And I'm sure there is cool manga. It's just that it gets boring when that's all people read, draw or talk about. They have no interest in anything that dosn't come from Japan, which I find a bit ridiculous.)

That's true. I just can't get enough of it. And Japan seems really weird to me. A fact that is protrayed (in the somewhat cooler manga) quite obviously. It says a lot about their society and how they live in it and deal with certain taboo's and stuff. ALways interesting for the 'historian' as wel'

grtz kod

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-26-2006, 00:50

While Manga is, I'm sure, a valid art form the reason I think it rubs so many Westerners up the wrong way is that it is iconic and repetative. Its formulaic, all the girls look the same, all the guys look pretty similar. In western comic art we try for atmosphere with stuff like dark back dropsand big set pieces and we like our characters to be realistic and gritty. Not idialistic and clean.

When you translate Manga into Animae it quite often has shoddy backgrounds and shoddier animation, not to mention the trahsy quality a lot of the girls can have.

On this last point you get the same thing with a Tomb Raider comic, about halfway through there are usually six plates of her and Witchblade in bed together with just a sheet for covering. Even that is a bit more subtle than some Manga though.

Thats not saying that some Manga and Animae isn't high art, what was that thing with the bikers in the 80s?

Personnally though I hate most of it.

King of the dutch

01-26-2006, 01:38

SOrry but the trashy part probably even comes from the western influence.

I think it rubs so many Westerners up the wrong way is that it is iconic and repetative. Its formulaic, all the girls look the same, all the guys look pretty similar.

Dark horse comics: all the same: All the spawn spinoffs. All the wizard with the girl and the stronguy comics. Marvel and all its spinoffs. RPG D&D and the like comics/cartoons. Sorry but the generilization is to easy. The act its there is signal which i don't deny. But to pretend western comics/cartoons films or anything are not polluted by commecialism is a bit ridicoulus.

Good night kod

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-26-2006, 03:05

Essentially manga is just a cartoon language that has grown to huge levels of popularity, I'd imagine because it deals with more mature subjects (as in its not uncommon to see breasts, violence and gore).

By cartoon language I mean a drawing system that shows a clear distinctive style, for example Genndy Tartakovsky has a pretty distinct style in his Star Wars: Clone Wars cartoons, or Samurai Jack cartoons or the comic artist Cam Kennedy, who has his own distinct style, as seen is dark empire or judge dredd.

Whats funny is the way that Western comics and cartoons seem to be more diverse in terms of their cartoon languages, whereas almost all Japanese comic books and cartoons I've seen appear to be drawn in the exact same cartoon langauge.

Oh well, It will die a death sooner or later.

http://www.seizurerobots.com/I disagree with the preconcieved notion that "manga" is all the same. IIRC, "manga" means comic in japanese. And judging from the miriad of varied titles produced every month in Japan it is very restrictive to think that way. What I know for sure is that the "manga" titles sold abroad are mostly from the same type and drawn similary, therefore our preconcieved notion of what "manga" looks or reads like.

And this is why? Because in the western countries (specially in the states), comics, as well as animations, are and have always been targeted to kids or juveniles. This puzzles me when watching the work of European authors like Möebius, Jean Giraud, Schuiten and Peters, Enki Bilal, Tardi, etc... that have nothing to envy to good literature books. It is preciselly this kid-type targeting that makes the japanese "manga" exported abroad to be chosen specifically for that target audience. And therefore the current notions of what "manga" is portraied in this thread.

For something different regarding japanese comics book that is significant in showing the wide ranges and different art styles in "manga", as well as to adding a touch of historical setting that many people here should enjoy, read Lone Wolf and Cub (known in Japan as Kozure Ōkami 子連れ狼) the masterpiece created by the writer Kazuo Koike and the artist Goseki Kojima.

EDIT: I hadn't read your post, King of the dutch. I should have said "something like comic" instead. But the idea remains...

the_handsome_viking

01-26-2006, 13:01

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-26-2006, 14:11

Yeah, imagine using them for castle assaults.

"Look out for the Enflish flyers!"

the_handsome_viking

01-26-2006, 14:44

I disagree with the preconcieved notion that "manga" is all the same. IIRC, "manga" means comic in japanese.

And?

And judging from the miriad of varied titles produced every month in Japan it is very restrictive to think that way.

Not really, When someone says "mangas" they are typically referring to this type of drawing.

http://www.goshouworld.com/GaoGaiGar/images/merch/manga_fusion_03_pic_02.jpg

Typically the style features tiny noses and mouths a tendancy towards abstracted caucasoid features, very large eyes and long limbs.

If you type the words "manga" and "anime" into an image search, you will get a series of pictures automatically that will show a clear and distinct style(cartoon language).

Don't just take my word for it, try it out for yourself.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=manga&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-img-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=anime&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=manga&btnG=Search
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=anime&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-img-t&fl=0&x=wrt

Weither or not it is correct or efficient to call this connect this style to the Japanese word for comic/cartoons, is another subject all together, but to be fair, when someone says "mangas" or "anmies" you typically think of the style seen in the links above.

What I know for sure is that the "manga" titles sold abroad are mostly from the same type and drawn similary, therefore our preconcieved notion of what "manga" looks or reads like.

Theres nothing wrong with that, human beings by nature will form rules based on the perceived patterns and trends they see within their enviroment, this results in a bunch of Westerners thinking that manga and anime refer to the distinct style seen in the links I posted above.

And this is why? Because in the western countries (specially in the states), comics, as well as animations, are and have always been targeted to kids or juveniles.

I'm not sure if I agree with that within relation to manga and anime.
There seems to be a stronger presence of adult themed Japanese comic books and animations and I really do believe that this is one of the major selling points of manga/anime in the West.

In a comic book store I will find more mature themed manga/anime's than children themed manga/anime's.

The dictionary sheds an interesting bit of light on this subject that kind of backs up my point.

1 entry found for animes.
an·i·me Audio pronunciation of "animes" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-m)
n.

A style of animation developed in Japan, characterized by stylized colorful art, futuristic settings, violence, and sex.

Not so kiddy eh?

This puzzles me when watching the work of European authors like Möebius, Jean Giraud, Schuiten and Peters, Enki Bilal, Tardi, etc... that have nothing to envy to good literature books. It is preciselly this kid-type targeting that makes the japanese "manga" exported abroad to be chosen specifically for that target audience. And therefore the current notions of what "manga" is portraied in this thread.

Other than the bit about the manga and animes being typically targeted at children, I couldn't agree more.

Cartoons and comic books have a lot more potential as a story telling platform than most people give them credit for, and personally I would like more mature Western comic books and animations.

My major gripe with these mangas and animes is that the style is unoriginal and gets boring after a while.

Whereas Frank Frazetta really can't be confused with Edgar Pierre Jacobs.

Seydlitz

01-26-2006, 16:48

handsome_viking is spot on everything he said.

I was mainly saying manga's are "unoriginal' from an art perspective. I'm on an arts oriented course, and no matter how good it looks, manga is very simplistic.

The first thing we were told on the first day is "We do not accept the manga/anime style." Manga is good to help you in the beginning, but it is pretty disproportionate and very lacking in detail. And it all looks the same, since it is "mass produced" art. It was meant to be simple, so lots of people could make something that looks good with little artistic background, and at great speed. Manga is not a good representation of artistic skill, but the ability to copy a style.

And who said all Darkhorse Comics are bad? Their Star Wars comics are actually quite good! At least some of them :2thumbsup: . If you are a Star Wars fan, the Star Wars: Empire series and the Star Wars: Republic are must reads. Especially the Star Wars: Empire V.2, Darklighter, and Star Wars: Empire V.3, The Imperial Perspective. The stories about Biggs Darklighter and Janek Sunberr's adventures are really well told. They are easily the equal of most science fiction books.

Shigawire

01-26-2006, 18:24

Exactly Seydlitz.

Masy

01-26-2006, 20:43

10000 troops eep

Shigawire

01-26-2006, 20:46

That's what they said with RTW as well, but as we all know it was an exaggerated number. Even if graphic cards have improved since then, and the basic engine hasn't changed, my bet is that M2TW will still require more processing power, since the models are higher detailed now (with fingers, multiple modules, textures etc)

Masy

01-26-2006, 20:49

ye gods, fingers really?!?!? discovering americas looks ambitious too

RandyKapp

01-26-2006, 22:49

Ive had 10,000 man games in rome....

Seydlitz

01-27-2006, 00:30

Some guy over at TWC.net posted this! It's from the new PC Gameplay issue. All I can say is this makes me even more anxious for M2:tw :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: c

[EDIT:]Oh yeah, and new screens at the .com!! And there is a Landsknecht! Can anyone say Wohooo :laugh4:

The article :

Quote:
We have built Rome, overwhelmed the Gauls (even if some crazies raved about having “magic potions) and then razed everything that was standing to the ground as a barbarian. It is time to start a new historical chapter, the sequel to Classic Age : The Medieval times. Rub yourself in with some anti-plague lotion, because we are going to build keeps, convert disbelievers (read: cut of their heads) and wage war. Total War!

The Middle Ages? Total War? Haven’t we played this before? Indeed, about 3 years ago, the Creative Assembly catapulted Medieval : Total War onto the market, but they have learned a lot since the release of Rome: Total War. They now want to use this experience to create a sequel that will pale its predecessor. Before we delve deeper into MTW2, we first have to mention that the team of developers isn’t the same as the one for Rome. Medieval 2 is being developed by the Australian branch of Creative Assembly and not by the English team.

Medieval 2 will contain have one campaign that stretches from 1080 till 1530. It starts with the time of the knights and the crusades, going to the Mongol invasion and the gunpowder age and ends with the Renaissance and the discovery of America. In order to introduce the new player to the game mechanics, there will be a prologue campaign. There will be 21 playable and non-playable factions. You will recognise old friends, but you will also see new factions like Venice, Portugal and Scotland. Since every faction has his unique properties, different factions will offer different challenges in the campaign.
For example, Scotland has a strong neighbour, the English. They will need to bide their time quietly before they expand their lands. Their troops consist of spearmen from the Lowlands and fickle savages from the Highlands. Once the Scots have bred sufficient warriors, they can trample over the English (not a nice view, with the skirts and all). The British Island will then be the perfect harbour from which to conquer the mainland. The English on the other hand have a weak economy at first, but they have excellent prospects. Their army is reliable and this is necessary, for they have to be on their guard for an alliance between the French and the Scots. The French have an excellent economy thanks to their rich farmlands, but they have to compensate for their weak foot soldiers by recruiting knights. Venice has an excellent starting position for they only have a “symbolic” starting army. Their economy is strong though and they can bribe, assassinate and attract mercenaries in order to expand.

Because of the introduction of the new factions, there are more units to choose from (over 250!). Especially cool are the Gothic Knights whose horses, as well as themselves, are completely covered in steel armour. Since most projectiles don’t hurt them, these fighters are very difficult to take down. The Turkish have a mortar that is modelled after that one that was used during the siege of Constantinople. The barrel is more than a meter long en the projectile that fits in it (stone, bullet, clowns) can weigh a couple of hundred kilos. In the ranks of the English, one can find the famous Longbow men, blokes who have bows with a length of over 2 meters. In order to protect them against cavalry, you can put spikes in the ground, which impale the knights who have bad horse-brakes. The Spaniards and Italians love gunpowder and the bullets that their musketeers fire, can pierce even the strongest armour with ease. It goes without saying that these new units will bring new tactics to the field.

In order to represent the chaos of battle, Medieval 2 uses the praised Rome engine, though there have been lots of changes underneath the hood. A predictable change is the higher number of polygons and the more detailed textures, which even allow you to read the names of the programmers on the tombstones. A new feature is that armies no longer consist of clones. There is a more varied collection of heads, bodies and limbs available to the soldiers. There are also more types of shields, weapons, armour and even horses. The engine can thus render armies that are more “individual”.
A second change is that settlements are represented differently. The developers want to do the huge cities and keeps justice and they strive for as much realism as possible. In Medieval 2, the castles and cities aren’t placed at “pre-fab” positions, but are nicely integrated into the landscape, even if that landscape is dominated by steep hills or cliffs. This not only creates more realism, but also brings more strategy with it. If you want to take the settlements, you now have to pass defensive barriers created by both man and nature. Most of the time, you will need the artillery to smash through the outer wall, while you use the siege towers to scale the inner wall. If your men managed to prise open the citygate, then you can let your units storm the keep with storm ladders. Of course, a couple of well-aimed cannonballs should do the trick as well. The localized damage (what you hit is what you destroy) also adds to the realism.

If you zoom in during the fighting, you will notice that the animations have progressed greatly. The makers have recorded thousands of motion-capture sessions in order to create synchronised fights. Soldiers will block attacks, parry and combine movements in order to cleave their way through their opponents in a graceful way. Units with a hole in their stomach will go down with a “bang” and others will go looking for new meat to chop up. The fights no longer consist of set animations that are repeated until the opponent hits the dirt. The soldiers in the rearguard, who have no sparring partner, are forced to either to sling insults at the enemy, or quiver next to the mounts of friendly dead. This creates a realistic battleground, which increases the immersion dramatically.

It is also nice to know that Medieval 2 will also feature the night battles from Barbarian Invasion. Imagine smoking cannons and wrecked castles on fire and you have a spectacle which you could only imagine in your dreams (or recreate by using Lego, we still have the melted goo on the attic). The night battles also provide new tactical options. The capability to fight at night is a trait of the general, just like in BI. A commander who doesn’t have this trait, will have it hard at night to earn a victory. Artillery also performs worse when the sun has gone down over the hills.

As every TW game, Medieval 2 also has a turn-based side to the game. It has the same 3D map as in Rome, on which you can block mountain passes and blockade areas of strategic importance with your forces. A difference with Rome is that you can choose whether you can develop your settlement in a castle OR a city. A castle improves your military and a city boosts your economy. A stronger economy allows you to bribe your enemies. If money doesn’t work, you will need to attract mercenaries in order to defend your lands. A castle requires much less management than a city, but cities grow more important as the game progresses.

On the campaign map you can see “agents” running around, including assassins, priests and princesses. Most of them are under your control and you can use them in non-military interactions with other factions. A princess can be used to negotiate or to marry (once), so that you can cement an alliance with another faction. Merchants can be used to open new trade routes or you can order them to “attack” an enemy faction, thus disrupting its economy. A priest spreads the faith, but can become a heretic. In that case, the AI takes over control of your servant and uses him to undermine religion in your territory. You better not let him continue unabated, because there is, like in Rome, an external force : the Pope. He will not come enter your doorstep personally to smash a bible on your head, but he can excommunicate you and you will gain a lot of enemies. If the Pope likes you, he will warn your enemies to cease hostilities with your faction.

Also, the campaign map is much larger than in Rome since you can also discover America. In the beginning, this isn’t possible, but once you have the technology to cross the ocean, nothing will stop you. In America, you will find unique and lucrative resources like tobacco, chocolate and, of course, gold. It goes without saying that they will do wonders for your treasury and if you convert some heathens, you will become a good friend of the Pontiff. Of course, conquering America isn’t going to be a breeze: the Aztecs aren’t too happy about your presence and it will take more than a sneeze to conquer them beneath your boot. Their lack of military technology will be compensated by their numbers and fanatic zeal. A harbour in the New Land however can bring you closer to your end goal: Total Domination!

The Interview:

Quote:
Because one can never know enough regarding a new Total War title, our armoured knight mounted his horse and galloped to Australia. Once he arrived, he put a knife (more like a almost completely rusted and eaten-away sword) to the throats of project leader Bob Smith and associate producer Prasant Moorthy.

PCGP: Can you tell us a bit more about the team?
Prasant Moorthy: Medieval 2 is being developed by a section of CA in Brisbane, Australia. At the moment, the studio has 37 members and the most of them have worked on previous titles of the Total War franchise (including Spartan Total Warrior). Medieval 2 will be our first solo project.

PCGP: What is the role of religion? Will it affect the gameplay like it did in Civilization 4?
Bob Smith: Religion was very important in the medieval period. If we ignored it, we would break the realism of the game. Religion will be more important in Medieval 2 than in any other TW title. An important aspect is that player needs to be on the good side of the Pope. The Pope will formulate, just as the senate in RTW, requests. These are, for example, to organise a crusade against the Muslims, Orthodox factions or pagans. The faction who manages to succeeds in his mission first, will gain lots of prestige and wealth. If you grant this request, and others, the Pope will think of you as his friend. Another way of keeping him friendly is to build cathedrals and convert your population to the Catholic belief. The Pope will then warn your enemies to cease hostilities against you and he will accept suggestions of your faction to declare a suggestion against a faction of your choice.
If you disregard the requests of the Pope, he will become irritated and sent inquisitors to your lands to kill the infidels. He can also excommunicate you, which makes you lose lots of prestige with the religious populace. If the Pope dies, for any reason whatsoever, a college of cardinals will elect a new Pope. If one of your priests is a cardinal, he can participate in the discussion regarding who is to become the new Pope. And if he is very successful, he might become Pope himself, thus ending any difficult relationships you might have with the Pope.

PCGP: Will settlements work in the same way as in Rome?
PM: There are six levels of development, from humble villages tot vast cities and from wooden forts to stone castles. Settlements can now be either a city or a castle, and each has their own unique tech-tree. Castles are ruled from a feudal system, have an excellent difference, and allow you early in the game to recruit strong units. However, because of limitations in space and management, they will never contribute the same amount to your economy as your cities do. Cities are excellent for trade and technology and as the game progresses, they will grant you the best units. On the lowest level of development, you can change your cities in a castle and vice versa. However, buildings that aren’t compatible with the new type of settlement will be lost.

PCGP: Can you give some examples of buildings that can be build in your cities?
PM: There are a lot of new buildings who will grant access to new units and possibilities by upgrades. Churches and Mosques will spread the faith in your settlements and will give access to priests. Cannon foundries will give you gunpowder-based artillery and a smith will improve your units with better armour and weapons.

PCGP: Which other “RPG-parameters” can we expect from the Generals?
PM: There is a whole new set of medieval traits and also a couple of new primary attributes. A big addition is the concept of Chivalry and Dread. The actions of the general will make hem progress in one of the two attributes, which will give a more distinct personality to your general. Chivalrous types will have the loyalty of their troops, while Dread lords will strike fear into the enemy.

PCGP: CA was bought some time ago by Sega. Does this mean you will spend more time on console titles in the future?
BS: We haven’t changed our focus after the Sega deal. Although we have launched the Spartan Total Warrior franchise, this has not interrupted our work on the Total War franchise and it has most certainly not had any influence whatsoever on our ambition for the franchise. Work on Spartan was well underway before we signed the deal with Sega. This deal allows us to fulfil our ambitions on both the console as the pc market.

PCGP: When can we start conquering?
BS: For now we cannot give a fixed date. Let us say that with some luck it might be possible to play this game this year. Maybe!

Wandarah

01-27-2006, 01:08

King of the dutch

01-27-2006, 06:56

18k? With what army? max. 20 units onscreen. Unit has max. 240 men

20 X 240= 4800. Two armies of hoplites only. (very unlikely) makes for a maximum of 9600 soldiers. You claim double? impossible

Warlord 11

01-27-2006, 09:07

18k? With what army? max. 20 units onscreen. Unit has max. 240 men

20 X 240= 4800. Two armies of hoplites only. (very unlikely) makes for a maximum of 9600 soldiers. You claim double? impossible
You can have more than two armies. Though it is very rare outside of custom battles.

Shigawire

01-27-2006, 12:49

I've had 18k men onscreen at once. What GFX card are you using exactly? Something from 1992?

XFX 7800 GTX UDD7 ~;)

But I'm not talking about my own computer. I'm talking about how the number is unrealistic for everyone else who aren't as lucky. When I had my previous card, 9800XT, even 7000-9000 soldiers went unsmoothly..

the_handsome_viking

01-27-2006, 13:03

Oh man this is going to be awesome, conquering the world with Scotland!

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/french.php

Seydlitz

01-27-2006, 14:19

On a custom battle I've gotten 32,000 men. Was really choppy, but it was playable enough for me to perform a flanking manouver :2thumbsup:

And I only have a XFX GF6600 GT.

See for yourself:

https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5089/hugebarbbattle5iq.th.jpg (https://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hugebarbbattle5iq.jpg)https://img286.imageshack.us/img286/5770/armiesdeployed4mz.th.jpg (https://img286.imageshack.us/my.php?image=armiesdeployed4mz.jpg)

Masy

01-27-2006, 20:00

Krusader

01-27-2006, 20:06

I know it's early days, but i'm just wondering, will the EB team be doing anything with all this new medieval 2 stuff, or are you just soley focusing on EB on RTW in the future? Cos im sure you guys could do wonders with "finishing move" soldiers etc. Possibly tatooed barbarian fingers?

It all depends on...

A) How moddable Medieval 2 is!
B) Do we have people willing to make another EB with another engine!
C) Will we make a historically correct mod for the medieval period or make EB for Medieval 2 engine!

The EB team will however finish EB for RTW before starting on another project.

Masy

01-27-2006, 20:13

C) Will we make a historically correct mod for the medieval period or make EB for Medieval 2 engine!

I reckon, if it's a tossup between those two, a historical accuracy mod would be best. I'm almost cetain the medieval 2 chappies will create completely inaccurate scotsmen, and such an issue would certainly need to be rectified (hopefully by you guys). Also i am really enjoying beta, so i totally agree with your priority to finish off EB first.

Shigawire

01-27-2006, 20:50

I'm almost cetain the medieval 2 chappies will create completely inaccurate scotsmen, and such an issue would certainly need to be rectified (hopefully by you guys).

I second that bet. I bet they will depict a Braveheart-like modern kilt. Not that it bothers me an inordinary amount, it's just a grain of sand in one's shoe.

My hope is that we will port EB to the M2TW engine, to take advantage of the obvious advantages. Such as.. possibly more factions.. more complex cities and walls, more textures/models per soldier.. grit/blood textures.. etc.

O'ETAIPOS

01-27-2006, 21:44

And the Dragons! Dont forget about the dragons! Medieval age is not real without them! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Stormy

01-27-2006, 21:48

If anything, I would like for EB to port over to MTW2.

Masy

01-28-2006, 20:38

Barbarians with different helmets, hair colours, beards and getting dirty etc would certainly look more authentic

the_handsome_viking

01-28-2006, 22:18

The Scottish should all be naked.

Masy

01-29-2006, 14:40

Ye, just like those little nude chappies, Gesticae or whatever they called. They are totally awesome with their little digital wangs. Who doesn't love history?

Proper Gander

01-29-2006, 17:55

if they still have battle speeches, which i hope they don't, i demand the french to speak with an OUTRAGEOUS accent:

http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/62369/grail38.wav
http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/62369/grail42.wav
http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/62369/grail43.wav
http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/62369/grail39.wav

Proper Gander

01-29-2006, 20:41

sorry to double post, but did anybody hear about the elephants "mounted with cannons"?!

:dizzy2:

Ludens

01-29-2006, 21:58

sorry to double post, but did anybody hear about the elephants "mounted with cannons"?!
Might just be a mistake. Another magazine wrote about "cannons pulled by elephants". Remember, just before the release of R:TW a reviewer told that you would be able to load burning pigs on your catapults. :stupido:

Ano2

01-29-2006, 23:35

Remember, just before the release of R:TW a reviewer told that you would be able to load burning pigs on your catapults. :stupido:

Lol i remember another good fib, the one about the challengin A.I. :oops:

moeman

01-30-2006, 08:09

who or what are the Tumurids? do they mean Timurids but just spelt it wrong?
BTW whats with all this CA bashing, i dont know of any games which display history acurately so why should CA bother, ITS A GAME everybody not a damn history session get over it. And all these jokes about its historical inaccurasy arent funny SO STOP TRYING!!

Masy

01-30-2006, 19:43

Well your on the wrong forum to be complaining about history fans..

Sarcasm

01-30-2006, 20:49

Ludens

01-30-2006, 21:10

Well your on the wrong forum to be complaining about history fans..
I think he is just trying to say that CA is not going to give historical accuracy, or at least not to the level we want. So instead of complaining (to which they won't listen, as the game is never going to be accurate enough for us), we instead should try to influence them on other matters, like a robust engine, a challenging opponent and moddability.

Just my 2p.

VAE VICTUS

01-30-2006, 23:33

well i dont know about you, but i spooged my pants...:oops:

it looks awesome!words...arent...enough...................................................................... .................................................................................................... .............................:jawdrop: :elephant: :elephant: :cheerleader: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: ~:pimp:

Gealai

01-30-2006, 23:52

All I want is:
a) a better AI
b) a greater moddability
c) a fine engine

It won't be historic accurate, however I hope they move more toward it

Gealai

Krusader

01-31-2006, 02:45

I haven't expected complete historical accuracy from any Total War game. I've just expected that it's historically believeable. RTW did a good enough job with some factions, like Romans, Seleucids & Pontos to mention a few, and totally trashed it with Egypt and the barbarians.

If I find Hashishin battle units in Medieval 2 instead of Hashishin agent, I wont complain, just murmur to myself a bit. :inquisitive:

If I find cannons mounted on wagons that can be quickly brought around the battlefield and shoot on the move, Im flaming some forums. :furious3:
And if they look like this...
http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/ita/ita0372.jpg

I'm going to ~:mecry:

Mujalumbo

01-31-2006, 02:55

Unless I can play as the Aztecs, conquer Europe and sacrifice it's populace to my bloody, pagan gods, I'm going to boycott this game! :skull:

Malrubius

01-31-2006, 13:53

Unless I can play as the Aztecs, conquer Europe and sacrifice it's populace to my bloody, pagan gods, I'm going to boycott this game! :skull:

Heh, I read a "What If?" essay the other day, examining what might have happened if one of Cortez's men hadn't sacrificed himself to save him, and Cortez had been taken captive on the causeway. The Aztecs might have been able to consolidate their political position, learn to use horses and firearms (there were Spanish who fought for them as it was, and any captured who wanted to survive would have had to help them), the governor Cortez had defied would have pressed on with his desire for trade instead of conquest of Mexico. End result: The United States has a western border much further east than it is currently.

I don't see them conquering Europe, though.