New screens including good one of Campaign map

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Link (http://www.pcgames.de/?menu=browser&mode=article&article_id=482421&entity_id=-1&image_id=523982&page=1)

Good ones of the Teutonic Knights and the timurids (might be Golden Horde) too.

[econ21]

Good find, BKB, :2thumbsup:. I've added it to Ludens's screenshot sticky - hope you both don't mind.

The division of provinces on the campaign map reminds me a lot of MTW. As do the units we've seen so far. Indeed from what has been revealed so far, I'm expecting M2TW to be a mix of MTWs "content" and RTWs "engine". I guess the two main areas where - based on what we know - I'm expecting significant improvements are sieges and diplomacy.

[DukeofSerbia]

The firts map (Byzantium) is 100% the same as in R TW. Is this good news? We shall see but first impression - NO. It seems that on Western Balkan Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are one province:inquisitive: , as was in R TW, and Dalmatia is the second one (not shore for that). And Hungary own those province!:dizzy2:

Those knights in charge have defenitely Teutonic coat of arms in shields and faction has the same coat of arms which used Germans in M TW. So, Germans.

On the last two screenshots I think those are Mongols (Golden Horde according to coat of arms).

[magnum]

Yes, appears to be Germans (I like the subdued colors that they appear to be using for the HRE), English, and the Golden Horde. Can't figure out who the other faction is.

Regions are RTW, but then I bet the interface is from alpha. A lot of the interface looks like it hasn't been changed from RTW, including they still have the UI Roman Brutti shield to represent one of the factions. I wouldn't read to much into what hasn't changed and instead look at what has. Hopefully the rest will be changed before release. :sweatdrop:

--Edit--
Yep, my bad. As TB666 pointed out, I'm mixing two screenshots. Saw another site that had the first screenshot posted but it seemed a little higher quality. I was able to better see the mini map there also. Territories have definately changed from RTW.

[cegorach]

THe MAP....

It is incredible, but it is even WORSE than in MTW1 - eastern europe is completely f****, again 1-province Poland and Hungary, some sort of weird Yugoslavia instead of Croatia and Serbia and my favourite VOLHYNIA which is a complete nonsence merging Podlasie, Polesia and Ruthenia in one loooong province - its like merging Glasgow with London and anything between.

Congratulations CA you made it again ! How many years have passed from the release of MTW1 ?:furious3:

[TB666]

including they still have the UI Roman Brutti shield to represent one of the factions. I wouldn't read to much into what hasn't changed and instead look at what has. Hopefully the rest will be changed before release. :sweatdrop:
eehhmm I take it you mean this
http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/original/rome_med.jpg
They are comparing the UI from Rome to MTW2 where the UI above is from Rome and below from MTW2.:laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

There are no years.

[Brighdaasa]

I have to say, the camp map looks much better than rtw's. I think it looks "crisper" or something, definitely more varied.

And to the guys complaining about the minimap and the number/size of provinces. I'm really sorry your nation or great-grand parents' dutchessy isn't portrayed as a separate province. Obviously CA haven't changed their vision since MTW about grouping some eastern europe's regions to provide a more steppe-like character with a lesser concentration of bigger cities, historically accurate or not. And quite frankly, i don't care. It's CA's decision, get over it, as long as it plays ok, i don't care, it's hardly a game-breaker gameplay wise.

On the other hand: in the 3rd pic there's still guys piercing the soldier in front of them, clipping issues remain in their promotial screenies. Again: you won't notice that when zoomed out as you should be when playing anyway, i just think it's a shame since they're putting so much emphasis on graphics.

After these screens i'm still a bit worried by the lack of elevations in the open battlefields, still too few places to exploit height differences in the centers of the battlefields imho (although there's definitely improvement over RTW) . It looks though that they're really bringing impassable terrain back with a vengeance: more prominent and they seems to be cutting up the battle maps a little bit more than STW's cliffs, which is a good thing imho as long as they provide an ai able to cope with the possible pathfinding issues.

[455trt43trg]

Those pictures are very nice. I like that new map. :)

[B-Wing]

I think the campaign map looks even better now. Seems more grassy. Looks like they split Scotland into two provinces. I wish Eastern Europe had more provinces, too.

[Barbarossa1221]

ah bummer its still the same mode of RTW, which means slow movement of chars over looooong tracts of land.
But the borders do look a more well defined and set.

Units look awesome as usual.

[Divinus Arma]

There are no years.

And a sig no less. Post of the day for me. Hilarious my friend.

[Zatoichi]

Anyone notice those green arrows? Land bridges are back by the looks of things. That should make crusading through Byzantium a bit easier, what with no fleet required. It also opens up a whole bunch of other tactics and strategies for defending/invading Constantinople. I wonder if the English Channel also has a land bridge? Maybe one accross the Straits of Gibraltar as well?

It looks like naval invasions are occurring as well - Scotland seems to have invaded Holland. Unless Holland rebelled and became Scottish...

As for the lack of years - maybe that '10' is the amount of Florins, and the turns/years are not visible on the main screen, but through an information scroll or something. Just a thought.

[caravel]

Looking at the M2TW minimap compared to the RTW one it appear that while the M2TW map extends slightly north to encompass scotland and norway, the RTW map does cover slightly more eastern territory.

So far though, the game is looking good, but for me it appears to be, on the whole, a somewhat revamped RTW with an MTW theme though without the "feel" and atmosphere. I wonder if the differences between this game and RTW will be as significant as the those between STW and MTW.

[Husar]

I just found them here (http://www.gamershell.com/pc/medieval_2_total_war/screenshots.html) in a higher resolution and the first thing I noticed was that some unit textures look like they are of a lower resolution than in Rome, I hope that´s not the highest you can get in the final version. I know, just eye-candy, but I like detailed textures. The campaign map on the other hand looks very nice and detailed to me, I like it. And the UI gives me some warm Medieval feelings and that´s very good already.~;)

[DukeofSerbia]

THe MAP....

It is incredible, but it is even WORSE than in MTW1 - eastern europe is completely f****, again 1-province Poland and Hungary, some sort of weird Yugoslavia instead of Croatia and Serbia and my favourite VOLHYNIA which is a complete nonsence merging Podlasie, Polesia and Ruthenia in one loooong province - its like merging Glasgow with London and anything between.



I bolded what is important for Balkan peninsula. Yes, Yugoslavia in medieval.:no:

Not to mention that Byzantium coat of arms look like modern Serbian or...

[BalkanTourist]

I am not going to argue with people which province is in and which is out, but one thing that I cannot accept is when CA makes history. Did you see that Bucharest was on the map? That city didn't even exist before the 15th century. If Bucharest is on the map, where is Bulgaria? Where is Turnovo, which was far more important (called 3rd Rome by many scholars). Disgusting!:wall:

[Herkus]

Omg the map is so wrong. Is it so hard to go to www.euratlas.com and take a look how Europe looked back then. That's just lazyness and potboiler.

[4th Dimension]

I bolded what is important for Balkan peninsula. Yes, Yugoslavia in medieval.:no:

Not to mention that Byzantium coat of arms look like modern Serbian or...
Well we did refine our sign (Serb) from byzantium one. Tough how mush was that wersion used I don't know. I only know that one of the emperors used it and it soppoused to mean something like 'Under this sign he will win' meaning he will win under the cross. If I'm wrong please correct me.

But provinces!

It seems to me CA is only looking at modern day maps which don't have much in comon with medieval ones.

I can understand a bit why they don't make many provinces in steppes. But on balkans? It's a load of mountains ivided by rivers and canyons. It's not that easy to roll over it.

[Kralizec]

Provinces and settlements should be easily to mod, so I'm not overly worried about that.

BalkanTourist: that was the first thing when I saw that screenshot too. Just ridiculous. CA must have really dropped the ball on this one, or this is just a map early in development.

[professorspatula]

Judging by the high concentration of cities in Western Europe, it's clear CA want the main Christian factions to have enough settlements to duke it out with one another before going on to crusade and take on the Muslims and other factions. I assume also the eastern provences are considerably richer than the western ones. CA are always going to put gameplay before historical accuracy on the map. If they have an idea of how the campaign is going to play, something has to be sacrificed. Plus they know people will just complain no matter what and mod the game anyway. They lay the foundations, the modders can provide the icing and the rest of the trimmings.

[DukeofSerbia]

I am not going to argue with people which province is in and which is out, but one thing that I cannot accept is when CA makes history. Did you see that Bucharest was on the map? That city didn't even exist before the 15th century. If Bucharest is on the map, where is Bulgaria? Where is Turnovo, which was far more important (called 3rd Rome by many scholars). Disgusting!:wall:

I just wanted to say the same about Bucharest. Wasn't the Wallachian capital Targovište?

Turnovo (Bulgarian capital) was never the 3rd Rome. It is Moscow!

[BalkanTourist]

Moscow is refered as the Fourth Rome. The Second Bulgarian Empire had an extensive culture which in those days was almost entirely related to religion and Christianity. After the fall of Turnovo, all prominent scholars, members of the clergy, artists immigrated to the emerging new super power - Moscow. The Russian states from the creation of Kievan Rus on, were primarily and mostly influenced by Bulgaria. True, Byzantium was the center of Orthodox culture, but because Bulgaria was the first and most developed Slavic Orthodox state it was a lot closer and easier for the Russians to borow form Bulgaria's culture. The Russian's requested a lot of books and priest from Bulgaria.
After Bulgaria and Byzantium were no more, Moscow took over. So Moscow is the 4th Rome.
And one more thing - during the reign of King Ivan Asen II, he was crowned emperor of Bulgarians and Rumelians (Byzantines) and Turnovo was on par with Constantinople especially after the sacking of it in 1204.

[Comrade Alexeo]

Oh my GOD!

This is so f***ing STUPID!

EVERYONE knows Nicaea should REALLY be .15 centimeters to the right!

OMFG! LOOK AT HOW TALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ON THE CAMPAIGN MAP! PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY THAT TALL! WHAT THE HELL?

You've got to be kidding me - where's Ugamoganyolaganagadanica? My home village isn't in MTW2? Those IDIOTS - don't they know that Ugamoganyolaganagadanica was site of the great Battle of the Chicken Farmers in 1249? DUH! And no Dirkadirkastan? Where the cheese puff was invented? Morons!

LOOK! LOOK! COLORED LINES AND GREEN ARROWS TO REPRESENT BORDERS AND LAND BRIDGES? DEAR GOD! Doesn't CA know ANYTHING - borders aren't REALLY colored lines! And besides, they're all inaccurate - they forgot that the Hagaflugenkampfen-Nagancahfaic border goes to the WEST of Billy's Pond, not to the NORTHWEST!

How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?

WTF CA?!!11! BURN IN TEH HELL!11!1111!!!!11!1ONEONEONE

[Ianofsmeg16]

It seems to me the sky looks very different (better) than Rome: Total War, more detailed, thats a nice feature. Plus, there seems to be no rebels.

[King of Atlantis]

Oh my GOD!

This is so f***ing STUPID!

EVERYONE knows Nicaea should REALLY be .15 centimeters to the right!

OMFG! LOOK AT HOW TALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ON THE CAMPAIGN MAP! PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY THAT TALL! WHAT THE HELL?

You've got to be kidding me - where's Ugamoganyolaganagadanica? My home village isn't in MTW2? Those IDIOTS - don't they know that Ugamoganyolaganagadanica was site of the great Battle of the Chicken Farmers in 1249? DUH! And no Dirkadirkastan? Where the cheese puff was invented? Morons!

LOOK! LOOK! COLORED LINES AND GREEN ARROWS TO REPRESENT BORDERS AND LAND BRIDGES? DEAR GOD! Doesn't CA know ANYTHING - borders aren't REALLY colored lines! And besides, they're all inaccurate - they forgot that the Hagaflugenkampfen-Nagancahfaic border goes to the WEST of Billy's Pond, not to the NORTHWEST!

How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?

WTF CA?!!11! BURN IN TEH HELL!11!1111!!!!11!1ONEONEONE


Feel better now?


Anyways, I personally love the map. It has only a few provinces in eastern europe, but that never stopped those nations from doing well in MTW. Hungry or Poland take eachother out then form a relativly powerful superpower. Im sure Byzantium has no worries about having enough funds so they should be a very powerful nation as well. They did Yugoslavia as a province because they gave Venice the coast. I figure Ca didn't know what to do with ther remaning land. Its obviously not the most accurate map, but from my perspective it looks fun. Plus last time we saw a camp map screen it had even fewer provinces, so I think CA is still in the process of fleshing the map. We must remember, Ca hasn't shown any screens themselves so I don't think the map is at a level they are comfortable with yet. There is still hope for eastern europe:2thumbsup:

[Silver Rusher]

Ok, ok, folks, please calm down! We know Turnovo is replaced by Bulgaria. We know Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia are all lumped together. But please stay seated! The Total War modding community will be taking a look at these errors and will likely have them fixed very shortly after release.

I don't actually care about the initial accuracy as long as it is possible to mod. Sure, CA don't make the game all that accurate in the first place, but you really do have to give them a pat on the back for all the non-modding fixable areas (except the AI, but I have high hopes for M2TW's AI considering the complaints they received with regards to RTW). Thanks to CA, we can take the almost-finished game they have made and turn it into something really special. Remember CA's glorious service here, folks.

EDIT: An example of this is the beautiful campaign map texture they have given us. For a modding team to create something like this would take quite a while.

[x-dANGEr]

Awesome.

Edit: After reading the thread:

I think they make it the best way, believe me not all players would like to play RTR as a base campaign. And they won't in M2: TW, so a simplified one for all, then if the community finds it urging for more complexity, they can make a mod to furfill that. Another GJ CA.

[cegorach]

Oh my GOD!

This is so f***ing STUPID!

EVERYONE knows Nicaea should REALLY be .15 centimeters to the right!

OMFG! LOOK AT HOW TALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ON THE CAMPAIGN MAP! PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY THAT TALL! WHAT THE HELL?

You've got to be kidding me - where's Ugamoganyolaganagadanica? My home village isn't in MTW2? Those IDIOTS - don't they know that Ugamoganyolaganagadanica was site of the great Battle of the Chicken Farmers in 1249? DUH! And no Dirkadirkastan? Where the cheese puff was invented? Morons!

LOOK! LOOK! COLORED LINES AND GREEN ARROWS TO REPRESENT BORDERS AND LAND BRIDGES? DEAR GOD! Doesn't CA know ANYTHING - borders aren't REALLY colored lines! And besides, they're all inaccurate - they forgot that the Hagaflugenkampfen-Nagancahfaic border goes to the WEST of Billy's Pond, not to the NORTHWEST!

How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?

WTF CA?!!11! BURN IN TEH HELL!11!1111!!!!11!1ONEONEONE


Impressive irony, you must be proud !


Still the historical accuracy is one thing which I am concerned with, the other is the BALANCE - 1 province Hungary is a joke with the state one of more powerful in Europe for much time, 1-province Poland and the bloody Volhynia makes little sence if we see 2 province Scotland and some mess in Asia Minor - especially if the campaign ends in 1530 or so.
And how the Teutonic Order could be a danger to anyone with 2 provinces at their disposal ( Prussia and Livonia) ?
Overall eastern europe is some strange puzzle thing I can't really say much good about.:inquisitive:

[B-Wing]

...historical accuracy is one thing which I am concerned with, the other is the BALANCE - 1 province Hungary is a joke with the state one of more powerful in Europe for much time, 1-province Poland and the bloody Volhynia makes little sence if we see 2 province Scotland...

I share these particular sentiments. I could care less how provinces and cities are named. What I'm concerned with is simply the number and size of them from a strategic view. I simply feel that the larger a faction is (that is, the more territory/land/area they possess), the more provinces they should own. If, for instance, the Hungarian faction's holdings cover twice as much land as the Scottish holdings, then the Hungarians should possess about twice as many provinces. I'm more interested in geographical divisions than political/feudal borders, and here's my rationalization:

Let's pretend in a purely hypothetical version of MTW, the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) and the Kingdom of Hungary (who start adjacent to the HRE) control equal amounts of land, but that Hungary's land is divided into 2 provinces while the HRE's equally sized territory is divided into 5. If they go to war against each other, which faction has the advantage, assuming neither side has inherently superior troops? It would seem pretty clear to me that the HRE would be at a strong advantage simply due to having more "provinces", even though the two factions are equal in actual land and population.

Two reasons for this. 1) The HRE will (theoreticly) have more economic power and more production capability, due to having more cities which have been upgraded and specialized. 2) They can afford to lose provinces, while Hungary cannot. Hungary would be drasticly more damaged by losing one province than the HRE would. If Hungary were truly a smaller faction, that's understandable. But if both factions have as much land and population as the other, this is ridiculous.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but that's my principle theory on campaign map design: "provinces" should be roughly equal in size, and should not be oddly shaped (like Dalmatia in RTW, for instance). The only exceptions I would make would be for very densely populated regions.

[r johnson]

I think the pics look good and I can't wait for the finished game.

[A.Saturnus]

I simply feel that the larger a faction is (that is, the more territory/land/area they possess), the more provinces they should own. If, for instance, the Hungarian faction's holdings cover twice as much land as the Scottish holdings, then the Hungarians should possess about twice as many provinces. I'm more interested in geographical divisions than political/feudal borders, and here's my rationalization:

I see no reason why that should be so. It makes perfect sense that provinces have different size. Are suggesting eastern steppe provinces should have the same size as Italian city states? Further, the number of provinces a faction has is rather unimportant, at least at the start. A single province can generate more wealth than several small ones.

[Ianofsmeg16]

The map has the same kinda look to it as the Rome one does, so therefore it might be as easy to add provinces in this map, therefore within about two weeks a modder woul;d have come along and released a "more provinces" mod or something

[Laman]

The map looked good, except the province distribution may require a lot more work to be acceptable. I mean looking at the minimap I saw that Denmark didn't have Skåne, Halland & Blekinge, and it wasn't because of rebels or something like that but because they were a part of the Swedish province. Skåne should either be it's own province owned by the Danes OR part of the main Danish province! Not having Denmark have Skåne is (in this timeperiod) like having an England that doesn't have Kent.

[King of Atlantis]

Let's pretend in a purely hypothetical version of MTW, the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) and the Kingdom of Hungary (who start adjacent to the HRE) control equal amounts of land, but that Hungary's land is divided into 2 provinces while the HRE's equally sized territory is divided into 5. If they go to war against each other, which faction has the advantage, assuming neither side has inherently superior troops? It would seem pretty clear to me that the HRE would be at a strong advantage simply due to having more "provinces", even though the two factions are equal in actual land and population.

You just made an assumption, that both the countries had the same population....

[B-Wing]

You just made an assumption, that both the countries had the same population....

Well, yeah, that was part of the hypothetical situation. Guess I didn't specificly state that part. Anyway, really the population isn't that important to me. The number of provinces is more significant, from my perspective. Reason being, when these hypothetical German and Hungarian factions go to war, the Germans only have to successfully capture 2 cities, while the Hungarians must capture 5, in order to eliminate their opponent. Plus, the Germans potentially have 2.5x the production capability of the Hungarians, based on the way recruitment has worked in previous TW games.

I guess what I'm trying to represent is the way I imagine castles were spread out throughout medieval Europe and the Middle East, in order to prevent factions like the hypothetical Hungarians from being conquered in 2 sieges because their seemingly large holdings are represented by exactly 2 fortified positions. I guess I can't speak with absolute certainty on the matter, as I've never been to Hungary, but I imagine that modern day Hungary contains more than one medieval castle. If a king wanted to defend their country, they wouldn't just be like, "Well, there's some pretty nice walls around the capital, so the whole country's protected." The larger your holdings, the more castles you would have spread out, so invading forces couldn't just steamroll over your borders and straight to your capital. At least that's how I imagine it was (and still is). If I'm way off, then somebody please tell me, and I'll withdraw my statements.

[DukeofSerbia]

Moscow is refered as the Fourth Rome. The Second Bulgarian Empire had an extensive culture which in those days was almost entirely related to religion and Christianity. After the fall of Turnovo, all prominent scholars, members of the clergy, artists immigrated to the emerging new super power - Moscow. The Russian states from the creation of Kievan Rus on, were primarily and mostly influenced by Bulgaria. True, Byzantium was the center of Orthodox culture, but because Bulgaria was the first and most developed Slavic Orthodox state it was a lot closer and easier for the Russians to borow form Bulgaria's culture. The Russian's requested a lot of books and priest from Bulgaria.
After Bulgaria and Byzantium were no more, Moscow took over. So Moscow is the 4th Rome.
And one more thing - during the reign of King Ivan Asen II, he was crowned emperor of Bulgarians and Rumelians (Byzantines) and Turnovo was on par with Constantinople especially after the sacking of it in 1204.

OK BalkanTourist. It’s obvious that you are Bulgarian or you have Bulgarian ancestry. So, I will write two simple words – Bulgarian propaganda!

I just don’t know from where to start because you wrote so many disinformation.

I think it’s better to open new thread (you or me) in Monastery to discuss.

P.S.
You know what happen on the 28th July of 1330?

[Antiochius]

I like this map more than the map of RTW. But i hope that some modders will change the Amount of the priovinces. This map have to have more provinces!

[Wandarah]

Oh my GOD!

hilarious rant


awesome man. i peed a little in my pants.

in other news, map looks great.

[King of Atlantis]

Well, yeah, that was part of the hypothetical situation. Guess I didn't specificly state that part. Anyway, really the population isn't that important to me. The number of provinces is more significant, from my perspective. Reason being, when these hypothetical German and Hungarian factions go to war, the Germans only have to successfully capture 2 cities, while the Hungarians must capture 5, in order to eliminate their opponent. Plus, the Germans potentially have 2.5x the production capability of the Hungarians, based on the way recruitment has worked in previous TW games.

I guess what I'm trying to represent is the way I imagine castles were spread out throughout medieval Europe and the Middle East, in order to prevent factions like the hypothetical Hungarians from being conquered in 2 sieges because their seemingly large holdings are represented by exactly 2 fortified positions. I guess I can't speak with absolute certainty on the matter, as I've never been to Hungary, but I imagine that modern day Hungary contains more than one medieval castle. If a king wanted to defend their country, they wouldn't just be like, "Well, there's some pretty nice walls around the capital, so the whole country's protected." The larger your holdings, the more castles you would have spread out, so invading forces couldn't just steamroll over your borders and straight to your capital. At least that's how I imagine it was (and still is). If I'm way off, then somebody please tell me, and I'll withdraw my statements.


To me population matters everything. If I say have country x and y. Both the same geographical size, but one has twice the population and resources. In my opinion that more populous nation should have the more provinces. Naturally Hungry didn't have two castles, but the game is meant to be a represenation to real life. If Country x has twice as many people its likely it has twice the number of castles. Where in real life this may be 100 to 50 in the game it is represented with 4 castles for one faction and 2 for the other. What im trying to get across is geographical size simply is not the real indicator here.

Im not saying Germany has twice the population as Hungry, to be honest I do not know, but my point is its very flawed to say they are the same size thus should have equal resources.

[King of Atlantis]

Double post

[A.Saturnus]

Well, yeah, that was part of the hypothetical situation. Guess I didn't specificly state that part. Anyway, really the population isn't that important to me. The number of provinces is more significant, from my perspective. Reason being, when these hypothetical German and Hungarian factions go to war, the Germans only have to successfully capture 2 cities, while the Hungarians must capture 5, in order to eliminate their opponent. Plus, the Germans potentially have 2.5x the production capability of the Hungarians, based on the way recruitment has worked in previous TW games.

Having to capture 5 cities in stead of two can as well be an advantage because the enemy has to defend all 5 while you can concentrate your defences on 2. The production capacity due to more cities did play a role in past TW but since the the recruitment system will be different in MIITW, I expect less problems there.

[The Wizard]

Looks like nothing, to be frank. This is nothing but the RTW map, a sure sign that this engine is nothing but a rehash of the RTW engine with a maxing out of its abilities. Furthermore, there is a very obvious concentration on the battles, where the strategic aspect of the game gets little to no attention. This is proof for the graphical side (no improvement from RTW compared to a huge improvement in the battles), but that will probably also prove true for the gameplay.

That is not necessarily bad. MTW (and STW too), my favorite TW game to date, certainly did not have a very complicated strategical side to it. And the RTW battles, the bread and butter of the series, certainly need a huge makeover if they are to return to MTW's levels. So this could prove to be positive.

I just wish they would pay some more attention to the strategical side, the world outside the battles. For once upgrading the AI to make it able to handle itself on the new 3D map would do much to fill the potential of this new system. If that potential would be filled we could truly have a revolution in TW games -- instead of just returning to a level that should have been in place in the first place.

[ChewieTobbacca]

Well FWIW the strategic map is almost exactly the same as the MTW one with a few added provinces namely in western North Africa and Western Europe (Scotland seems to be split into two).

I do like the fact that the high res pic of the strategic map shows a much more green and colorful / textured map.

[The Wizard]

How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?

Boy, do you have some lessons to learn. :sweatdrop:

[PekoBG]

OK BalkanTourist. It’s obvious that you are Bulgarian or you have Bulgarian ancestry. So, I will write two simple words – Bulgarian propaganda!

I just don’t know from where to start because you wrote so many disinformation.

I think it’s better to open new thread (you or me) in Monastery to discuss.

P.S.
You know what happen on the 28th July of 1330?

Let me give you some "Bulgarian propaganda" serb boy.I have taken this "propaganda" from wikipedia ,which as we all know is filled with "Bulgarian
propaganda".Other people call it historical fact, but i guess to you it's "propaganda".
Quote:
"By the late 9th and the beginning of the 10th century, Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessaly in the south, Bosnia in the west and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and eastern Hungary to the north. A Serbian state came into existence as a dependency of the Bulgarian Empire."
Thats a cool piece of "propaganda" dont u think?
ftp://store3.data.bg/Screenshots/Image_Bulgaria-(893-927)-TsarSimeon-byTodorBozhinov.png
Quote:
"Under Tsar Simeon I (Simeon the Great), who was educated in Constantinople, Bulgaria became again a serious threat to the Byzantine Empire. Simeon hoped to take Constantinople and make himself Emperor of both Bulgarians and Greeks, and fought a series of wars with the Byzantines through his long reign (893-927). The war boundary towards the end of his rule reached Peloponnese in the south. Simeon proclaimed himself "Tsar (Caesar) of the Bulgarians and the Greeks," a title which was recognised by the Pope, but not of course by the Byzantine Emperor."
Nice "propaganda" eh?
Quote:
"The Byzantines ruled Bulgaria from 1018 to 1185"
That's why Bulgaria will not be included in the game, because the game should start in 1080.
Quote:
"Resurrected Bulgaria occupied the territory between the Black Sea, the Danube and Stara Planina, including a part of eastern Macedonia and the valley of the Morava. It also exercised control over Wallachia and Moldova. Tsar Kaloyan (1197-1207) entered a union with the Papacy, thereby securing the recognition of his title of "Rex" although he desired to be recognized as "Emperor" or "Tsar". He waged wars on the Byzantine Empire and (after 1204) on the Knights of the Fourth Crusade, conquering large parts of Thrace, the Rhodopes, as well as the whole of Macedonia"

"In an inscription from Turnovo in 1230 he entitled himself "In Christ the Lord faithful Tsar and autocrat of the Bulgarians, son of the old Asen"."

And the last piece of "propaganda" in which we(Serbs and Bulgarians) both fall to the ottomans.
Quote:
"However, weakened 14th-century Bulgaria was no match for a new threat from the south, the Ottoman Turks, who crossed into Europe in 1354. In 1362 they captured Philippopolis (Plovdiv), and in 1382 they took Sofia. The Ottomans then turned their attentions to the Serbs, whom they routed at Kosovo Polje in 1389. In 1393 the Ottomans occupied Turnovo after a three-month siege. It is thought that the south gate was opened from inside and so the Ottomans managed to enter the fortress. In 1396 the Kingdom (Tsardom) of Vidin was also occupied, bringing the Second Bulgarian Empire and Bulgarian independence to an end."
So in conclusion: FACTS ARE FACTS whether u like them or not!!!

[Alien_Tortoise2345]

We should be able to build bridges over rivers in the campaign-map.

[Perplexed]

We should be able to build bridges over rivers in the campaign-map.

It would be cool to be able to build pontoon bridges over rivers in the same way as you might build watchtowers, but it might lead to rivers getting too cluttered. Maybe they'd only last a single turn or something.

[Husar]

And it would completely ruin the point of strategic bridges...

[4th Dimension]

I can allready see AI making thousands of bridges without any need. And not bilding them where they are needed.

[petska]

Hmmm... Is that a fraction of Finland I see near the top? I know Finland wasn't really a major player in the medieval world, but I'd sure like to mod the game so that Finns could TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahem...

[Orda Khan]

Looks like crap, to be frank.
My sentiments exactly. I see no marked improvement over RTW and that goes for unit graphics too.
The Golden Horde look like they need plenty of work.......Nothing changes

........Orda

[Ituralde]

At first I was also disappointed at seeing how similar the M2TW map looks to the RTW one, but then I remembered something quite important: Medieval 2 uses the same engine as Rome, so it's just an evolution, not an revolution as some here seem to be expecting. It was the same with Shogun and Medieval only that the similarities were not that obvious because one game displayed Japan, while the other displayed Europe.

So yes, it does look a lot like the Rome map and it still has those silly city icons that really don't give me the feeling of looking at a grand medieval town and/or castle, but the canges are there. The textures are much better for example and the landscape looks much better. Also the animations and look of the Strategic Agents has improved a lot. So I know that's not much, but there really wasn't more to expect.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[B-Wing]

I don't get people's disappointment with the campaign map's appearance, either. Like Ituralde said, the game's engine is a modified version of RTW's, and the geographic setting is the same. I suppose they could have radically altered the GUI, but what else was to be expected?

[ChewieTobbacca]

The province argument might be pointless anyways.. the recruiment system looks different. Each city has certain amount of recruitment slots for each turn. So in the Hungary/HRE situation.. maybe each province in HRE can only do 2 units a turn while Hungary gets 5 each.

[King of Atlantis]

Looks like crap, to be frank. This is nothing but the RTW map, a sure sign that this engine is nothing but a rehash of the RTW engine with a maxing out of its abilities.

This was never hidden, we were aware of this from the begging. The same was true of MTW and STW. However, that did not stop MTW from being exceptionally better.


Furthermore, there is a very obvious concentration on the battles, where the strategic aspect of the game gets little to no attention. This is proof for the graphical side (no improvement from RTW compared to a huge improvement in the battles)
There are huge improvments here. The skin looks 100 times better and the UI does as well. The city and army models also look much better. So better graphics here in general. Exactly what we have been givin for battles.


, but that will probably also prove true for the gameplay.
I see no reason to believe this just yet.


Hmmm... Is that a fraction of Finland I see near the top? I know Finland wasn't really a major player in the medieval world, but I'd sure like to mod the game so that Finns could TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahem...
You are seing Novgorod.

[petska]

You are seing Novgorod.

Well, clearly in the beginning the province would be under Novgorod rule or perhaps a rebel province, since Finland as a nation didn't really exist in medieval times. I was merely pondering whether that is a playable province at all or just some off-limits zone, like sahara was in MTW. But if it is playable then geocraphigally that is the patch of land where modern-day Finland is situated, and I'll mod the game so that Finns will be a faction.

Sadly, nobody can tell me the truth about this untill the game is out. Just thinking aloud...

EDIT: If the gray provinces are all rebels, then Finland starts out as rebel, as do Sweden and Norway.

[petska]

It looks like naval invasions are occurring as well - Scotland seems to have invaded Holland. Unless Holland rebelled and became Scottish...

Actually, if you zoom in and look closer you'll see that Holland and Scotland are in fact different colors on the map. Scotland black, Holland dark blue. So no Scottish-Dutch empire there.

[Ituralde]

If you look at the South-Western corner of the Dutch holdings, you see that they also appear to be black-coloured. Seems to be some graphical issue if there's not enough Blue land between the White border of the provinces, making everything in between look black. This is what happens in Northern Scotland as there is not enough landmass there, so the province seems to be black.

All in all, I'm convinced that it is in fact at Dutch-Scottish empire, if not for my argument above then because of the fact that there just isn't any other faction around that could be there.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[petska]

Right, I should have thought about that. It's likely a graphical issue like Ituralde said.


Anyone notice those green arrows? Land bridges are back by the looks of things. That should make crusading through Byzantium a bit easier, what with no fleet required. It also opens up a whole bunch of other tactics and strategies for defending/invading Constantinople. I wonder if the English Channel also has a land bridge? Maybe one accross the Straits of Gibraltar as well?

If you check out the new screenshot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/screenindex.html) at Gamespot, you'll see that there's no land bridge across the English Channel. At least no green arrow.

[ShadesWolf]

:sweatdrop: that map looks so tiny.

so few provinces

[liondrake]

I feel about the same. Campaign map sucks!!! I'm not a fan of too many provinces but I don't like when they are reduced to nothing neither. I think I'll be waiting for mods, before I'll start play the game more seriosly.

[Hepcat]

Looking at that picture has made me wonder if there will be a custom city layout for Constantinople or if it will just be a huge generic city.

Looks good though, and the provinces don't worry me, if you don't like it just mod it :laugh4:

[Basileus]

The amount of provinces seem to be the same as with MTW.

[DukeofSerbia]

Map is not good. Actually, the map is worse then was in MTW (I mean on provinces' names and their capitals). There are Yugoslavia in Balkan under Hungarian rule, Sofia as capital of Bulgaria and Bucharest as capital of Wallahia. :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: Can be worse?:wall:

[Leet Eriksson]

OH NO SCOTLAND, how will they be playable when they'll be up against 9 british provinces :sweatdrop:

The map may be a bit wonky, but i'm sure it was reduced for balance reasons. And to actually make the game a wee bit faster.