A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW [Archive]

The Spartan (Returns)

07-11-2006, 23:51

here (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=142571) something interesting:
Another new addition to the strategic map are princesses - pawns that can be used in a variety of underhand ways. Little more than whores in expensive garbs, these harlot diplomats can be prostituted to make alliances with rival factions (through arranged marriages), or sent to seduce enemy generals to your cause.

another:
Mercilessly slaughter the prisoners you capture during a battle (a feature reprised from the original Medieval) and your general's 'dread' rating will rocket, making enemies fearful on the battlefield and civilians more obedient within cities. And while showing mercy in war may make your generals a target for 'big girly girl' remarks from opposing armies, at least the people will love them should you order them to babysit a settlement. Unless of course they raid the fridge, invite over their girlfriend and leave sticky stains on the sofa, in which case, they could be faced with a revolution.
you probably already know this but:
Dead bodies now stack up in horrific mounds - rather than the flat 2D corpses of Rome - while the battle physics have clearly enjoyed a makeover, with clashes looking more brutal and jarring than ever before. Individual blades of grass sway in the breeze, shrubs look prunable, weather changes dynamically and night-time battles are looking more visually impressive than ever, while every armour and weapon upgrade you make in the strategic map is now visually represented on the real-time battlefield. i like the preview! (the battles melee sounds great) if i can run RTW on low, do you think i can run M2TW in very low? btw i found this preview at the .com

Perplexed

07-12-2006, 00:14

What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain.

Um, bad sign?

Lord Adherbal

07-12-2006, 00:27

yeah even tho many may think that is a funny remark, it probably points at weak AI more then anything. But hey, the graphics took his breath away so all is good, right ?

Perplexed

07-12-2006, 00:35

~:thumb:

L'Impresario

07-12-2006, 00:39

We've even ensured that each nation has the correct accent.

Heh, I'm sure this gives a whole new meaning to the word "correct".
Also did I get it right, infantry can impale themselves?

Perplexed

07-12-2006, 00:41

Also did I get it right, infantry can impale themselves?

AI infantry can, apparently.

:laugh4:

CBR

07-12-2006, 00:42

But the graphics are better than ever so no worries.

CBR

L'Impresario

07-12-2006, 00:46

Tsk tsk tsk, such bitterness, shame...

During the course of the next 20 minutes, I sit through three battles, each one more brutal and cinematic than the last.

Now, now, I hope the "sit through" has a similar meaning to "correct accents" :)

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 01:12

if i can run RTW on low, do you think i can run M2TW in very low? um.. question?:idea2:

Crazed Rabbit

07-12-2006, 01:47

"If you want to delve a little deeper into the economy, you'll be able to move merchants to pockets of resources dotted around the map," reveals Roxburgh. "If allied factions have merchants guarding a resource, you can attempt a hostile takeover and force them off. It's like an economic rivalry that's totally separate to being at war with a faction."

Sigh.

Also, 3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes?

Sigh.

Crazed Rabbit

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 02:14

if i can run RTW on low, do you think i can run M2TW in very low?can anyone answer my question?

Perplexed

07-12-2006, 02:38

can anyone answer my question?

Oops, I forgot to answer that in my first post... :sweatdrop:

Well, at one point I'm pretty sure CA said that "if you can run Rome, then you'll be able to run M2TW", but I don't think it's going to be that simple. If you are able to run it, then it will only be on the lowest graphics options...

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 02:46

Oops, I forgot to answer that in my first post... :sweatdrop:

Well, at one point I'm pretty sure CA said that "if you can run Rome, then you'll be able to run M2TW", but I don't think it's going to be that simple. If you are able to run it, then it will only be on the lowest graphics options...thanks! at least i can play it! but perhaps i will get a new graphics card by then...

Furious Mental

07-12-2006, 05:09

BeeSting

07-12-2006, 05:55

"What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain."

Are the authors trying to convince me to spend my money on something else? Really the only way dumb AI could be justified is if they are playing on easy and they are on Agincourt versing a French side which is scripted to be as stupid as its historical counterpart.

I hope weak game reviews from half wits do not have more impact on game design than the hardcore fans. Remember when the reviews were complaining about inability to tell the difference between your units from the AI's in STW? Ugly bright faction colors started to make their appearance henceforth.

BeeSting

07-12-2006, 05:57

Has anyone read Gamspy's review of Alexander expansion? All was good till he started complaining about how hard the game was. :laugh4: Things like that water downs the game.

IrishArmenian

07-12-2006, 07:21

What is naievety? I have never seen this word, ever. I think it looks great, but my bet is that all the battles we have see are arcade battles witht the game speed set high. I hope the AI isn't as stupid as the French at Agincourt.

Oaty

07-12-2006, 08:04

AI infantry can, apparently.

:laugh4:

That statement was pure evil, but funny and true.

In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."

So finally if I shell money to a faction/nation, then suddenly share a border I won't immediately be greeted by a full stack army

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.

Like that's new news

econ21

07-12-2006, 09:25

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.

Like that's new news

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? I know other games have that "clubbing together against the pack leader" but I have not noticed it in RTW. (Can't recall about MTW and STW).

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

Peasant Phill

07-12-2006, 10:46

In MTW factions will not ally with you so easily (or not at all) if you're to big. In that case it's also more possible that all your neighbors suddenly start to attack together (think HRE).

I find it strange that CA depicts almost every thing that was included in a TW game but not in RTW as a new feature. It's as if they distance themselves from STW and MTW or that they ignore the older fanbase. Either way I find it a really strange and even (in case of option 2) an insulting move.

TB666

07-12-2006, 11:24

if i can run RTW on low, do you think i can run M2TW in very low?
I would think so.

Also, 3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes?
It is probably like in the RTW previews.
CA showed them something and then moved on without finishing the battle.

it probably points at weak AI more then anything.

First off is the age-old grudge match between the English and the French, set in lush surroundings flanked on both sides by dense forests. With Roxburgh's English forces dug in along a ridge, the French infantry launch an audacious bid to turn themselves into gallic kebabs as they march straight onto a row of spikes placed down by his archers (an all-new feature), while they send their cavalry through the trees to launch a surprise attack. Misjudged in the extreme, Roxburgh quickly dispatches an attempted foot soldier diversion, leaving the French mounted knights isolated and vulnerable.
Doesn't sound stupid to me.
It didn't work true but atleast the AI didn't send it's entire army up through the spikes and instead it tried to flank the army.
While going through a forest with cavalry isn't very smart, it had no other place to go, it was either that or the spikes.
If it went through the spikes then it would have been a sign of a weak AI.

Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

07-12-2006, 13:28

the French infantry launch an audacious bid to turn themselves into gallic kebabs as they march straight onto a row of spikes placed down by his archers (an all-new feature)

Does anyone with any historical knowledge know how these things actually worked? From my uninformed perspective I imagined that if a force of infantry had no other option than to move through an area guarded by these spikes, then rather than just charge through as normal they'd instead move really slowly suffering only a few losses but arriving at the otherside piecemeal and voulnerable to attack. I suppose this would depend on the density of the spikes, but I just can't see a armoured person willingly charging a wooden spike with enough momentum to pierce his armour.

To be fair to CA this might be how it happens in game, and the kebab comment might of just been the journalist embelishing what he saw. Either way it's difficult to assess whether or not this was a viable strategy from the perspective of the AI unless we know exactly what kind of obstacle these spikes represent and what kind of losses can be expected when forced to move through them.

Vladimir

07-12-2006, 13:45

Mercilessly slaughter the prisoners you capture during a battle (a feature reprised from the original Medieval) and your general's 'dread' rating will rocket, making enemies fearful on the battlefield and civilians more obedient within cities. And while showing mercy in war may make your generals a target for 'big girly girl' remarks from opposing armies, at least the people will love them should you order them to babysit a settlement. Unless of course they raid the fridge, invite over their girlfriend and leave sticky stains on the sofa, in which case, they could be faced with a revolution.

:2thumbsup:

King Bob VI

07-12-2006, 14:03

Don't be worried comrades, for even though the enemy troops may be running circles around themselves and marching over cliffs, the gentle swaying of each individual blade of grass in the breeze shall keep us entertained for many months. :no:

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 14:29

Has anyone read Gamspy's review of Alexander expansion? All was good till he started complaining about how hard the game was. :laugh4: Things like that water downs the game.now that you mentioined it im the one who brought that thread to the org! what do you mean he said he enjoyed it! (or are you talking about BI?)

CBR

07-12-2006, 14:43

professorspatula

07-12-2006, 15:35

I'm not surprised if that preview brushed aside the criticisms of AI as if it wasn't important - this is the same magazine that didn't actually review Rome Total War, they just presented a glorified press release with a 90%+ score at the end and made no real mention of problems with the game. They even said RTW had 'AI so great Hannibal could be in charge'. Which Hannibal are they talking about exactly? Some drunken unwashed tramp co-incidently called Hannibal who hasn't seen a bath in his life time, let alone a battlefield? PC Zone seem much like all the other games publications these days: full of over the top enthusiasm for games and developers they're in bed with.

Regardless, MTW2 seems a lot more promising than RTW. Who knows, a few more TWs down the line and we might edge towards the perfect real time strategy game.

Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

07-12-2006, 15:39

Longbowmen's stakes are meant to stop cavalry. They cannot have been too dense as that would have prevented the archers from going forward as we know they did at Agincourt. If infantry gets impaled on stakes in M2TW then that is 100% BS

CBR

I see, thank you. There was something that didn't seem to sit right about the concept of being able to build such an effective barrier against enemy infantry. Can you imagine how horrible it's going to be to fight a bridge battle against the English, if this is the case?

Puzz3D

07-12-2006, 15:44

Who knows, a few more TWs down the line and we might edge towards the perfect real time strategy game.
Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

Lucjan

07-12-2006, 15:45

Does anyone with any historical knowledge know how these things actually worked? From my uninformed perspective I imagined that if a force of infantry had no other option than to move through an area guarded by these spikes, then rather than just charge through as normal they'd instead move really slowly suffering only a few losses but arriving at the otherside piecemeal and voulnerable to attack. I suppose this would depend on the density of the spikes, but I just can't see a armoured person willingly charging a wooden spike with enough momentum to pierce his armour.

To be fair to CA this might be how it happens in game, and the kebab comment might of just been the journalist embelishing what he saw. Either way it's difficult to assess whether or not this was a viable strategy from the perspective of the AI unless we know exactly what kind of obstacle these spikes represent and what kind of losses can be expected when forced to move through them.

When I read that I interpreted it in three different ways at the same time.
1 - I thought instantaneously to the wooden stake scene in Braveheart, where the infantry waited until the very last second to drop down and lift the stakes into the air, effectively implailing the entire english cavalry charge and destroying the greatest asset they had on the field that day. I could see the archers waiting until the last second to impale some charging infantry with hidden stakes like that, then charging or firing on the demoralized and scared crapless infantry that just suddenly got a mouthful of spears that hadn't previously existed only a second or so ago.
2 - I thought of the possibility of a really dense hedge of large spikes pre-placed into the ground. The infantry try to move too quickly through the hedge and their comrades in the rear accidentally push the front ranks into spikes as they try to shove their way through.
3 - The infantry try to quickly move through the spikes and the archers unload on them as they do, the kebab part coming from infantry being impaled while wading through the spikes by arrows or infantry who see this happening trying to route and falling over the obstacles, impaling themselves on them in the process.

I would love for nothing more than to hope that the infantry didn't just blatantly charge a wall of spikes it could clearly see.

screwtype

07-12-2006, 16:05

3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes? Sigh.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I read that.

Incongruous

07-12-2006, 16:07

fatality moves

Mortal Combat Deadly Strategy!
The great warriors Byzantium and France joined forces to purchase the ultimate warriors, Scorpio Swordsmen! Get over Here!

screwtype

07-12-2006, 16:11

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? I know other games have that "clubbing together against the pack leader" but I have not noticed it in RTW. (Can't recall about MTW and STW).

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

Actually, I think it is realistic - if you look at the history of Europe, so much of it had to do with maintaining the balance of power. In fact, that was virtually the official foreign policy of Britain for centuries.

I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.

screwtype

07-12-2006, 16:16

professorspatula

07-12-2006, 16:19

Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups when I need my general riding his 480BHP Mustang steed to blitz the enemy pikemen who's close range light sabers usually just kill him outright. Come on CA, sort yourself out. We're waiting for the TW revolution to begin!

screwtype

07-12-2006, 16:21

Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

And power-ups. Don't forget the power-ups! :laugh4:

screwtype

07-12-2006, 16:25

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups

Aw, ya beat me to it, professor! ~:)

Doug-Thompson

07-12-2006, 17:49

Re: The linked article.

Yep. I'm going to have to buy a new video card.

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 19:34

Get over Here!Then FINISH HIM!!! a scorpio soldier impales a soldier's head with a rope with a blade. (forgot the word)

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 19:35

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups when I need my general riding his 480BHP Mustang steed to blitz the enemy pikemen who's close range light sabers usually just kill him outright.:laugh4: :dizzy2:

manbaps

07-12-2006, 19:48

When I read that I interpreted it in three different ways at the same time.
1 - I thought instantaneously to the wooden stake scene in Braveheart, where the infantry waited until the very last second to drop down and lift the stakes into the air, effectively implailing the entire english cavalry charge and destroying the greatest asset they had on the field that day. I could see the archers waiting until the last second to impale some charging infantry with hidden stakes like that, then charging or firing on the demoralized and scared crapless infantry that just suddenly got a mouthful of spears that hadn't previously existed only a second or so ago.
2 - I thought of the possibility of a really dense hedge of large spikes pre-placed into the ground. The infantry try to move too quickly through the hedge and their comrades in the rear accidentally push the front ranks into spikes as they try to shove their way through.
3 - The infantry try to quickly move through the spikes and the archers unload on them as they do, the kebab part coming from infantry being impaled while wading through the spikes by arrows or infantry who see this happening trying to route and falling over the obstacles, impaling themselves on them in the process.

I would love for nothing more than to hope that the infantry didn't just blatantly charge a wall of spikes it could clearly see.

I can just see these spikes making suicidal generals even more suicidal. Ais thinking: "Theres some spikes... need to through... lets try using my most powerful unit! Its bound to work! The fact i could flank it is irrelevant front on charges all the way!"

The Spartan (Returns)

07-12-2006, 19:53

if CA can put spikes again. thay should also use flamable pitch. (to burn people)

r johnson

07-12-2006, 20:06

[/QUOTE]In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."[/QUOTE]

Well it seems more realistic as a whole:dizzy2:

IrishArmenian

07-12-2006, 20:32

Let's try not to consult the movie "BraveHeart" for military history and tactics. It is just not the wisest thing to do.

4th Dimension

07-12-2006, 23:23

In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."

Well something similar featured in RTW. When you broke an alliance by attacking your ally, after that you realy had a hard time allying with anyone.
So it's not realy entirely new function.

B-Wing

07-12-2006, 23:38

Mortal Combat Deadly Strategy! . . . Scorpio Swordsmen! Get over Here!

You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

And quad-damage powerups

:laugh4: :bounce: :laugh4:
You guys are great.

Tellos Athenaios

07-13-2006, 00:03

Myrddraal

07-13-2006, 00:46

this is the same magazine that didn't actually review Rome Total War, they just presented a glorified press release with a 90%+ score at the end and made no real mention of problems with the game. They even said RTW had 'AI so great Hannibal could be in charge'. Which Hannibal are they talking about exactly? Some drunken unwashed tramp co-incidently called Hannibal who hasn't seen a bath in his life time, let alone a battlefield? PC Zone seem much like all the other games publications these days: full of over the top enthusiasm for games and developers they're in bed with.

Agreed, this review doesn't have a clue... :no:

Ignoramus

07-13-2006, 03:29

How about carriage trebuchets? :2thumbsup:

screwtype

07-13-2006, 10:00

About the spike part: anyone remembering a, well sort of, spikes the CIA handed to their Cuban friends to litter the roads with and effectively end all forms of transport by road? I mean those are nearly the same as the spikes the Medieval Archers used (the CIA ones were to be assembled from 2 pieces) and they do hurt infantry. Not all infantry carries all steel suits!

But still: such a pity the infantry guys seemed to have charged recklessly towards archers... :wall:

I have no idea what the CIA did in Cuba, but it's hardly relevant to what English archers did 700 years ago.

The longbowmen would make one wooden spike each which they would plant in the ground in front of their position. More than enough to deter a cavalry attack, but hardly an effective defence against infantry. The most such a wall of spikes would be likely to do was impede the movement of infantry as it tried to make its way through them.

Lucjan

07-13-2006, 12:36

Let's try not to consult the movie "BraveHeart" for military history and tactics. It is just not the wisest thing to do.

Any allusion to justify CA's use of the spikes against infantry would please me so long as it meant the infantry didn't just blindly walk into spikes it could clearly see.

So let's not arrogantly insult people for no reason. It is just not the nicest thing to do... Especially when I've done nothing to wrong you.

Vlad Tzepes

07-13-2006, 13:19

"What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end."

I'm worried. I've seen it before - hopeless ennemies refusing any peace deal. It was dull.

"We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city."

I'm happy. Hope they won't invade with all-peasant cannon-fodder armies, though.

"What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain."

Now I'm really worried. This guy compares AI with graphics, first of all. Secondly - if even him, most probably not a TW fan, notices a "naive" AI, then what should I expect?

SpencerH

07-13-2006, 13:45

As an obstacle, a spike wall would slow an inf advance but it wouldnt stop it. Nor would one expect to have too many men stupid enough to impale themselves on the pointy ends instead of clearing the obstacle. I wonder if CA have included the capability of inf to clear battlefield obstacles in MTW2?

Lucjan

07-13-2006, 14:12

Just a thought, because we haven't actually seen a screen shot of these 'spikes.' They may be concealed behind shrubbery or potentially hidden like a tiger trap. Infantry who thought they were just running through a hedge of shrubs accidentally impaling themselves on spears they couldn't see or falling into covered spike pits isn't, too out there as far as feasibility goes.

Though I'll admit, it's stretching it a little.

magnum

07-13-2006, 15:37

Check Gamespot for an image of archers using the spike ability.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/screenindex.html?page=3

Image #58 (3rd image for Mar 17, 2006.) I agree that the spikes should only slow infantry down. It'd be hard to imagine an infantryman impaling themself on one of those spikes.

B-Wing

07-13-2006, 19:03

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.

Most of you have been skeptical about this note, for good reason. Its one thing for the AI factions to declare alliances and refuse alliances with you. Its another thing entirely for them to actually work together to bring you down. Its not a very impressive or effective AI that will, upon the player obtaining a certain number of provinces, no longer accept alliances with him and more easily accept alliances with your enemies. A much more exciting and dangerous AI is one that will actually cooperate with its allies, support them financially, grant rights of passage, defend one another from invasion, and launch joint invasions on their mutual enemies. I haven't personally experienced that in any TW games I've played.

We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city.

I'm really happy to hear that. I think the naval AI was overall the weakest aspect of RTW. Enemy navies were certainly aggressive and numerous, but hardly intelligent. I remember many occassions in which an enemy faction would "lodge" large numbers of troops, including generals, inside their boats, which would sit idly on their shores for multiple turns, often without any other fleets nearby to protect them. Sinking one of these ships, and thereby destroying all the units inside, was far too simple.

Lucjan

07-13-2006, 21:51

Has anybody played Knights of Honor?

The diplomacy system in that game is absolutely beautiful as far as what I would like and expect from a medieval game. If only CA would take a page from their book. :sweatdrop:

Ignoramus

07-13-2006, 23:46

Yes, I have played Knights of Honour. The diplomacy is amazing, but the campaign and battle AI have a lot to be desired.

econ21

07-14-2006, 00:54

Actually, I think it is realistic - if you look at the history of Europe, so much of it had to do with maintaining the balance of power. In fact, that was virtually the official foreign policy of Britain for centuries.

I think this is a gameplay vs realism thing. Ganging up on the leader may make for a more competitive game (because you are playing to the same objectives and now are one player against N others colluding). But it can't be a realistic as a rule because it assumes each AI faction has the goal is to stop other factions "winning the game" (or becoming too powerful). In reality, of course, countries have their own interests and these may or may not coincide with another power being dominant. For example, much of the world is currently content with a Pax Americana while others don't see it as in their interest.

I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.

Again, a realism vs playability thing. Personally, I'd find it more interesting to be able to cultivate a dependable ally, browbeat a weak faction or cut a nefarious deal (Molotov-Ribbentrop style) with the enemy of my enemy. Having the AI suddenly collectively turn pyscho on me if I get too big just breaks the immersion. But then I've always preferred turtling and going for limited GA goals to the exhausting (and ahistorical) goal of conquering the entire map (or 50 provinces etc).

I agree it is important to maintain the mid-game challenge. But perhaps this is better done by programming the game so that AI factions can rise in power and reach - just as the human does. The best TW game I ever played was when I stepped into a mid-game Almohad PBM, with half the map orange and the other half purple. The conflict with a powerful Byzantine was epic, especially when added to loyalty problems and re-emergent factions including the terminator style "I'll be back" Papacy

Aquitaine

07-14-2006, 06:14

Infantry, even tightly-packed, heavily-armored infantry, are unlikely to impale themselves on anything. The idea of using a wall of stakes against footmen is pretty ridiculous, such that it would even look ridiculous in a computer game (raaaaaahhhh *splat*).

The whole point is that a horse is running at full tilt and can't turn quickly (have you ever tried to turn a horse? sometimes they just won't turn quickly if it's Tuesday, even if they're not at full tilt), and even then a lot of horses were smart enough to go 'hey, i don't want to impale myself, i think i'll rear up and stop really fast and throw my rider!' So they were a dodgy proposition even when they were used against cavalry.

screwtype

07-14-2006, 07:50

Ganging up on the leader may make for a more competitive game (because you are playing to the same objectives and now are one player against N others colluding). But it can't be a realistic as a rule because it assumes each AI faction has the goal is to stop other factions "winning the game" (or becoming too powerful). In reality, of course, countries have their own interests and these may or may not coincide with another power being dominant. For example, much of the world is currently content with a Pax Americana while others don't see it as in their interest.

I disagree. I think ganging up is a realistic mechanic, as I already stated. And it's certainly as realistic as the alternative. There are many examples in history where a bunch of powers got together to stop one power from growing too powerful. Heck, just look at the history of classical Greece - it's an object lesson in the strategy. The reason a Greek city-state never came to dominate the world like Rome was because Greece was a constantly changing flux of different alliances ensuring that one city could never come to dominate. Look, for example, at what happened to Athens when it tried to create an Athenian Empire.

The history of Europe is much the same, and although I'm less familiar with other parts of the world I'm sure you'd find similar patterns over and over.

The fact that some powers come to dominate the world in any case is not proof that most countries like it this way - Empires usually come about for the simple reason that the other powers are not able to stop one great power from growing stronger.

Again, a realism vs playability thing. Personally, I'd find it more interesting to be able to cultivate a dependable ally, browbeat a weak faction or cut a nefarious deal (Molotov-Ribbentrop style) with the enemy of my enemy. Having the AI suddenly collectively turn pyscho on me if I get too big just breaks the immersion. But then I've always preferred turtling and going for limited GA goals to the exhausting (and ahistorical) goal of conquering the entire map (or 50 provinces etc).

I take your point regarding a GA game, but let's face it, it doesn't look like M2TW is going to have a GA campaign. And since it's going to be primarily about conquest, a "ganging up" mechanic is important to maintaining balance and challenge in my opinion.

I agree it is important to maintain the mid-game challenge. But perhaps this is better done by programming the game so that AI factions can rise in power and reach - just as the human does. The best TW game I ever played was when I stepped into a mid-game Almohad PBM, with half the map orange and the other half purple. The conflict with a powerful Byzantine was epic, especially when added to loyalty problems and re-emergent factions including the terminator style "I'll be back" Papacy

I'd be very much against the idea of the AI being scripted to allow one power to rise above the rest along with the human player. I'd much rather have random effects from game to game, it would be pretty boring to know that one power or another is always going to be rising in power in tandem with you. It would also make it easy to focus your attentions on that one power in order to beat it.

Arguably though there could be some concessions made to diplomacy. So for example, if you had cultivated good relations with a power, its trigger for declaring war on you might be higher than for factions with whom you had a neutral or bad relationship.

It's admittedly a complicated issue, but for me the fundamental issue is gameplay and I'm more than willing to sacrifice some diplomatic nuances in order to ensure the game remains a real challenge right to the end.

Oaty

07-14-2006, 07:51

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? .

Well I'd say it's not new but tweaked IMO The A.I. would eventually prefer to gang up on the human in all series and once you shared a border with them war was inevitable

econ21

07-14-2006, 08:43

I'd be very much against the idea of the AI being scripted to allow one power to rise above the rest along with the human player.

I wasn't saying scripted, I was saying make the ebb and flow of AI factions dynamic so that some factions could rise to prominence at a similar rate to the human. This is primarily a matter of tweaking the strategic AI so that it is aggressive enough. IIRC, Shogun had this - perhaps overly so (Hojo horde). In MTW, it was less marked but could still happen. Vanilla RTW out of the box was rather static, by contrast - the hallmark of a broken strategic AI (save and reload bug? poor naval AI?). But my impression is that the patches to RTW have made the AI situation more fluid ie the strategic map alters more over time regardless of what the human does. I still think more tweaks could be made here - even in war, large AI armies do sometimes seem to mill around with little purpose though and AI vs AI wars are often desultory affairs compared to human conquests. The Risk style map led to more cut throat strategic AI.

On the realism of ganging up, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Quite often in history it seems that when faced with a rising power, countries decided if you can't beat em, join em. Organising a collective response is often very difficult and is one reason why large single powers can dominate areas that collectively could rival or bring them down.

...once you shared a border with them war was inevitable

You're probably right but that was one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of TW, IMO. It made the game too much a matter of unremitting war and led to very strange suicidal AI behaviour. I just went back to Civ4 recently and while the AI would invariably attack you opportunistically if you were weak, the behaviour of the AI factions was so much richer and more interesting than that in TW.

screwtype

07-14-2006, 09:26

Quite often in history it seems that when faced with a rising power, countries decided if you can't beat em, join em.

Well, exactly. If you can't beat 'em. Thankyou for making my point ~;)

Apart from that, I think there's an argument for a GA campaign where ganging up would not apply. I also think it would perhaps be nice to have some extra options, like "always war" or "always peace". There's really no reason why a range of different gamers' preferences couldn't be catered for in a game like this.

But the bottom line for me will always be - give me a challenge, please!

R'as al Ghul

07-14-2006, 12:55

Apart from the flaws of the preview there're some nice features included.
I look forward to some.

Avid Total War fans will be happy to know that the assassination animations - brief cut-scenes, which chart the success or failure of a professional hit - are back after their disappearance in Medieval and Rome. "We have loads of these, so it's unlikely you'll ever see the same one twice," Roxburgh says. "There are different movies for all of the different targets you can kill, for successes, failures and even ones for when the target manages to escape," adds Mark Sutherns.

The following is really nice, a lot of my empires had a very important capital.
If the AI will try to destroy them, it could be a real challenge.

"We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city. That's why all of the city fortifications you've built up for your main cities will become far more important this time around,"

Dead bodies now stack up in horrific mounds

There'll be loads of new features in these battles that you'll have to take into account, like impassable terrain. The AI will look at that and think of how it can use it to its advantage,"

New feature? :inquisitive: Let's just hope the AI is up to it.
Would be nice to have the dead bodies as impassable terrain. :2thumbsup:

Lucjan

07-14-2006, 13:50

Well, exactly. If you can't beat 'em. Thankyou for making my point ~;)

Apart from that, I think there's an argument for a GA campaign where ganging up would not apply. I also think it would perhaps be nice to have some extra options, like "always war" or "always peace". There's really no reason why a range of different gamers' preferences couldn't be catered for in a game like this.

But the bottom line for me will always be - give me a challenge, please!

Sounds to me like you're asking for a list of custom campaign options, similar to civ IV.

screwtype

07-14-2006, 14:15

Now that you mention it, that's probably where I got the idea from ~:)

sunsmountain

07-14-2006, 14:31

What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety,
This has already been mentioned, but this probably means the French were under the control of the AI. :laugh4: Perhaps CA likes playing the AI this way, so they can win. The skilled TW players perhaps left the design team long ago, like in STW or MTW.:laugh4:

Perhaps... :bigcry:

(I don't care for 3D piles of bodies piling up, use those resources to give the AI a few more loops...)

B-Wing

07-14-2006, 16:58

I don't care for 3D piles of bodies piling up, use those resources to give the AI a few more loops...

I'll amen that.

Sounds to me like you're asking for a list of custom campaign options, similar to civ IV.

~:thumb: This would be great, too.

alman7272

07-15-2006, 23:38

Puzz3D

07-17-2006, 15:22

From the interview: "Battle number two is a desert skirmish. English crusaders battle the Egyptians, pounding the massed enemy ranks with mighty cannons."

This is tactical fantasy, and I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.

zakalwe

07-17-2006, 15:37

I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.

I think CA probably had the battles in mid-flow or just cut to the juicy bits.

hopefully

Puzz3D

07-17-2006, 15:59

I think CA probably had the battles in mid-flow or just cut to the juicy bits.
You mean the jucy bit of crusader cannon pounding infantry in a desert skirmish?

zakalwe

07-17-2006, 16:16

Probably were lots of juicy bits afterwards anyway.

Nought wrong with giving crusaders cannons though. It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.

You're right about cannons in desert skirmishes though

x-dANGEr

07-17-2006, 16:28

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/193/931592_20060713_screen001.jpg

Man.. Now I am starting not to care about the gameplay.. I just want to make movies of battles with that engine.. ~:eek:

4th Dimension

07-17-2006, 19:28

Ohoh. This pic means that knights DO have a secondary weapon. And it seems that they even know how to use it.

Puzz3D

07-17-2006, 20:22

It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.
You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

IrishArmenian

07-17-2006, 21:32

Any allusion to justify CA's use of the spikes against infantry would please me so long as it meant the infantry didn't just blindly walk into spikes it could clearly see.

So let's not arrogantly insult people for no reason. It is just not the nicest thing to do... Especially when I've done nothing to wrong you.
I mean no offense to you. I mean that Holly Wood is not very accurate.

Lucjan

07-17-2006, 23:21

I'm well aware of this, but with grass as high as it is in fallow fields, where it looks like much of the fighting in the screenshots takes place, it is a feasible concept.

DisruptorX

07-17-2006, 23:43

You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

I think you are overreacting just a bit. I mean, the flaming arrows in rome did hardly any damage at all against most troops. Generals die of old age in all the games, it won't be any different in this one. You start off with historical figures as generals in MTW, heck, I'm pretty sure that the English start with William the Conquerer and he dies off of old age almost immediately.

Troops flying all over the place is no less realistic as the complete lack of blood and gore. Its rather fun to watch, too.

Perplexed

07-18-2006, 00:15

heck, I'm pretty sure that the English start with William the Conquerer and he dies off of old age almost immediately.

That's another thing I've been thinking about.

If the "turns" that CA is implementing last multiple years, then surely kings and generals will only last a couple of turns, which will seriously impede the game's immersiveness... You might only have a good general for a few turns, and then he's gone.

Maybe I'm not understanding the turn idea (I hope so), but if I am then that's just one more failed feature...

zakalwe

07-18-2006, 00:46

It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.

You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

errr time for your medicine?

What's your point? You disputing the fact that as soon as you start playing the game you are creating an alternative history?

Crusaders with cannons in the 15th century? Why not? That is what TW is all about.

DisruptorX

07-18-2006, 01:02

I would have to agree. I do not enjoy playing the historical battles at all, I enjoy making an alternate historical empire and creating my own armies, etc. That is what the total war games are all about. The mostly historical troops (Egypt in RTW didn't happen:no: ) and realistic tactics are great, of course.

Subedei

07-18-2006, 08:53

You simply can`t pack all the parameters -affecting the outcome of a battle or the evolution of a culture over the centuries- into one single programm. Accepting that, I just play around and have fun (or get very angry at 'em rebels blocking my roads)....and I am very glad CA & -most of all- the modding teams try to give us a "taste of history". Anyways: BL is a semi-fictional scenario & still a lot of fun...or b/c of the fact it is fictional....

x-dANGEr

07-18-2006, 13:54

I noticed you can zoom in more on the campaign map.. Is it only me noticing that?

The Spartan (Returns)

07-18-2006, 14:44

I noticed you can zoom in more on the campaign map.. Is it only me noticing that?you can do that in RTW :inquisitive: .

x-dANGEr

07-18-2006, 14:55

That close ?!

screwtype

07-18-2006, 16:01

That's another thing I've been thinking about.

If the "turns" that CA is implementing last multiple years, then surely kings and generals will only last a couple of turns, which will seriously impede the game's immersiveness... You might only have a good general for a few turns, and then he's gone.

Maybe I'm not understanding the turn idea (I hope so), but if I am then that's just one more failed feature...

Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns - so basically they live four times longer than they ought to.

Yes, it's anomalous, but the idea is that since turns aren't numbered by years, you won't notice it.

zakalwe

07-18-2006, 16:34

:dizzy2:

Sounds like nonsense doesn;t it?

Puzz3D

07-18-2006, 17:46

You disputing the fact that as soon as you start playing the game you are creating an alternative history?
You aren't creating an alternative history. With each installment more fantasy elements are introduced to the point now that alternate universe is a better description.

Crusaders with cannons in the 15th century? Why not? That is what TW is all about.
Then let's have flying machines in the 15th century as well. There is no limit to how much the history can be distorted and the realism degraded then justified by claiming it makes the game more fun.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

07-18-2006, 19:34

French tactical naivety...

I guess CA hopes that at least the French will buy their game... :inquisitive: That would indeed be naive

They might be disappointed as we learnt the trick with RTW.

3 battles in 20 min, crazy running units, it looks more of the same: I guess I'll pass :no:

Louis,

Perplexed

07-18-2006, 19:53

Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns - so basically they live four times longer than they ought to.

Yes, it's anomalous, but the idea is that since turns aren't numbered by years, you won't notice it.

When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...

Bob the Insane

07-18-2006, 19:57

Hopefully it will all be moddable... Though the aging of generals could easily be hard coded item. Still it is hard to be overly critical until you actually see it in action...

Lucjan

07-18-2006, 23:39

When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...

I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.

B-Wing

07-18-2006, 23:50

Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns ...

Not accusing you of giving misinformation, but where did you get that info from?

Perplexed

07-19-2006, 05:03

I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.

If they're not going to indicate the year at all (~:mecry:) then I suppose it doesn't matter that much. However, it seems strange that in a supposedly historical game in which the starting year and the ending year are clearly indentified, that the year would not be shown...

screwtype

07-19-2006, 08:46

Not accusing you of giving misinformation, but where did you get that info from?

It was worked out at the org ages ago, but it's not hard to do the math for yourself. The campaign is x number of turns long and the campaign covers x number of years. Now I've forgotten the actual numbers, but if you do the math I think you'll find it boils down to 2 years per turn.

Meanwhile, CA told us fairly early on that characters will age one year every two turns, ie one summer turn + one winter turn = 1 year.

So basically characters end up living four times longer than they oughta.

Don't take my word for it though, this is all from memory, so you might want to check it out for yourself.

Essentially what they've done (in case you're wondering) is to compress the timespan of the campaign so that they can incorporate numerous different periods, whilst at the same time keeping the campaign at a length to suit the average gamer (ie 200 or 250 turns, whatever).

My guess though is that this will be fully moddable so that it will be a simple fix to match turns with years like the previous games. But doing so will probably leave you with a humungously long campaign of 800 or even 1000 turns. But then some people might think that's pretty kewl.

Edit: Ah, here it is, the original thread. Enjoy!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62117

Wandarah

07-19-2006, 10:42

Then let's have flying machines in the 15th century as well. There is no limit to how much the history can be distorted and the realism degraded then justified by claiming it makes the game more fun.

...but CA arent trying to accurately depict history.

Tamur

07-19-2006, 16:24

An enormously amusing, cynical thread. Long live the org, CA's gadfly.

therother

07-19-2006, 17:12

Long live the org, CA's gadfly.Well, quite. I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way. :laugh4:

Nice to see you back. :bow:

Puzz3D

07-19-2006, 17:44

...but CA arent trying to accurately depict history.
The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

Perplexed

07-19-2006, 18:40

It was worked out at the org ages ago, but it's not hard to do the math for yourself. The campaign is x number of turns long and the campaign covers x number of years. Now I've forgotten the actual numbers, but if you do the math I think you'll find it boils down to 2 years per turn.

Meanwhile, CA told us fairly early on that characters will age one year every two turns, ie one summer turn + one winter turn = 1 year.

So basically characters end up living four times longer than they oughta.

So a turn is a two-season period? I thought you meant that each turn was a one-year period and that characters aged a year every two years. If one turn equals two seasons then that's fine, and characters won't age more than they should.

My mind is at rest (on this issue ~;)).

4th Dimension

07-19-2006, 20:05

I think what he meant is that with the published timeline and the number of turns your winter actualy lasts two years.

It boils down to it that CA wanted to inlude all those nice units from many periods so they published the timeline. But you won't actualy play that long because if you consider ine turn one season, with taking in consideration that there are two times less turns than years you will actualy play for only the quarter of the period.

Ilsamir Lord

07-20-2006, 04:36

I hope weak game reviews from half wits do not have more impact on game design than the hardcore fans

Of course they do. Hardcore fans are a minority whereas these so-called "falf-wits" are representing the likely reaction of the disinterested general public. I think it's a little unfortuneate to call reviewers half-wits when they are merely expressing their opinions. It continually puzzles me that the most hardcore of fans are usually the most critical. Surely they should be happy that a series they like gets popular support. To succeed commercially you can't rely on a small cult following, you have to appeal to the masses.

screwtype

07-20-2006, 11:16

So a turn is a two-season period? I thought you meant that each turn was a one-year period and that characters aged a year every two years. If one turn equals two seasons then that's fine, and characters won't age more than they should.

My mind is at rest (on this issue ~;)).

No, that's not what I said. I suggest you go back and read my post, or better still perhaps, go and read the old thread that I provided a link to.

Perplexed

07-21-2006, 03:31

No, that's not what I said. I suggest you go back and read my post, or better still perhaps, go and read the old thread that I provided a link to.

Missed the link. Now it's clarified.

Mooks

07-21-2006, 08:16

Im not buying this game.

I was attracted to TW by the historical gameplay. I myself, love history and read books all the time, to think that a game and a history book was combined was awsome. The TW series is no longer "historical", it's fantasy. It just takes place in real eras.

Im not going to bash CA. Total war just isn't my type of game anymore.

P.S that reviewer guy sounds like a idiot.

zakalwe

07-21-2006, 11:32

The TW games were never really simply depicting historical accuracy - TW had the uber-geisha, 1 man army kensai, etc. The same thing with MTW.

Wandarah

07-21-2006, 12:02

The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

well obviously it's either one extreme or the other.

Orb

07-21-2006, 12:15

This looks like another RTW...

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

IMO, CA reached their pinnacle with the original Medieval. All these 'new' features that they are 'introducing' seem to be either from the previous games or graphical.

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

econ21

07-21-2006, 13:07

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

....

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.

edyzmedieval

07-21-2006, 13:19

The previews looks good, but something tells me the AI is going to be as bad as in RTW. They need a new engine, definitely.

Puzz3D

07-21-2006, 14:50

They need a new engine, definitely.
Removing the bias that causes the AI to attack with weaker armies and make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target units would help.

Orda Khan

07-21-2006, 17:08

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.
Very poor would be a better description, though when talking about 'Intelligence', non existant is fairly close. The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

........Orda

econ21

07-21-2006, 18:39

The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

To be honest, I don't recall STW AI being markedly better in any of above three respects.

RTW starting formations can be modded. But I don't have a big problem with them. I can't say they seem any worse than MTW ones. Maybe they sacrifice depth for breadth, occasionally. The main formation problem that irks me is a not the formations per se but a failure to keep formation - specifically breaking up a nice phalanx line at the last minute for no good reason. The formations/AI for barbarian and the horse archer armies perform reasonably ok.

The AI use of projectiles is kind of hit and miss, it is true, but then it often has been in TW.

The lone units charging to certain death does happen occasionally, but I noticed it more in STW when most neighbouring factions would have become rebels after 20 turns or so because they lost their Daimyos in suicide charges against me.

It's true the STW AI gives you a much better fight. But I think that is largely because of its behaviour at the strategic level (with a little cheating, it plays the Risk game extremely well IMO), so that you are often beaten before the battle starts. And it's also because the higher morale and slower kill speeds allow it to grind you down on the battlefield (especially when combined with the remorseless reinforcements coming from its smart strategic performance).

Lucjan

07-22-2006, 01:31

I never seemed to have a problem with rome's ai when the enemy had a larger army than my own, which, because of the factions I habitually play as, happens quite often. If they can only somehow make the ai behave more like it does when it knows it's numbers are superior even when it's not, it might provide a little bit of a better fight.

Ibn Munqidh

07-22-2006, 02:07

Guys, why do you all have negative opinions on this game?!! THE GAME HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED!!! Since now, ive seen a dozen guys confessing they're not buying it!

I remember STW's AI was quite good (long time since I last played). It did know how to interact with environments and set up good formations. MTW's AI was even better. Rome's was just, Rome's. Stupid formations, suicidal general who charges head on to a phalanx, archers who shoot fire arrows all the time. I think that CA might have pulled it off this time.

If you remember the video where there was the english vs the egyptians, where the german player was saying "Zultan Zaladin", which also contained cannons. I remember that the AI actually mauled the player (or he could have been a noob.lol.), and advanced to the players position similarily to MTW's AI.

Zalmoxis

07-22-2006, 04:57

I liked the preview, but I'll wait for the game.

snevets

07-22-2006, 05:51

Lusted

07-22-2006, 13:09

and lo, Lusted doth read the articles on M2TW, and produceth thus these quotes on thee fair M2TW: (more related to campaign map ai, but still related to ai)

In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors.

We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more.

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=142571&skip=yes

Talking of the campaign map, there are new agents, improved diplomacy, and improved trade, as well as a host of new buildings added to the tech tree; new sabotage and espionage options,

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/news.html?sid=6144512&page=2&q=

The diplomacy system has been improved. We're going to give the player a lot more information about how the artificial intelligence feels both about them and about the offer on the table. However, at the same time the AI will take offence at insulting offers and will have a better memory of past dealings. You should be able to trust your allies, but only up to a point.

We're definitely committed to improving the AI on both the campaign map and battlefield and plan to make a significant step forward from Rome.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/news.html?sid=6146146

We've also introduced a new recruitment system, a new enhanced system for the treatment of religion, enhanced diplomacy, new trade options, improved missions, improved sabotage and espionage, improved AI, new tech tree buildings and new agent characters.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.html

Woozie

07-25-2006, 17:20

The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

Why are you still posting in this thread? Just leave if you're razzing people, we don't need unnecessary flames, thanks.

The Spartan (Returns)

07-26-2006, 23:09

hm... if bodies are 3-D dont troops have to walk over the bodies or around? (like elephants)

Fwapper

07-27-2006, 00:33

............ "clubbing together against the pack leader"...........

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

This is definately realistic... OK so I can't think of a medieval example BUT, in the years before WWI, the european nations gradually separated into two clearly defined alliance groups with agreements that said "If you go to war against so and so, we will also go to war with them." I'd like to see this kind of agreement possible. Also, one set of alliances were made to defend against powerful, arrogent Germany, while the other set were made to gain Germany's protection and help. This was basically just clubbing into two clear groups which go to war all togeather.

For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z

A war between B and Z alone would be impossible. If B did declare war on Z, then A and C should join in the war, as should X and Y. Get what I mean? No didn't think so...

econ21

07-27-2006, 02:18

Furious Mental

07-27-2006, 02:45

Well I think it is reasonable that if one's faction becomes so large it threatens its neighbours, it's reasonable for them to form an alliance against one. That is indeed often what happened historically. However one should also be able to force other states into lop sided alliances due to one's power.

Fwapper

07-27-2006, 09:41

For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z
I am all for entangling alliances, but I think the "gang up on the leader" mechanic will make them short term at best. As I understand it, once player faction A outstrips the rest of the AI factions, they will form a de facto alliance against you - regardless of the relationships you've tried to build up over the years.

The A,B,C vs X,Y,Z example I was thinking of was basically clubbing up on the leader. As it happened in history: Britain, France & Russia ganged up on Germany as it became too powerful - it upset the balance of power - Germany (in defence) Made alliances with Austria and Italy. These alliances were solid ones which were not easily broken, unlike those in RTW. ...OK so italy did swap sides when her alliance group started losing, but most alliances worked. :P