Med2 Preview Event... the answers

[Soulflame]

Heya people,

So I'm just back from the preview event (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68785). I still have to write out all my notes into something readable (I think all the people there can attest that my scribbling isn't the most legible of writings), but I don't want you to go empty handed today.

The event;
First off, a big thank you to all people involved in the preview, I had a great time and I definately learned a lot about Medieval, CA and Atari.
The people present from CA England were;
Ian Roxburgh (Marketing)
Mark Sutherns (Marketing)
James Whitston (Game/Historical battle designer)
From Atari Benelux;
Johan de Windt (Senior Product Manager)
Wouter van Vugt (Executive PR)
There was also a lady from Sega present, but she was very busy dealing with stuff, and the other half of the time I was talking to other people. So I didn't get to meet her.

I was also considered important enough that I was actually allowed to personally interview the CA people in advance of the presentations, as they 'really wanted to get to know the community and answer the questions they have'. Since I was the only one from the 'community' there (the rest were all game press), I got this special opportunity. It did however cut back on the time I could see the non-demo part of the game in action, but I think the questions were more important.

Allright, so here are some brief, major points. I'll make a bigger post tomorrow with some more stuff. Some questions (mostly the modding ones), they weren't sure about, since that's neary all done in Australia. The CA people present gave me their emailaddresses so I could email those questions later and they will get the answer from CA Australia (they said they could get answers probably within a week).


==========
*There are 21 factions, namely;
England, Holy Roman Empire, France, Venice, Spain => these 5 are starting factions.
Milan, Sicily, Hungary, Russia, Egypt, Moors, Danes, Scotland, Portugal, Byzantynes, Turkey, Poland => these are unlockable factions
Aztecs, Mongols, Timmerids, Papal States => These are non-playable in campaign, but you can play them in custom battles.
The reason those 4 are non playable is obvious; Aztecs appear through the discovery of America, the Mongols and Timmerids are invasion armies and Papal states involves the Pope.
*Unit speeds and kill speeds have been decreases;
I can't really put it in numbers, but it *is* down.
*There are 8 Historical Battles planned, I have played a demo which had the Battle of Avincourt (the famous battle which involves a lot of arrows and mud :p) and the battle of Pavia (where you play the HRE with Spain AI allies versus the French).
*A public demo is in the works and nearing completion
*They are aiming for minimum specs of; P4 1.8 Ghz Geforce4 128.
*Cow launching is IN!
*Timmerids get the funky rocket launchers
*Generals can't be given titles like in Med 1 :(
*No eras like in Med1, there is only one campaign period.
*Campaign battle replay... is uncertain. It *was* in, but they all thought it might have been recently removed. They asked if I thought it was an important feature. Since this question was asked multiple times, and I personally felt it is really nice as well, I said we would all really like it and they responded that they will try to convey that to CA Australia and hope they put it in.
==========

Allright, more coming tomorrow...
Cheers all,

Harm - aka Soulflame

[TB666]

*They are aiming for minimum specs of; P4 1.8 Ghz Geforce4 128.

Oh that stings ~:mecry:
I had hoped that it would be lower then that.

[Bugout]

Very nice to get all that information from the destriers mouth as it were. (At least I will be able to have small armies with those computer requirements.)
Thanks Soulflame.

:2thumbsup:

[Silver Rusher]

Unit speeds and kill speeds lowered eh? Added to the AI we gotta give that to CA. CA - 2 Whiners - 0

[Mount Suribachi]

Thanks for all that Soulflame, much appreciated ~:)

Regarding min specs, I'm amazed that that its so "low".

With this event and other things they're saying & doing, it seems to me that CA & SEGA are really putting in the effort to win back the community.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The titles thing is very annoying, they should really have restored them.

[econ21]

The titles thing is very annoying, they should really have restored them.

That's weird - because they were sort of in BI (Romans could get "Count of the Saxon shore") and so on. Maybe there will be such offices (sort of as ancillaries), but just not one for each province? (As governors in RTW are just the appropriate resident general). If so, I would not have a problem with that. I found fussy over each province governor in MTW a bit of make-work - it was the funky titles that added command stars etc that really mattered. But to have no offices at all would rather diminish the RPG elements that I thought CA were trying to enhance.

BTW, great news on the kill and unit speeds. :2thumbsup:

[highlanddave]

thanks alot for your work, Soulflame and for posting some of the answers so quickly.

rats, that leaves me out, my machine is 1.6ghz:wall:

[r johnson]

Heya people,


==========
*There are 21 factions, namely;
England, Holy Roman Empire, France, Venice, Spain => these 5 are starting factions.
Milan, Sicily, Hungary, Russia, Egypt, Moors, Danes, Scotland, Portugal, Byzantynes, Turkey, Poland => these are unlockable factions
==========

Allright, more coming tomorrow...
Cheers all,

Harm - aka Soulflame

Yey I can have a proper war with Scotland ! I'm a happy boy thanks for the information soulflame:2thumbsup:

[Lord Adherbal]

CA - 2 Whiners - 0

if CA actualy changed those things that it's a victory for the whiners (regardless if they influenced these decisions or not), and certainly not a defeat. Unless you mean those whiners who whine just so they can whine but I don't think there are many of those around. Blind fanboyism is much worse and frequent.

[TB666]

Adherbal']if CA actualy changed those things that it's a victory for the whiners (regardless if they influenced these decisions or not),
I think it is more directed to the whiners that stated that CA will never change these things because they are going after the 7yo and so on.
Same people that stated that the AI will never be improved, that CA is turning TW into a click-fest and so on.
So in a way yes it is a "victory" for CA and not those whiners.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Hi,

thank you for so much informations. :) Did you get any informations about the multiplayer? It is the most important part for our clan.

[Divine Wind]

Good news on the unit/kill speeds being decreased.

However im slightly disappointed with the Mongols and Timmurids being non playable factions. I was really looking forward to having a go with both those factions. Hopefully they are both moddable, and wont be CTD infested like the other emerging factions in RTW i.e. Slavs and Romano Brits.

[Dinsel]

Very nice.

Did you tell them about my wishes? To include the rebel fight inside the city?
And to include the possibility of controlling more then 1 faction. So you can play a campaign with your brother/friend by both/all of you controlling different factions?

[Bob the Insane]

Thanks for the replies man, and looking forward to the rest... :2thumbsup:

[x-dANGEr]

To be honest.. I only read this:


*There are 21 factions, namely;
England, Holy Roman Empire, France, Venice, Spain => these 5 are starting factions.

Now this sucks.. No muslims starting faction?! That means no extra content for any muslim faction.. GAH BAH DOH whtver!

[Martok]

Thanks again for the info, Soulflame. :bow: Some general comments:

1.) Slower unit & kill speeds good. :2thumbsup:
2.) Minimum specs about I expected (still have to upgrade my comp, though).
3.) No titles for Generals bad. :no:
4.) No Eras bad (although I'm not surprised).
5.) I really really hope they include campaign battle replays. It's still one of my favorite features from MTW.


Now this sucks.. No muslims starting faction?! That means no extra content for any muslim faction.. GAH BAH DOH whtver!
Believe me, I've already raised this issue and went on about it at some length (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1230312#post1230312). Why they included the Spanish and the Venetians, but not the Byz and at least one of the Muslim factions, is simply beyond me. :shrug:

[IrishArmenian]

I jig. I jig with glee.

[Satyr]

They had announced only one era long ago so that shouldn't be a shock to anyone. I would rather they get one era really well balanced than have 3 crappy ones. The rest is good to hear and in that I just build a Core2Duo 6600 machine I will be playing Huge battles on my computer.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

They had announced only one era long ago so that shouldn't be a shock to anyone. I would rather they get one era really well balanced than have 3 crappy ones. The rest is good to hear and in that I just build a Core2Duo 6600 machine I will be playing Huge battles on my computer.

The balance of the eras in mtw 1 was really good. Without eras it makes the multiplayer faster boring.

[Basileus]

The balance of the eras in mtw 1 was really good. Without eras it makes the multiplayer faster boring.
there will be eras for multiplayer though so dont worry mate:)

[redriver]

thanks alot for your work, Soulflame and for posting some of the answers so quickly.

rats, that leaves me out, my machine is 1.6ghz:wall:

same here and my video card's gf4 128mb :)

just bearly meet the min. specs. guess me not buyin' the game after all. will have to wait for the demo to find out.....

[Servius]

Thanks for the info. Please tell them that titles are really important and that they should put them back in. Working them back in as an ancillary would be fine I guess. The ancillary could be the generarl/governor's viceroy who actually governed the province in the general's stead or whatever.

Anyway, the titles were cool for RPG reasons, but they were also cool for combat reasons and they had a noticable impact on the ease of governing a province (if the governor had a high Dread rating).

I can do without the eras, but I can't tollerate more SimCity micro-managing of the plebs.

[Kourutsu]

GODS BE PRAISED!

My specs exceed the minimums!

[Tamur]

GODS BE PRAISED!

My specs exceed the minimums!

Anyone else hear that RTW Roman battle-over voice saying this? :laugh4:

[highlanddave]

Anyone else hear that RTW Roman battle-over voice saying this?

haha Tamur i thought the same thing. i do not mind my general saying that as long as he does not say his mother told him he must fight this battle.

*still stinging over my darn computer not making spec*

[luo bin]

There still to be things that everyone is missing. Im in with those that will miss titles for one. I just wonder how much of that which will miss will, in the end, be found in the add on. At least some of those things which we are talking about now will be left out until the "something invasion" gets released (here im thinking something with the islamic factions).

On a side note...balls...bloody min specs...thats still high.....Although im getting it anyway and ill try and twist my machine to cope with it...only when that fails will the word upgrade enter my head...

[Quickening]

There still to be things that everyone is missing. Im in with those that will miss titles for one. I just wonder how much of that which will miss will, in the end, be found in the add on. At least some of those things which we are talking about now will be left out until the "something invasion" gets released (here im thinking something with the islamic factions).

On a side note...balls...bloody min specs...thats still high.....Although im getting it anyway and ill try and twist my machine to cope with it...only when that fails will the word upgrade enter my head...

Aye same here. My PC is a 1.7 Celeron with 756MB of RAM and a GeForce FX 5200. Ive had the beast five years now and it's run games when even the developers claimed otherwise. Medieval 2: Total War shall be no different!*




*I pray ~:mecry:

[Zatoichi]

Thanks Soulflame - looking forward to seeing the rest of your info! Very decent of you to give up your chance to see the non-demo stuff in order to get your/our questions answered!

[Mount Suribachi]

Thanks for the info. Please tell them that titles are really important and that they should put them back in. Working them back in as an ancillary would be fine I guess. The ancillary could be the generarl/governor's viceroy who actually governed the province in the general's stead or whatever.


Like econ21 said, they are in BI as transferrable ancillaries, and also in mods like RTRPE with the Legion banners and stuff. The only thing lacking from MTW is the loss in loyalty when you strip a general of a title.

[Furious Mental]

Personally I've got sufficient faith in CA to believe that the Muslim factions will be collectively different to the Catholic factions and individually different to each other.

[Dutch_guy]

*Campaign battle replay... is uncertain. It *was* in, but they all thought it might have been recently removed. They asked if I thought it was an important feature. Since this question was asked multiple times, and I personally felt it is really nice as well, I said we would all really like it and they responded that they will try to convey that to CA Australia and hope they put it in.


Well that does sound good, hope they manage to get in put back in :2thumbsup:

And thanks for asking Harm. ~:)

:balloon2:

[Soulflame]

Part 2:

Okay so now I'll answer the individual questions asked (see the link in the beginpost of this thread).

Modding
1-10. Unfortunately, they weren't able to answer those, but they will ask their collegues in Australia to try get some answers on these questions.

Battle
1.+ 2. Yes, the AI has improved a lot in Sieges. This was actually necessary because the 3 layered walls which citadels have, weren't being used optimally by the AI with the Rome code. Also the Pathfinding got some changes here, so that you can actually have pretty nice siege fights. They both said fighting in the streets really improved in terms of fun and importance.
3. You can't station artillery on the walls, but the towers are upgradable. One very nice thing is that towers don't shoot unless there is actually a unit on the walls next to it. Yes, this means that if there is only 1 unit garrissoned in a castle, most of the defenses don't work.
The AI knows this and so it will be unlikely (but still possible sometimes) that the AI will leave a large castle or fortress defended with just 1 or 2 units.
Although I didn't get to see this in action, this sounds pretty promising and nice in my eyes.
4. Like I said before, kill speeds and run speeds are down. But I'm not sure if it's enough for the people who didn't enjoy it in Rome. If I had to guess (warning, take this for what it is; a guess..) it's probably a reduction of about 25-40% in kill speeds and movement speeds.
Playing the 2 Historical battles, I was able to complete and win both of them without using pause, while I used pause quite a lot in Rome's historical battles. I personally felt that the speed was pretty good in that I felt in control, without needing to pause the game, but also always having something to do or adjust.
Once more, this is just me personally. I think it might still be too fast for some people, but I guess that's inevitable.
5. They weren't sure about this, so they'll forward this question
6. There is no new graphical addition to see how fatigued units are, it's just the same as in Rome.
7. Ship battles are still using the autoresolve system, and your army still won't vanish unless all your boats are destroyed. They are working on some improvements though, especially about the decisiveness of these battles. In Rome ship battles were often not very decisive and remaining ships got a lot of flee movement. That is something they are working on changing, so that you don't have to keep chasing ships around who keep fleeing.
8. Heat/armor penalties are obviously in the game, and compared to Rome it might have some more effect because of the heavier armor and such, but exactly how much of a difference is a balance issue that CA Australia is working on.
9. For siege weapons you still have the assault towers, ladders and all the other stuff from Rome, in addition, the gunpowder event gives you a whole new range of Siege Weapons, so there is more choice then in Rome. You will be able to launch cows from Trebuchets and Catapults and the like (in addition to the normal boulder and flaming boulder ammo). These will (beside the obvious impact casualties.. splat!) have a morale effect. I'm not sure if they also have a disease effect, I noted down something like that in my notes, but it might be only what they told me about history...
10. Pathfinding (like I said in bullet 1 & 2) is improved.

Campaign
1. Sadly, no titles can be given like in Med1, although they said that with the retinues and ancilliaries there will be plenty of stuff to go around. But yeah, it's still a tad sad it isn't in.
2. I listed the factions in the startpost
3. The 5 begin factions do have some special treatment in that they have a special wmv opening, but all factions start off with a small info tutorial about what the faction's position, what immediate things to look out for etc. Catholic factions might have slightly more options because of their direct involvement with the Pope, but the other factions still can't ignore religion or the Pope's power on the world.
They weren't actually sure how to unlock the 12 unlockable factions, it's either 'beat a faction in the campaign and it will become available (regardless wether you personally wiped them out, or someone else did)' or 'finish the campaign with one of the starting factions and all the others will unlock'. But it will probably be easily moddable like in Rome.
4. There is no food/supply system in Med2, just like it didn't make RTW.
5. I didn't get to see recruitment pools in action unfortunately, but they said the AI is well programmed to know how to use the recruitment pools and won't just build random units, it will build units that fit well in it's armies and will look at the future and save some recruits if it deems that's wise.
6. They will get back on how the gunpowder event is done, but they both thought it would be both a global thing (gunpowder invention) and a techtree thing (you need to have the buildings after that to make gunpowder units). It won't make earlier units obsolete right away, but how powerfull these units are in relation to the previous units is a balance issue that is handled in Australia. From the battles I played they actually were not that devastating killing wise, but they were pretty good at destroying morale.
The Aztecs are a lowtech race, but massive and fearless. They said that these battles will be very different from European battles and definately among the best in the game. For one there will be completely different terrain in the form of jungles in America, that aren't in any other part of the world. And of course there will be big rewards in terms of gold in America (I'm assuming that means that saccing an Aztec city will give huge gold amounts)
7. I wasn't really sure about this question. So I hope I interpreted it right. Economic Policy settings are the same as in Rome, you don't have an option somewhere to set all taxes to one level or all building policies to 'military' or 'culture' or something in that vein.
8. Sadly, it won't be possible to have the same thing as in Med1, where you could try to form a whole new royal line by killing off the king and trying to get one of your generals to claim the throne. Civil war on that scope isn't possible. (I forgot to ask about the option to choose an heir... I'll try to get that through email)
9. Balancing (again) is done in Australia, and the game should give a variety in game experiences. It could be that you see a few times that some factions are killed of early, but they think that's more a result of many things, rather then just balancing units and such. Also some events and positions hurt some factions more then others (Mongols invading won't hurt England much for example, but it will affect Russia big).
So I'm not sure if this changed much, obviously the factions are different then Rome, so balancing had to start from scratch. I also think balancing is really big. Changing a few stats ripples through the entire game. So it's something I guess we'll have to wait and hope it comes out right.
10. They weren't sure about re-emerging factions, so they'll send that through.
11. Civil war on the scope of Med1 isn't possible. There will be generals who can go rogue and brigands and rebels, but coups and such aren't possible.
12. There are several Land-bridges in the world; Ireland has got one to Scotland and one to England, there is one connecting Spain to Africa, Denmark to Norway/Sweden and there is one at Constantinople. There might be more but those were of the top of their heads. They are always available (it isn't ice that melts in summer) and everything can traverse on them (including siege units).
13. Weather did undergo some changes. Stuff like mud slowing down armies in the battle of Avincourt, weather effects (expect lightning and such) and the weather should also be a bit more variable in that you could see more changes in weather in a battle.
14. I wasn't really sure about this question either. The timeline is set (dates) so the only way to vary the available number of turns (which they are still tuning) are things like how many seasons etc.
15. You can travel to America with normal boats (no need for special big ships) and you'll be able to pretty much fight the coasts on both south and north america, but not very far land inwards.
16. Only one era is in the game
17. They weren't sure about mercenaries, but reckoned at least the gunpowder event would create different mercenaries.
18. Crusader armies work different then in Med1. No longer do they suck units from the country they are in (which is how I used crusades in Med1; weakening armies by moving the crusade over them and hoping they'd 'steal' some units :p) in Med2 the bulk will be mercenaries that you can recruit into the crusade while you move to the target. As you move through different countries you can recruit different units.
If the crusade sidetracks or takes a long time, it will like in Med1 loose units who just go away and farm or something. If another crusade army beats you to the city, the army comes under your control, but with very low upkeep. You even get to keep the crusader only units. Obviously this army will present some nice diplomatic issues if you happen to get the army as they move into neutral terratory (get off my land!).
19. Pathfinding, like in the Battles, is also improved on the campaign map.
20. Unfortunately, if a city rebels, they still kick you out of the city :( sadness.
21. Although it's certain that roaming around neutral or hostile countries will cause devastation (and as such less income for that faction), they weren't sure if you'd gain money from doing that in the form of pillage money.
22. They weren't sure on this, so they'll forward this question
23. Ballistics is pretty much the same as in Rome probably. Since it's also such a large part of the game and there is so much theory about it, this is probably all very realistic.
From the game I played, trajectories and stuff like that looked fine to me.
24. As for unconventional weapons... there will be a Naphta unit like in Med1, but no poisons. There will be rocket launchers which are unstable, inaccurate, but sends infantry screaming in terror (well, kind of like guns). Timmerids get some of those things.
25. Squalor is still in the game and does have effects, but a far larger effect is religion and heresy. Whereas in Rome squalor was among the things that you had to work hard on, in Med2, heresy will be much more of a problem then squalor. Religion is one of the center pieces of Med2, so it will require a lot of attention.
26. I wasn't really sure about what deserters were meant. You can capture soldiers like you could in Med1 (but couldn't in Rome). You have choices to release, ransom or execute those people, but they won't fight for you.
If you meant deserting generals, those become single stack enemies like rebels and brigands.
27. I was actually surprised by the answer to this question. Missions can be gotten from 2 sources; the Pope and the Council of Nobles. I asked them twice and they said that guilds do not give extra missions, guilds provide bonusses to units and the like, but they won't give missions.
It also isn't possible to win except through conquering land and destroying factions. There is no mission point system with victory conditions.
28. One of my personal questions, I might have forgotten about how it worked in Med1, but in Med2, Chivalry and Dread are the same dimension. So once a character looses his last point in Chivalry and then does something unchivalrous again, he'll gain a point of dread.
They said that influence is still in, although a screenshot on IGN didn't show it. I didn't get the chance to ask about it later on or see it in the game, so I'm still not sure about this.
29. City View is in, in the same way as in Rome
30. I didn't get the time to re-ask this, the presentation was starting and later on I forgot I had to re-ask this.

Religion
1. Protestantism isn't in as far as they knew, which was also confirmed in one of the developer diaries I think.
2. Although catholic factions do have some extra content when it comes to the Pope, religion is very important in the whole game. Heresy is 'the new squalor' (my words) and Jihads and Crusades will still affect you in some ways (like them wandering through your lands).
3. Once your cardinal/bishop etc (all upgraded priests), becomes the Pope, he's out of your control. So it doesn't give you anything exclusive, but it will have a large affect on the standings with the Pope and Papal States. Meaning right after your priest became a Pope, you have a few more 'liberties', like you can attack a catholic faction and get away with it easier then before.
But technically there is nothing different from your Pope and another Pope. If you have a good relationship with a Pope that didn't come from you, you can do the same.
There is also only 1 Pope, there can't be multiple in the game.
4. Theorectically it's possible, although I don't know if the Pope will easily become a protectorate/captured. I asked if Heresy could become so abundant that it could destroy the Papal states, and he said there wasn't anything in the game that specifically prohibits that stuff. So he threw down the gauntlet there; I said I'd try to do a campaign some day to try and get heresy to destroy the world (by not building religion buildings, assassinating priests and sabotaging and destroying churches from other factions).. sounds like a fun challenge hehe
5. Inquisitors this time a round are Papal states only. Bishops and Cardinals etc are just upgraded priest. You can't build Bishops and Cardinals straight away.

System
1. The only real number I got were 1.8 Ghz Gf4 128 for minimum specs
2. Demo release is soon (probably the demo I played) and Store release is probably somewhere in November
3. They weren't sure about all this, so this will get forwarded
4. They weren't sure about all this, so this will get forwarded
5. They said that although Alexander was the first expansion to be released online, they couldn't imagine that they would not do that again somewhere in the future. They also said that the website will get even better and more important in the future. On the question on wether that meant we could look forward to downloadable textures (like spartan hoplites for Rome) or historical battles, they said that although they hadn't heard of that, that it could perhaps be possible. So here's to hoping!

Other
1. There will be 8 Historical Battles, including Avincourt and Pavia (both in the demo I played) and the battle at Hastings.
2. There will be more custom maps and there will be an unsupported battle editor to make your own battles, similar to Rome.
3. As far as they know nothing has been said about online rankings.
4. Like I explained in my starting post; they weren't sure if it was still in or not in the current build. It was in in one of the previous builds, and they would try to convey to CA Australia that it is something we'd like to see.
5. There are changes, but I didn't get to play the whole game, and even then it's pretty large to just note down all the interface changes. One option that's in is 'minimized ui', which basically removes almost everything from your battlescreen except the action. If you are able to work with that ui or you already almost certainly won, then it's nice.

Large questions
1. This question was so large that I actually didn't ask it, but want to refer to the developer diary on the .com, that basically covers nearly all there is to know about diplomacy
2. This was also a big question. One particular point is merchants. Like has been revealed before, they can occupy a trade resource for extra income, even one outside your own borders. Merchants can fight between them if 2 meet (if you put a merchant on an already occupied trade resource), but something I found more insteresting, merchants can generate monopolies. If you have a 2 normal silver mines you get some income (like 10 or something per mine... completely random number) now if you move a merchant onto one of them, you can get 20 from that mine (again, random number) if you move another merchant on the other mine, you don't get 20+20, but something like 30+30... So the more merchants on the same trade resource, the better income you'll get.
3. The main differences between castles and cities have already been revealed; castles can produce better units and cities generate more income. What I didn't yet know was that guilds can only be built in cities, not in castles (and yes, they will get destroyed if you switch your town from city to castle). Castles (1 ring of defense) can be upgraded into fortresses (2 rings) and then citadels (3 rings).
You might also want to build more fortications like watchtowers and forts around the campaign map, because of the vulnerability of cities, and the improved AI which would give you more reason to make these or suffer the consequences (although I didn't get to confirm that.. so if it's true..).
4. One of the 'improvements' of Assassination and espionage are the movies that are back. I didn't have time to ask in depth since these were the final questions I asked and it already was about an hour after the official closing time of the event ;).
5. I already discussed merchants, and priests/bishops/cardinals. One last new agent type are Princesses. These act very similarr to Med1; they are diplomats that can also be used to marry, to generals or to factions etc. They now also get traits and such which help with diplomacy and such.


The Demo Experience
So in between talking to CA and Atari I had a chance to play a demo. It consisted of a Tutorial, 2 Historical battles and a movie.

Tutorial;
This is basically like the Rome Tutorial. You begin with 4 units (general, archers, cavalry and footmen) and have to follow the instructions from the battle helper. I personally liked the Rome Tutorial more, but I can't really say why.

Battle of Avincourt
I actually failed the first time I tried. I was winning but then the king died and my whole army routed... oops :p.
The second time I did win. The stakes from the longbowmen were quite usefull, even regular soldiers had trouble moving between them. They did look a bit large, but I'm no historian to know if they are the right size or not. The longbowmen didn't seem overpowered or anything. Most french battallions reached my line quite easily, but already were worn a bit in morale and fatigue.
The battle was decent, but I liked the second battle more. One thing that I did see once that I hope will be different in the final game, is that I saw the effect that was also sometimes in Rome; half of a battallion would attack a unit and the other half of the battallion would be a bit back, waiting or something. I only saw it once, but it is something I (and I think many others) didn't really like in Rome. Of course this was only a beta build, but still.

Battle of Pavia
This was a much more complex battle, although I did win it the first time around. You play the Holy Roman Empire with Spanish Allies against the French.
In this battle I saw some nice AI movement; somewhere in the battle I sent my Arquebusiers to attack a unit of cavalry and hope to provoke them. They did come, and when I moved my pikemen in front of my Arquebusiers and some Zweihanders on position to flank, the cavalry veered off just before the wall of pikes and ran through the Zeihanders and incurring pretty heavy loses before regrouping. In the meantime, one of my units west of that routed under cannon fire and severe losses, and the enemy battallion were coming up on the rear of the pikemen. I made a gamble to send in a half decimated unit of mine to hold that enemy betallion long enough for my Arquebusiers to keep hitting the enemy cavalry while I tried to position the Zeihanders left and pikeman to protect them.
It paid off, the west unit did reach the pikemen, but shortly after the cavalry routed and caused panic across the enemy and caused me to win.
So I was pleasantly surprised by the tactics the AI used in this battle. although part of it, especially the beginning, was scripted, I do think that headon cahrges on pikes by cavalry is something that wasn't just something for this battle.

The sound were pretty good in both battles. Especially in Pavia where the cannons and Arquebusiers fired stuff and people screaming...


Some final thoughts
I must admit that there are some things that I want to see differently before release if possible. I am a bit disappointed there can be no civil wars, titels to generals, that the mongols are just an invasion force and not playable (maybe with heavy modding.. although that's not certain), the removal of eras, rebels still kicking you out of cities, and perhaps some more.
I did see improvement in the AI and an reduction in speed/killing rate (although like I said, not sure if it's enough for some people), and there are some nice siege changes like towers only working with a unit near them.

Basically I would call Med2 an evolutionary change to Rome, wheras Rome was revolutionary with the change to a whole new graphics engine and the addition of movement for each army.
From Rome to Med2 is kind of like going from Shogun to Med1; it has some updated graphics, but not a whole lot, religion is suddenly extremely important (although this was in in BI), Princesses are back, invading armies... etc.

If you have Med1 but not Rome, this game will be definately worth it for you, If you bought Med1 after you had Shogun, then you'll not be disappointed in going from Rome to Med2 either.
If Rome was your first TW game or you like the Rome Age better and think Religion is just taking away from the battles and such, then you have to personally look at all the improvement that are (and those that aren't) in and decide if it's worth it.


Okay, well, that's it.. my hands are a bit sore from typing. When I get some more answers back from CA about the stuff they didn't know but forwarded, I'll post them here.

Cheers,

Harm - aka Soulflame

[Monarch]

Thanks for that mate, anyword on multiplayer at all?

[Soulflame]

Well only that you'll be able to play all 21 factions in multiplayer, that there is no online ranking, and that the system specs weren't really sure yet.

What specificaly do you want to know?

[Ibn Munqidh]

Thanks alot Soulflame, really great effort, worthy of a promotion. One more thing I noticed about cavalry in the movies, cavalry have been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay underpowered! I saw in one movie where a unit of knights charged into a unit of swordsmen (i think), most knights were killed on the charge!

What did you think of the cavalry, was it normal? (Rome Like?) (god I hope so), or was it weak?

[Orda Khan]

Things like......
Is 4v4 possible? Without lag?
Is the server stable?
Is the lobby improved?

As for the 5 starting factions...

To be honest.. I only read this:

Quote:
*There are 21 factions, namely;
England, Holy Roman Empire, France, Venice, Spain => these 5 are starting factions.
Now this sucks.. No muslims starting faction?! That means no extra content for any muslim faction.. GAH BAH DOH whtver!
I have to agree, none of these factions remotely interest me

........Orda

[Ibn Munqidh]

I think those choices for starting factions are wrong. Yes, they must include at least 2 major catholic ones, but it is sad they they do not include others. i hoped that they would include Byzantium, and an Islamic faction, as well as HRE, England, and France, or Italy.

[Soulflame]

They weren't sure about specs yet, so what you would need for lagless 4 vs 4 is uncertain (I actually did specifically ask for specs for 4vs4 since it was one of the questions I had listed)
Server stability is something that they probably don't know, since that depends on who does the server and stuff like that. Probably done in Australia, if at all, my guess it that that's probably outsourced to Gamespy.
Lobby improved, I don't know, that's something I might have asked, but didn't occur to me. I'm sorry, I'll try to put that in the list of questions still to be answered that I'll send either tomorrow/monday. Not sure if they know the answer.

Cavalry is still effective, but it depends on what type you have, the enemy and positioning. To me it felt pretty much the same as Rome (barring in mind the kill rate and speed reduction).
If you can get the cavalry bogged down, yes, they will die fast. So their role might be a bit more pronounced as shock troops, but it's hard to say since I only saw very few cavalry units and I didn't examine all of them closely to see how good they were in terms of how much defense, attack, where in the technology tree and how good the enemy was.
But my cavalry didn't die that fast, and neither did the enemies (although the Arquebusiers were pretty nice against them).

[Dutch_guy]

System
1. The only real number I got were 1.8 Ghz Gf4 128 for minimum specs

Is this what you needed to play Rome on Medium, does anyone know ?

:balloon2:

[Divine Wind]

Is this what you needed to play Rome on Medium, does anyone know ?

:balloon2:

My machine is a 1.8 ghz, with GF5 card, and most of my settings on RTW are low-medium.

[TB666]

Is this what you needed to play Rome on Medium, does anyone know ?

:balloon2:
Depends on the unit size.
I got a 2.3 ghz Celeron, 512 mb ram and Radeon 9800 pro 128 mb and with huge settings then it is a medium-low for me while on large setting it is high.

[x-dANGEr]

I think that is wrong.. I have 2.4 GHz with GF5 and I have 2 FPS rate in battles with 4000-4500 men.. (Around 7 for 3000-4000)

EDIT: And my GFX is like set to none.. The lowest of everything.

[Zawath]

Well there are different types of processors. 1.8Ghz AMD processor is about twice as powerful as 1.8Ghz Pentium processor.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Is this what you needed to play Rome on Medium, does anyone know ?

:balloon2:

On the cover you can find the following minimum specs for rome:

1GHZ CPU
256MB Ram
64MB Graphic Card

:laugh4:

But I don't wanna c this. My computer cannot handle Rome 2vs2 lagfree. And it is much better.

[Doug-Thompson]

Now this sucks.. No muslims starting faction?! That means no extra content for any muslim faction.. GAH BAH DOH whtver!

My sentiments exactly. :furious3:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

One more crucial question - are famous heroes and kings back in the game? Because it will be frankly unforgivable if they aren't. I appreciate all the great things CA are doing with the game but its the little things like titles and heroes (if they didn't make it) which let the side down.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

so could a 64 mb card play M2TW????

[Mount Suribachi]

Oooh, great question BKB!

Soulflame thanks for all your efforts on this ~:)

[The Spartan (Returns)]

what did heroes do in MTW?

[O'ETAIPOS]

Can you, Soulflame ask them how will Polish flag look like? I saw comments on one of polish forums that it will be red rider on white instead white, crowned eagle on red.
If this is true, it is like inventing square wheel and prettend it is the better one.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

btw good job Soulflame!

[Soulflame]

One more crucial question - are famous heroes and kings back in the game? Because it will be frankly unforgivable if they aren't. I appreciate all the great things CA are doing with the game but its the little things like titles and heroes (if they didn't make it) which let the side down.

They are certainly in in Historical battles of course, but I doubt they will be in the campaign. Why? Because it is really dependant on a lot of things; people in the royal families can die before they historically did, or live longer, or not marry etc.
I think the begin position might have some famous kings, but I doubt that famous kings in between arrive.

I also didn't hear anything about special campaigns like in Medieval where you could do a Joanne d'Arc campaign. It guess it could be in, but I wouldn't count on it.

Basically I think it's like in Rome.

[The Blind Samurai]

one question who get the elephants with canon on their back

[Basileus]

Give us titles and heroes CA grrr :D

[Kralizec]

One more crucial question - are famous heroes and kings back in the game? Because it will be frankly unforgivable if they aren't. I appreciate all the great things CA are doing with the game but its the little things like titles and heroes (if they didn't make it) which let the side down.

Barring historical generals/kings at the start of the game, I'd have to disagree.

Every game of MTW(2) is an alternative history. Even a seemingly insignificant change in events could cause a radically different future, like a snowball rolling from a mountain, becoming bigger and bigger. A ridiculous example: a guy sneezes into the face of Gaius Julius Caesar, giving him a cold wich makes him stay in bed, causing him to never have met GJC's mother. And the destruction of a faction earlier then is historically accurate would of course cause far more serious alterations.

Now what I'd like is a "Hall of Fame" scroll in the campaign, that keeps track of the most talented generals and maybe governors that lived so far in the campaign. That I'd like much more then historically accurate people spawning from nowhere into an alternative history.

[TB666]

Now what I'd like is a "Hall of Fame" scroll in the campaign, that keeps track of the most talented generals and maybe governors that lived so far in the campaign.
Now that is a good idea :2thumbsup:
Would give you a sense that you infact writing your own history.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Barring historical generals/kings at the start of the game, I'd have to disagree.

Every game of MTW(2) is an alternative history. Even a seemingly insignificant change in events could cause a radically different future, like a snowball rolling from a mountain, becoming bigger and bigger. A ridiculous example: a guy sneezes into the face of Gaius Julius Caesar, giving him a cold wich makes him stay in bed, causing him to never have met GJC's mother. And the destruction of a faction earlier then is historically accurate would of course cause far more serious alterations.

Now what I'd like is a "Hall of Fame" scroll in the campaign, that keeps track of the most talented generals and maybe governors that lived so far in the campaign. That I'd like much more then historically accurate people spawning from nowhere into an alternative history.


Mate there is nothing better than getting famous heroes to appear, it adds to the flavour of the game. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. Why bother having real factions, units etc? We are all going to end up conquering the world as one faction and that never happened so what difference would some heroes make? Struggling factions could do with some quality generals to lead their armies. Its nice to have some realism on that level. I agree with the HOF but the playing the original Medieval game the heroes really spiced up the game and i really hope CA have added them

[Orb]

Al-Malik al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali Shahanshah all the way.

We need a piety 10, dread 10, influence 10 Egyptian.

Sorry, I'll take my hero-worship outside...

[todorp]

Soulflame, thanks for the fantastic news. Straight to the point. Did you manage to take screenshots or make movies?

I am happy with

*Unit speeds and kill speeds have been decreases;

The fast killing speeds in the vanilla RTW almost eliminated the battlefield tactics. Many mods tried to rectify this problem by increasing the defence values, which lead to another anomaly. E.g. winning battles with inferior units vs. elite units just by staying on defence. I win with Numidian javelin man against Triarii in RTR! At the end I feel that it is an exploit and I feel guilty.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Al-Malik al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali Shahanshah all the way.

We need a piety 10, dread 10, influence 10 Egyptian.

Sorry, I'll take my hero-worship outside...

Want al-afdal shahanshah the idiot who kept being mopped up by the crusaders? Whats to admirable about him?

[Ludens]

Great job, Soulflame ~:thumb: .

[Soulflame]

Soulflame, thanks for the fantastic news. Straight to the point. Did you manage to take screenshots or make movies?

I am happy with

The fast killing speeds in the vanilla RTW almost eliminated the battlefield tactics. Many mods tried to rectify this problem by increasing the defence values, which lead to another anomaly. E.g. winning battles with inferior units vs. elite units just by staying on defence. I win with Numidian javelin man against Triarii in RTR! At the end I feel that it is an exploit and I feel guilty.

I wasn't allowed to make photos of gameplay footage, but the PR Executive would give me a link in the near future to a video and some screenshots (although I don't know if they are new).
I did make some photos from the people there and the 'scenery' (they had a medieval armor suit prop and the menu had medieval items on it, like 'Barbarian Burger' and such)

I'll try to get those up soon

[hoetje]

GJ Soulflame I appreciate what you've done =)

[AussieGiant]

Soulflame,

Thanks for spending a lot of your own free time to update us all here.

Cheers

[Dinsel]

Thanks Southflame.

But I was just wondering what is this shit about "bridges" between Ireland and Scotland, and Denmark and Sweden.

You only got a bridge between Denmark and Sweden in the 20th century. Whats this nonsence with bridges that cant exist?

[Orb]

Want al-afdal shahanshah the idiot who kept being mopped up by the crusaders? Whats to admirable about him?

Possibly his popularity but most of all -

The name.

[Ituralde]

Thanks for the great information Soulflame, it is really appreciated and clarifies a lot of things.

To some of the questions popping up in this thread I'd like to add my two cents:


But I was just wondering what is this shit about "bridges" between Ireland and Scotland, and Denmark and Sweden.

You only got a bridge between Denmark and Sweden in the 20th century. Whats this nonsence with bridges that cant exist

The 'bridges' he is referring to are land bridges, which are an abstract representation of local shipping used to pass small stretches of water, this makes them behave like modern bridges gameplay-wise, but that's not what they are.


ow what I'd like is a "Hall of Fame" scroll in the campaign, that keeps track of the most talented generals and maybe governors that lived so far in the campaign. That I'd like much more then historically accurate people spawning from nowhere into an alternative history.

There actually are some screenshots around that show the most famous general of your faction in your faction screen, while this sure isn't the feature you've envisioned it's still a beginning.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Mount Suribachi]

Thanks Southflame.

But I was just wondering what is this shit about "bridges" between Ireland and Scotland, and Denmark and Sweden.

You only got a bridge between Denmark and Sweden in the 20th century. Whats this nonsence with bridges that cant exist?

Landbridges were a feature of previous TW games. And watch your language ~;)

[SpencerH]

Thanks for the effort Soulflame.

[hoetje]

Thanks for the great information Soulflame, it is really appreciated and clarifies a lot of things.

To some of the questions popping up in this thread I'd like to add my two cents:



The 'bridges' he is referring to are land bridges, which are an abstract representation of local shipping used to pass small stretches of water, this makes them behave like modern bridges gameplay-wise, but that's not what they are.



There actually are some screenshots around that show the most famous general of your faction in your faction screen, while this sure isn't the feature you've envisioned it's still a beginning.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Can you give me a link to those screenshots mate? :balloon2:

[highlanddave]

not on subject for ... the answers, but

IMO the landbridges become essential for the computer ai to act rationally and effectively. the ai becomes landlocked often in the 1st medieval game if the bridges are removed. it has some trouble getting crusades to move to the orient across constantiople if there isn't a bridge. i remember many times even in rome total war the scippi and brutti would not act well with their fleets. they would not take advantage of their fleet advantages and they would not do seabourne invasions in any concrete way. many times i saw the brutti move armies up the peninsula of italy and back down the balkan side instead of just ferrying the army straight across to greece.

[Bob the Insane]

One option that's in is 'minimized ui', which basically removes almost everything from your battlescreen except the action. If you are able to work with that ui or you already almost certainly won, then it's nice

Woohoo for that... I always played RTW with this on...

Thanks for all the responses, that was great...

So, BI with better graphics, more religion, more factions and and such... But basically still the same game... Not a problem for me, I liked it in the first place...

[TB666]

A question to soulflame.

In M1TW you could you marry your daughters to your familymembers, can you do the same in M2TW ??

Yes I know it created some nasty children without a chin but it was a cool feature.

[Kralizec]

Actually I recall a discussion on this forum about incest marriages and their effect, the conclusion was that an incestious marriage was no more likely to produce heirs with "odd number of toes" and "inbred" then normal ones.

[TB666]

Oh really.
Guess I'm just unlucky :wall:

Getting the princesses together with their brothers was a nice way of getting rid of princesses that nobody wanted to marry but something tells me that it isn't in M2TW.

[Martinaz]

Soulflame youre great!

[Bob the Insane]

Getting the princesses together with their brothers was a nice way of getting rid of princesses that nobody wanted to marry but something tells me that it isn't in M2TW.


That provokes a thought...

If the Family Tree thing works much the same way as in Rome that means Princesses will most likely be the come of age but unmarried girls of all the generals/family members. Thus once you get fairly far down the tree you will start having second and third cousins wandering around (and in the case of adopted generals who then get married and have kids completed unrelated by blood). So the marrying princesses to members of the ruling faction will not be so weird. I wonder if the game will accomodate this fact and whether it is possible for it to see the difference between the princess that is your sister and the princess that is your 4th cousin by marriage?

[Ituralde]

Can you give me a link to those screenshots mate? :balloon2:

The Famous General can be seen in the faction overview scroll, the only screenshot I have found is the following of rather bad quality, I'm afraid, hope you can still make it out:
http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/eagleeyesix/screenshots/mtw04.jpg

The faction overview can also be seen in the newest Official Movie talking about Religion and Crusades. The faction overview appears around 2:12 into the movie. The movie can be found here:
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/medieval2/movie_3_religion_crusades.wmv.html

Hope that helped!

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Mount Suribachi]

not on subject for ... the answers, but

IMO the landbridges become essential for the computer ai to act rationally and effectively. the ai becomes landlocked often in the 1st medieval game if the bridges are removed. it has some trouble getting crusades to move to the orient across constantiople if there isn't a bridge. i remember many times even in rome total war the scippi and brutti would not act well with their fleets. they would not take advantage of their fleet advantages and they would not do seabourne invasions in any concrete way. many times i saw the brutti move armies up the peninsula of italy and back down the balkan side instead of just ferrying the army straight across to greece.

The AI is much better at seaborne invasions in BI.

[JR-]

*There are 21 factions, namely;
i prefer not to have starting factions

*Unit speeds and kill speeds have been decreases;
excellent news

*There are 8 Historical Battles planned
good news i guess

*A public demo is in the works and nearing completion
excellent

*They are aiming for minimum specs of; P4 1.8 Ghz Geforce4 128.
i would prefer they were higher, but i appreciate that won't suit everyone

*Generals can't be given titles like in Med 1
shame

*No eras like in Med1, there is only one campaign period.
not too fussed, but in the same manner as custom battles more variety is good

*Campaign battle replay... is uncertain.
do you mean battle replays or campaign replay, i am only aware of the former in M:TW?

[JR-]

cheers soulflame,

i'd love to see the answers to the modding questions.

particularly:
> max # of provinces
> max # of factions
> max # of unit types
> max size of map
> how christian/muslim reformation/schism events can be accomodated
> can we force linear multi-part year progression

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

*They are aiming for minimum specs of; P4 1.8 Ghz Geforce4 128.
i would prefer they were higher, but i appreciate that won't suit everyone


Can you tell us why? Don't forget, it isn't a 3D first person shooter. :laugh4: It is a battle simulation with 10k soldiers!

[Aquitaine]

I'm a little confused about the titles. I know that, unlike MTW/STW, you can't turn any old captain into an important person with a title, but what was 'broken' about the 'drag Duke of York to Lord Roos' system? It personalized your armies and your generals in a big way and it was one of the biggest things I felt was missing from RTW. The spontaneous appearance of 'Commander of the Armies of the East' and the like in RTW/BI was a half-hearted effort to put this back -- you had no say in who got the titles to begin with, and your generals had to be sitting around in a city to get them in the first place!

I guess I just don't see the motivation behind this change.

[hoetje]

The Famous General can be seen in the faction overview scroll, the only screenshot I have found is the following of rather bad quality, I'm afraid, hope you can still make it out:
http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/eagleeyesix/screenshots/mtw04.jpg

The faction overview can also be seen in the newest Official Movie talking about Religion and Crusades. The faction overview appears around 2:12 into the movie. The movie can be found here:
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/medieval2/movie_3_religion_crusades.wmv.html

Hope that helped!

Cheers!

Ituralde

Thank you very much mate :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

[Furious Mental]

"I guess I just don't see the motivation behind this change."

Probably to make sure governors actually stay in the places they are supposed to be governing.

[Aquitaine]

"I guess I just don't see the motivation behind this change."

Probably to make sure governors actually stay in the places they are supposed to be governing.

For what purpose? This wasn't necessarily historically true, and it's certainly not great for gameplay. If the Duke of York's troops were going to battle under the King, the Duke had jolly well be there.

Look at the bit in Henry V (okay, not the most historical document, but still) where they read off the names of the French nobles who were killed or captured at Agincourt. It's a long list of nobles who were present. Sitting at home (while maybe a good idea, if you were French around Agincourt) wasn't the norm.

[JR-]

Can you tell us why? Don't forget, it isn't a 3D first person shooter. :laugh4: It is a battle simulation with 10k soldiers!

i am a tech geek, i pay for expensive PC components and appreciate seeing it pushed to the max.

[Soulflame]

Peregrine_Tergiversate; those are not the only things I asked, I have more answers for you in I think the second page of this thread (I'm not sure if you saw them, but you only quoted the startpost of this thread).

As for the modding questions, I emailed them to CA England, who will forward them to their Australian collegues (who work on that and balance issues and the like), they said that it might take around a week to get answers on those questions.

[JR-]

many thanks Soulflame, i have seen the second page. :)

[Sirius 21]

Thank you for your excellent report, Soulflame. I'm guessing... maybe I'm stupid... but why did you wrote "Atari"? Maybe it's a silly question, but isn't M2TW published by Sega? Is Atari involved?

[Soulflame]

It's published by Sega, but in the Benelux, Sega doesn't have it's own office for distribution yet, so Atari does the Sega distribution there.
I was confused as well until they explained it :).

[Sirius 21]

Oh, sorry...

Did they explain how to unlock factions by modding? Is it a matter of a single txt file?

[A. Smith]

honestly, why bother modding it as soon as you get the game? simply do a short campaign with whatever faction (of the 5 available) to learn the ropes of M2TW then do a big campaign with the faction you really want to play.

[Soulflame]

They didn't know for sure since they always tested and such with all factions unlocked (which is why they weren't sure how the unlocking worked.. hehe).
I reckon it will be easily moddable though, and I for one will probably start with the Byzantines since none of the starting factions appeal that much to me.

[Sirius 21]

Smith, I'm in love with the Sicilians... maybe because I'm Sicilian! I must play them as my first faction, if I can...:2thumbsup:

[Vuk]

I for one will probably start with the Byzantines since none of the starting factions appeal that much to me.

Go Soulflame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Viva le' Byzantium!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[A jezy]

thanks man good job.


did they say anything about bribing armies.?

[Soulflame]

No sorry, didn't ask or hear anything, I assume it's the same as in Rome or they probably would have told so.

One of the gamesites who went to the same event has posted a video interview with one of the CA England guys. It's not much we didn't know yet, but I think there is some new footage weaved in there.
Also, in the final bit of the video, you can see someone standing in the back reading, that's me, going over some of the questions I still needed to ask :p;
http://www.insidegamer.nl/pc/medievaliitotalwar/videos/944/

[hoetje]

No sorry, didn't ask or hear anything, I assume it's the same as in Rome or they probably would have told so.

One of the gamesites who went to the same event has posted a video interview with one of the CA England guys. It's not much we didn't know yet, but I think there is some new footage weaved in there.
Also, in the final bit of the video, you can see someone standing in the back reading, that's me, going over some of the questions I still needed to ask :p;
http://www.insidegamer.nl/pc/medievaliitotalwar/videos/944/

Rofl indeed...You look quite busy :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[JR-]

any news on the modding questions yet?

[Soulflame]

Not yet unfortunately... I'll make another email today, hopefully they didn't forget.

[Slammer]

As i was looking at all of the movies i know the ones who are trailerswhat a friend asked was the close up fighting you see of them hitting with battleaxes and putting swords thru them is that game play or movie thanks

[IrishArmenian]

The video always freezes for me.

[Ignoramus]

I hate how you can only bribe units that you can recruit.

[Underdog687]

Cheers all good info

[tefo87]

can we play with the ottomans?

[Martok]

can we play with the ottomans?
Welcome to the Org, tefo87! ~:wave: CA has already said the Turks will be a playable faction, although they're not specifically called the Ottomans in the game.

[Lord_Phan]

Will you be able to assasinate your own generals?

Or with Spies put them on trial for treason?

I know Inquisators are Papal controlled now.

I run my campaign as a true Catholic King should, probably because I'm a true Catholic. I kill all Perverted Generals and eliminate those who are abusing my people. In Rome I couldn't do this(Maybe I just didn't know how?) and I found it quite disappointing to have to suicide them in a battle. Not my style, I don't want them dieing with honor, I want them eliminated for the people to see that evil will be eliminated in my Kingdom.


Thanks

Lord_Phan

[Polemists]

It really should be.

It honestly should be. While I know the main way to do this in MTW 1 was to inquisite them, I recall assination as a option. Spies could never put them on trail for treason, that's just not or ever has been in game. Spies just make there bad traits more public, so better used against opposition.


If you were clever and could use a spy on your own general you could try to find a low faith trait, and then put him near inquisitors I guess. Still recall there were quite a few uncatholic, bad, whatever generals who were highly popular and lost in battle, historically.


Anyway here's my question:

If you get your cardinal elected to pope, how much control do you have? Do crusade requests come to you now? Do you pick crusade targets? Do you control where inquistors go and who to excommunicate? I mean just how much power does becoming a pope give you?


I'm just curious

[Kourutsu]

Getting your cardinal elected makes your relations with the Vatican better. That is all I am afraid.

[Polemists]

So if I"m elected to pope all I get are good relations? I can't send inquistors, choose crusade targets, or excommunicate anyone?

Well i'll hope, I havn't heard anything official on this yet :P

[Peasant Phill]

It really should be.

It honestly should be. While I know the main way to do this in MTW 1 was to inquisite them, I recall assination as a option. Spies could never put them on trail for treason, that's just not or ever has been in game. Spies just make there bad traits more public, so better used against opposition.

Spies could put your own generals on trail and execute them. The less loyal your general was the easier it could be done.

[ToranagaSama]

4. Like I said before, kill speeds and run speeds are down. But I'm not sure if it's enough for the people who didn't enjoy it in Rome. If I had to guess (warning, take this for what it is; a guess..) it's probably a reduction of about 25-40% in kill speeds and movement speeds.
Playing the 2 Historical battles, I was able to complete and win both of them without using pause, while I used pause quite a lot in Rome's historical battles. I personally felt that the speed was pretty good in that I felt in control, without needing to pause the game, but also always having something to do or adjust.
Once more, this is just me personally. I think it might still be too fast for some people, but I guess that's inevitable.

Could you give a comparative analysis of the battle speeds?

a) MTW2 vs MTW/STW and/or the MedMod (if you've played it)

b) MTW2 vs. RTR mod

c) MTW2 vs the EB mod

Did your line hold, if so for how long? How would you say this compares to, a, b and c?

Did the AI present a coherent line, and did it hold its position; or did it advance its line in a piecemeal fashion?

Did the AI attempt reasonable and effective flanking manuevers?

Did the AI ***respond*** to your flanking or other type of manuevers? Did it **counter-manuever** appropriately?? Like the the AI does in STW and MTW?

For example, in RTW, I could place my Cav (or any unit) way out on the my line's flank and the AI simply would not respond, allowing the cav to zoom right past its line and into the its rear.

Also, did the AI utilize terrain to its benefit?

---

I find it stultifying that you are invited to a 'Preview Event', representing a 'Community' of gamers, and the representatives involved aren't capable of answering some of the most mundane questions.

BTW, perhaps I missed it, but you didn't say much regarding your experience playing on the Campaign Map. Any comments?

Thank you for your efforts.

[Furious Mental]

I don't think he was expecting the Spanish Inquisition

[JFC]

I don't think he was expecting the Spanish Inquisition

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!:whip:

[Soulflame]

Could you give a comparative analysis of the battle speeds?

a) MTW2 vs MTW/STW and/or the MedMod (if you've played it)

b) MTW2 vs. RTR mod

c) MTW2 vs the EB mod

Did your line hold, if so for how long? How would you say this compares to, a, b and c?

Did the AI present a coherent line, and did it hold its position; or did it advance its line in a piecemeal fashion?

Did the AI attempt reasonable and effective flanking manuevers?

Did the AI ***respond*** to your flanking or other type of manuevers? Did it **counter-manuever** appropriately?? Like the the AI does in STW and MTW?

For example, in RTW, I could place my Cav (or any unit) way out on the my line's flank and the AI simply would not respond, allowing the cav to zoom right past its line and into the its rear.

Also, did the AI utilize terrain to its benefit?


I only played both Historical battles twice because I didn't have time to play them more. Also, these battles are very scripted, so it isn't a very good sample. For instance, in Agincourt, France attacked in waves, and you didn't have all that much to do (nearly half your army was archers). So that was more or less just shoot and hold ground.
Also, 'how long my line holds' is really ambigious, some units had experience, some improved shields etc. It's almost impossible to judge that, I don't think I could even say those things with certainty about Rome.
The cavalry of the AI was more sensible then in Rome, I gave the example of the Pavia battle where they foiled the easy flanking plan that worked so well in Rome.
There also wasn't that much terrain to worry about. In Agincourt the main battle is flat with trees to the sides, and in Pavia, there are only a few small hills (on 2 of which artillery is standing and nothing else) so again, I can't say.
In Agincourt the battleline was maintained, but in Pavia there were multiple fronts that all acted independantly (as you start you'll be under attack from two sides), and there was scripting involved (like the king regrouping with the second battle line).
I actually never played with the EB or RTR mods, I was busy working on my guides and a Warhammer mod before I shelved Rome for a while and played WoW.
But relating to Medieval and Shogun, it's still slightly faster, but it is a definate improvement over Rome. That's all I can say really. I was happy with the speed, because like I said, I always had stuff to do while I didn't need to use pause (whereas in Medieval I usually played on higher then normal speed and in Rome I paused the game sometimes).




I find it stultifying that you are invited to a 'Preview Event', representing a 'Community' of gamers, and the representatives involved aren't capable of answering some of the most mundane questions.


It's actually pretty understandable. CA Australia is the main HQ for CA, there is where all the latest balancing and such goes on, and it was still being handled (and probably still is) at the time of the event.
And as far as the modding goes, that's also something they personally didn't have to deal with.
Although I'm also a bit disappointed we didn't get answers to all the questions, I am happy for the ones we did get.



BTW, perhaps I missed it, but you didn't say much regarding your experience playing on the Campaign Map. Any comments?

Thank you for your efforts.

There was no campaign mode for the demo, just one battle tutorial and 2 Historical Battles. They did show some of the campaign, but we weren't allowed to personally play it, and what he showed was very similar to the video's already present.

[Soulflame]

I got a reply from Ian today, which I thought I'd share with you



Hi Harm,

Sorry about the delay in response but, as you guessed, it's really rather busy around here at the moment! :)

Anyway, I did send your questions over to the Aussies but they're just too flat out to find the time to answer the questions, I'm afraid. However, I believe there is going to be something about modding on totalwar.com very soon - and I'll chase the Aussies up as soon as the game has gone gold to answer your questions in full.

Please feel free to chase me up on this regularly - as I'd be liable to forget otherwise! :)

Speak to you soon,

Cheers,

Ian



I think that's good news; they are working hard on the game and we'll soon get a few answers. :)

[Maizel]

OMGZ U GUTS CONNEXXIONS =O


Yeah, very good news indeed

Though it could be another 3 weeks before it goes gold

[JR-]

i look forward to the modding answers.

[Polemists]

though I agree considering the demo questionable fiasco, I am curious what going "gold" soon will mean, March 2007?

[Maizel]

though I agree considering the demo questionable fiasco, I am curious what going "gold" soon will mean, March 2007?
Going gold means that a game is at the point in its development that no major changes will be made to the game, everything is pretty much ready. usually the only step between a game going gold and shipping is quality assurance and some tweaking.

[Bob the Insane]

Going gold means that a game is at the point in its development that no major changes will be made to the game, everything is pretty much ready. usually the only step between a game going gold and shipping is quality assurance and some tweaking.

Actually it is step beond that... Going gold refers to the build that will actually be shipped...

[Polemists]

Haha I knew what the term going gold meant. My meaning was I am curious to see if when they say the game is going Gold "Soon" what time frame that soon will be. CA hasn't exact been doing to hot on dates and info for the game so far.

[Mount Suribachi]

I wouldn't want them to have a fixed date for going gold. The game should go gold when its ready and all the bugs have been eliminated, NOT when it meets some fixed arbitary date just to satisfy some unknown people on the internet who think a lack of fixed dates = incompetence.

If we have to wait till Christmas before the game is released, I'll actually be happier as it means they'll have spent longer tweeking/polishing/fixing the game.

[Lanfire]

Lol they are already doing the tweaking and stuff the game is nearly finished nearly ( gold ) i think they are ready in about 3 weeks.

[rory_20_uk]

Call me cynical, but in modern games, going "gold" means that the publisher wants the game out (be it close to a major season, or they think it should be ready). The game is then released, and those that buy it prepare themselves for the multiple (and sometimes massive) patches.

The compilation pack that is released often a year or more later (the "gold edition") IMO is the developers tactictly saying that is when they thought that it was ready for release.

~:smoking:

[Polemists]

I don't know, I personally think when it goes gold it will be ready. They don't need to put dates not be incompietent but why tell people all words like close, soon or what have you if you can't deliver. If you need another month, just say I need another month. Dosn't take a genius to know fooling people is when you get in trouble :wall:

[JR-]

going gold is when you provide the gold-master CD/DVD to the manufacturer for mass production.
it's that simple.
playing around with this definition would just be dishonest on CA's part, were they to do that.

OT: any news on the modding answers?

[TB666]

Gold happens around 2-3 weeks before release date.
And since the release date is set for 10-14 november, the game should go gold around 1 november.

[JR-]

hi Soulflame,

could you post a list of your modding questions which were never answered please, there may be an opportunity to re-ask them.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I was suprise there no were MP Questions answered, unless I was to blind to see it. Did you get any answers about MP, since I like MP more then SP??