Demo impressions and discussion (everyone please post here) [Archive] - Page 2

frogbeastegg

10-12-2006, 19:59

Not sure of the logic there - you can get it on preorder from Amazon for £25; I can't quite see why that is different from picking it up released. (Unless you have a very high return investment you could put your £25 into. :wink:)
Buying the game in a shop like that would be an impulse thing; preordering is a cold, planned thing. Cumulatively there's enough that curiosity could create impulse; there's not enough to make me put blind faith in this and coldly decide to buy. The price itself doesn't matter, except that a lower one makes me more likely to give in to the impulse.

Well, modders are sort of like my "money back guarantee".
Finding a mod I enjoy for RTW some two years(!) later is salvage. As much as I like GothMod I would far, far rather I had never felt the need to so much as look in its direction. I don't want to need to salvage M2TW - I want it to be enjoyable for me out of the box.

spong

10-12-2006, 20:29

the problem is iirc that in the game you cannot shoot the horses i.e knights never fight dismounted after their horses are shot

what happens instead is that very few knights are killed and the hail of longbow arrows is effectively completely useless against the french knights

i understand that is is a matter of debate as to how effective the longbows were at killing knights in plate armour, however i think it is not a matter of debate that they were an effective weapon against such knights whether this is through killing them outrighty or forcing them to dismount - currently this effectiveness is not represented in the game at all

the only way that I can imagine is possible to fix this at the moment is to make the arrows more lethal

that also brings up issues of the whole mounted/dismounted knights being seperate units or not. We had heard from somewhere at one point that it would be possible to dismount mounted knights, that foot knnights and mounted knights would not be seperate units. I'm not sure how reliable this is however, the demo would suggest this is not the case, does anyone know confirmation of whether this is in or not? If it was I would suppose that it would have been possible to have the horse shot out or the rider shot off and this would have an effect on gameplay. I personally suspect that this was just a rumour and that in fact foot knights and mounted knights are entirely seperate units, recruited seperately and all. Shame.

ShadesWolf

10-12-2006, 20:44

So im first impressions.....

I will need to mod Agincourt to make it MUCH harder.
First attempt average victory.....

What has happened to my beloved archers, what not wedge formation, how can this be?

And the balance was all wrong, not enough archers and way to few French.

Graphics are excellent though and my PC and graphics card performed well. The battle map loves lovely......

lars573

10-13-2006, 03:31

My impressions.

I can run the game at medium high setting. $478 for an X1900XT was money well spent. :2thumbsup: The new animation system makes the soldiers move and fight a great deal more like real people. I still dislike historical battles. So TW demo's will always be a test of my hardware at running the game.

Censor

10-13-2006, 03:40

Where did all the French go? It didn't even seem like I was outnumbered 3:2, felt like a 1:1 matchup. They should have pitted us against more frenchmen, especially given the low quality of the french troops.

IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer

10-13-2006, 05:56

I didn't really play the demo extensively, as I was pressed for time. But my biggest problem was this:

They made an *extremely* poor choice in the two battles they let you play. Instead of giving us a conventional battle with two large armies facing off to let us get a fell for our units, we get a completely scripted battle where we defend and they come at us in small waves, and leave us very little room for maneuvering. And we get a second battle, where we have an ally that alqays loses in 30 seconds, and then get swarmed by three different armies all over the map. I was disappointed that I only got to use one unit of cavalry the entire demo, and it was a bodyguard unit.

Wasn't really paying attention to killing speeds that much. I do know that in Patvia, my spearmen killed off the initial charge of French knights, and then went off to direct my knights around, and when I came back a minute later, my spearmen were at 36 men left in the unit. Are those Scots Guard archers really THAT good?

It was fun from what I saw, I'll revisit again when I have time. Agincourt was pretty crazy when they flanked me, and I never managed to win Patvia after two tries, which is surprising. I'm a bit out of practice with Total War, hell, I forgot how to maneuver the freakin' camera initially, haha. Skipped the tutorial.

screwtype

10-13-2006, 07:47

Welcome to the .Org, Nikolaos

Are you pressing Pause/Break? I did this to pause the game, and was irritated to find that it now shows the console as well as a hotkey list.

I just stopped using the key.

Uh, that is bad news. I sure hope they don't have this "feature" in the full game!

screwtype

10-13-2006, 07:50

Yes RTW introduced a higher boost in speed when charging compared to STW/MTW. That is still in M2TW and personally I feel the combination of charge, overall running speed and that command delay makes it too fast. Sure one can play with it, it just doesnt feel right.

CBR

I agree that the command delay really sucks. I'm disappointed to hear it's apparently been included in M2 as well.

If the game's got to be faster paced, the least they could do is have your units as responsive as they were in STW!

Wandarah

10-13-2006, 07:54

Apologies if I missed something.

But are reload times for fire arrows and normal shot, the same?

Bob the Insane

10-13-2006, 10:44

But are reload times for fire arrows and normal shot, the same?

Good question, previously fire arrows where slower but now I am not sure...

I do not think they do any less damage as a did a little test on Agincourt... I had retreated my army further back and fought the battle under some trees.

Due to the scripted nature of the battle the French crossbowmen were still on the field doing nothing where most of the fighting was done so a sent two full and undamaged longbow units forward, one for each...

Firstly they have a much better range. I sent one two fire arrows and the other to normal and they both decimated the crossbowmen at about the same rate.

Now I remember that the units using normal arrows ran out of ammo first so they may have been firing at a faster rate, though it did not check that they started the test with equal amounts of ammo...

The new fire arrows look great and a love the way the ones that miss stick in the ground still burning for a while...

Beirut

10-13-2006, 11:22

Just finished an excellent book on Agincourt (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1236758&postcount=229and) the author said all men were required to shoot ten arrows a minute and some could shoot twenty. Archers were required by law to practice on a regular basis. It was also mentioned that the bodies of English archers later disinterred showed they had bent spines and oversized skeletal structures on one side owing to constant use of the longbow. Apparently they took it very seriously.

As for the demo... love it! The graphics are pure Haagen-Dazs. My mid-range system is giving my good FPS and great visuals. This is a stunningly gorgeous game. I'm having some trouble organizing my troops, but I've only been playing for an hour.

Loved the graphic representation of Agincourt. Really great. Fantastic sense of immersion. Really looking forward to this game.

Kwartjuh

10-13-2006, 12:04

My max Units Remaining was 712.. i have a screenie, but i am too lazy to post it online :P

petersand

10-13-2006, 12:24

CA Staff News: 13.10.2006 from TotalWar forum.

CAOZ Official Demo News! Wow the forums are running hot with demo chat. I thought I better hurry up and address some of your concerns so you can relax and enjoy the weekend. As mentioned in the developer blogs the demo is a pre-beta build and since then the game has had over 2 months of polish and optimization. I am happy to inform you that:

� SSE2 is only required for the demo, the release version of the game will only require SSE.

� Most of the issues with the Athlon XP processor were fixed for the release version of the game, the single player game works fine but there are a few residual issues with multiplayer and as such we can�t officially support it.

� Regarding frame rate, considering there has been over 2 months of work on game optimization I think it�s safe to assume the frame rate in the release game will be better than the one seen in the demo.

I will be sure to keep up to date with the demo chat and try and address any additional issues requiring clarification.

Jason

Braden

10-13-2006, 12:45

Very glad to hear these updates, though, I hope that most of us considered that these issues were related just to the Demo version.

I think the addressing of the SSE2 issue was a major concern for many though so the update will be greatly received.

Thank you CA.:2thumbsup:

Dave1984

10-13-2006, 12:52

Archers were required by law to practice on a regular basis.

Still are, it's never been repealed. But like being able to shoot a Welshman within the walls of Chester, it's one of the archaic ones that doesn't carry any weight any more. Sadly. :2thumbsup:

Bob the Insane

10-13-2006, 13:04

But like being able to shoot a Welshman within the walls of Chester

It's kill, and only in the hours of darkness... :2thumbsup:

My favourite is that Oliver Cronwell banned Christmas and that law was never revoked either... :laugh4:

Dave1984

10-13-2006, 13:11

It's kill, and only in the hours of darkness... :2thumbsup:

Who's telling? :2thumbsup:

I think football is still illegal as well.

Braden

10-13-2006, 13:12

It's kill, and only in the hours of darkness... :2thumbsup:

My favourite is that Oliver Cronwell banned Christmas and that law was never revoked either... :laugh4:

....what's this "Christmas" thing? If its that thing that happens on December the 25th, well, that's Winter Solstice - well it is in our house.

and.....YAY! an excuse to kill Welsh people, but must move to Chester......hmmmm......Nope, sorry not worth it. :laugh4:

doc_bean

10-13-2006, 21:25

Finally been able to try this out ! I'll just point out some things I noted

-It's a system hog ! Compared to RTW anyway, I had to disable shadows and put everything on low, except unit detail on highest

-Graphics are nice. Landscape is a big improvement, grass detail is nice if your system can handle it. I do however thought the unit textures looked rather 'washed up'. Animations are great, didn't see many 'kill' animations though, might have to look closer next time. I definitely need my new PC if I want to enjoy this game.

-The battles themselves are heavily scripted, you don't really get an idea of what the game is like. The armies were a bit big for my taste for an introduction.

-I didn't get a good feel of the speeds. Kill speed does seem lower, certainly for cav.

-Fatigue doesn't seem so important, I had my zweihanders running all over Pavia and they were still able to put up quite a fight.

Overall, I'm pretty certain I'll get this game, eventually.

Chester

10-14-2006, 02:11

The screen shots here look much more lame than what I've seen before. I'm not forking out money for this game. I"ll get it in a year or so.

THanks for the screens, i had a feeling only a top notch cpu would run it at it's best. Prior to those screens I was ready to buy a new set up to support this game.

Mojo582

10-14-2006, 05:35

Ran the demo with evrything on max and ran like a dream on my AMD system which is 9 months old (AMD rules,no apology to pentium users :p) will give CA a gratz on the improved graphics,seems to me the speeds are just fine and one thing to get used to is allowing your troops to form up rank and file before executing their specials (ie. allow pike units to form up normaly before ordering them to form pike line) and for once it seems like you actually lose alot of troops regardless of the superior tactics empolyed by the player..(nothing like the enemy 1200 loss to your 35 men loss situations in RTW),nothing to complain about with the game though CA's vision for campain maps and a few other things receives limited appreciation from me,there is so many ways they could have made major improvements but it seems the "old gaurd" still remain there and so little has changed.

God would someone please fix the horses..has'nt the guy who designs them ever seen one let alone patted one???..anyways can't wait for the modders out there to get their hands on the game as i currently play RTR but never upgraded past 1.2 as never brought BI as was never interested in the expansion and was dissapointed in the RTR team for making it a nessecary to buy the expansion in order to follow their great RTR world,modders please take note of this in future expansions involving MTWII..so anyway again..looking forward to future worlds based of this latest engine though i must admit none have taken my fancy sofar (why do another rome mod???) would be nice to see a "War of the Rose" civil war style english mod similar to the Viking Invasion mod for the original MTW which im looking at atm,good luck anyway guys.

blahblahblah

10-15-2006, 07:35

Thought the game looked great graphically and choreographically. I had to play on the lowest settings possible, but the game still looked great there.

Kill rate is pretty slow, but still a bit faster than MTW.

Flaming arrows look stunning and they do a lot of damage in Agincourt, they were simply astounding.

Also loved the way of how my troops who fought downhill in Agincourt had very little casualties and major advantages. I'm no expert in this game, but seeing what happened I can see that terrain could play a major role in battles.

AlJabberwock

10-15-2006, 10:34

Appearance
We first played the demo on a bleeding edge machine meant to emulate the 7900GTX SLI set up seen on the SLIZONE site as a concept system. Having built it totally maxed out and pimped out in the last month or two it easily played the demo with everytihng maxed out with one video card tied behind its back (we ran it with and without SLI, and the single card never broke a sweat even when we shut its brother down).

IN this condition, the Demo is absolutely stunning and brought unconcious sounds to our lips as we looked at it. (you know like "wwwhoooaaa" and "wow" , and "Holy Guano Batman!") The grass, flowers, trees, detailed stonework and other details were engrossing as the non-clones ran, rode, fell across them. My son found it as engrossing as I did, as far as it went visually, and its ability to allow immersion in the TW world...

Gameplay, Kill rates, Speed
The limited gameplay and structured and scripted eventualities designed into the demo meant we both found it was not very interesting after an hour or thereabouts. The lack of anything really _to do_ caused it to pall quickly as it has for most vets.

We were also apalled at the fire rate of missile troops- particularly the bowmen. If this were not to be repaired, there would be virtually no missile troops in anyone's army playing this game except in the garrison of heavily walled fortresses. Kill rate appears a little reduced from RTW, and I agree with those who think this is a good sign. I also agree that either fire rates need to be sped up, or the run and charge speeds of all troops need to be reduced.

Delay of troops moving to special formation is to my mind ok in SP where you can hit the Pause button to tell off your 3 different types of special formation units to each go to that set up, but it will play havoc with MP if you haven't guessed well in advance what formation type you need for a unit - can't even imagine what this would do for a 4 way "last man standing". Combine this with the way in which all units begin to look like each other after a few minutes of close combat and I will expect some rather entertaining spectating (because I sure as heck would have no desire to MP under those conditions!).

We also felt the tutorial looked smudgey and dark, and while we were able to mess with the settings to make it look more like we would expect it to, it wasn't that bad, but probably would look worse on more limited systems.

Tech...No Surprise! ... Surprise!
It was no surprise to us that a GeForce 6600 (agp to make it worse, and running with a non 64-but-post-"A"-slot AMD) ran the demo with less pizazz, however, it ran flawlessly with nearly all settings on Max, and we were able to detect significant lag only when we deliberately tried to tilt the system (that set up has a 2gig AMD barely in the 1.4 range because of bios limitations of the board, and only 1.5 gigs of single channel DDR).

I was, however, stunned by those who stated they were able to run the demo at all let alone with anything above minimum settings with a G4 gen. card. These cards should not be able to support some of the APIs, particulalry the newest vertex shaders (and a few other things like DX version support and- hell, only TWO pixel pipelines!! should be problematic... ) that would be essential to the rich visual of the demo.

This has emboldened us to try a run at an FX5500 which was our self-imposed guestimate of where we would cut-off retro card use before we would begin to feel the need for a sledgehammer-to-the-monitor! We will post our finding for those above who are inquiring about FX cards, but as with all other cases, you need a decent CPU, RAM and updated drivers (sound drivers too!).

We will buy two copies of the game when it comes out. We will pay the full price at EB, whatever it is, and probably be standing in line when they open.
Yep.

Al Jabberwock

ToranagaSama

10-15-2006, 16:41

Well, last night decided to check in, lo and behold the demo is out!

Played the tutorial and 3 Agincourt battles. Holding my comments and impressions til I play a bit more later tonight, but just had to give my very first impression, to the makers and creators of Medieval Total War 2:

BRAVO! and THANKS!

ToranagaSama, Lord of the Kwanto, Master of Shogun and Medieval Total War, Conquerer of the MedMod, humbley bows down before you with praise and in appreciation.

I *think* I have my game back! Only, now I need a new PC!!!

Oh, to all, *Stakes* are pure CHEESE! Outnumbered by 700 men, after a few more battles I'm going to have a ridiculous kill ratio.

Oh yes, one last thing, re the AI, I know its just the Demo, but the AI is GREATLY improved over RTW, yet still needs a bit of work. At the highest difficulty level the AI s/b even smarter. For example, there is no clock (right?), so the AI should try to avoid the Stakes. Rather than charging straight ahead, it should attempt to flank the Stakes----particularly since the AI has a 700 man advantage!!

Hopefully, the AI is just trying real hard to effect the event of the Agincourt battle.

TS is out.

Bagpuss

10-15-2006, 18:25

I have a
Asus A8nSLI Deluxe Edition
AMD64x2 4400 dual core CPU
OZC 1GB
7800GTX 256mb

I have been playing the demo on all screen sizes an everything on maxed , with no probs , my very newbie question is what screen resolution "should" I be playing it on for best all round game experiance ?
I ask this because the game recommended settings were all set far lower than I have been playing it ???

The Spartan (Returns)

10-15-2006, 18:29

i got to play it at my friends house and i liked it.
i really like the good graphics and the slower kill rate. however i dunno if the ai changed because they were only historical battles.
i liked how cavalry arent unstoppable anymore and more realistic.
quite happy when 25 French chivalric knights charged into my 100 dismounted knights and lost.

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

10-15-2006, 18:40

What is the difference between Medieval 2 SE demo and medieval 2 demo?

Bob the Insane

10-15-2006, 18:43

So far i think there is only one demo and you are simply seeing different file names...

Are they not the same size?

If there was a second demo it would be all over these forums...

Ignoramus

10-16-2006, 02:40

I just played the demo. I found it very difficult to manage units in the battles. The unit speeds are still too fast in my opinion.

The grapics were awesome though, and I thought that the AI has been improved over RTW.

I ordered my general at Pavia to flank the French culverins; he did, but as he was doing so he got a canonball straight through him.

This looks promising.

ezrider

10-16-2006, 12:40

I have to say I was a little sceptical of the interface. It looked like a cheap rtw!
The battles look beutiful tho.

The game ran slow for me and it was hard to watch the troops up close. I had hoped to see some of the Attack combos CA talked about.

Agincourt was a little boring, my archers did little all damage. I got caught short when the second french general come round the rear. Lost a lot of good men out there but was victorious.
Parvia was much more fun. Those Scots guards took a lot of lead and the feared Gendarmes didn't hold up to Pikes in the Face for very long. I was disappointed to see my Spanish allies get whupped so quickly. All in all it was fun but I prefer the feel of RTW TBH

LOL :laugh4:

JR-

10-16-2006, 12:57

i currently play RTR but never upgraded past 1.2 as never brought BI as was never interested in the expansion and was dissapointed in the RTR team for making it a nessecary to buy the expansion in order to follow their great RTR world,modders please take note of this in future expansions involving MTWII

personally, i think it is a good thing that MODS use the expansions, as the expansions usually fix bugs and expose new functionality that the modders need.

look to all the major MTW modders and ask them whether they could have done what they did if they hadn't mandated that their mods run on MTW/VI v1.02...........

Lusted

10-16-2006, 13:15

Bi and the subsequent 1.5/1.6 patches for RTw/BI added in somethings that are necessary for osme of the things some mods want to do, eg change a factions culture. They just offer too many new possibilities for mods, as well as their bug fixes and ai improvements for them to be ignore by modders.

maestro

10-16-2006, 15:58

And complaining that these guys, who code mods in their own spare time and with no financial reward want to use an expansion pack to give you the best possible gaming experience, is a bit lame :shame:

Somebody Else

10-17-2006, 01:12

Hmm... downloaded, installed, played.

Nearly wet myself when the first battle loaded - fading in from the loading screen.

Whimpered a bit when the graphics started getting choppy, whimpered a bit more when they were still a tad choppy on lower settings.

Am now positively upset at having spent 2 hours playing when I should have been doing some tutorial preparation for tomorrow.

N.B. I did, of course, win all the battles - even with some highly suspect moves such as charging pikemen with my general at Pavia, or charging, well, everything, with my longbowmen at Agincourt.

Jambo

10-17-2006, 09:55

I think it's safe to say these two historical battles are stacked heavily in the favour of the player.

Prince of the Poodles

10-17-2006, 10:12

...not as much as the RTW one was... 8)

Dave1984

10-17-2006, 10:13

I think it's safe to say these two historical battles are stacked heavily in the favour of the player.

Well, a demo is an interactive sales pitch, and if it's too hard, or you keep losing, alot of potential customers are going to give up, say "To hell with this" and go and play something they can get their kicks from faster. There's not really room in a demo to allow the player to delve deeper into the facets of the game, you have to grab their attention and letting them win from the start is a better impression to give than having them lose until they master it, because, face it, mastering it isn't what a demo is about.

Little Legioner

10-17-2006, 10:23

Demo did not give me any idea about gameplay because it was heavy scriptipted.

Kill rates & movement speeds
Movement seems just a bit slower than RTW but not satisfactory. Kill rates are still high and it's gonna be annoying obstacle for hammer anvil tactics. May be the reason was scripts, i'm not quite sure about it.

We just need a custom battle for a real clarification.

And one more thing. Battlefields are gonna be smaller in camp battles. We should keep that in our minds. I mean that movement speeds gain much more importance in smaller fields.

Besides the "speeds" everything seems awesome.

bones58

10-17-2006, 14:26

I was never particulary bothered about the "Clone Armies", but now that troops have been individualized I now see the benefit of this new feature, albeit a purely cosmetic one.

Slyspy

10-17-2006, 14:58

The demo was rather too similar to that of RTW for my tastes. By which I mean it was heavily scripted and thus very restricted, offering no dependable indicator of actual gameplay. I made the mistake of buying RTW on the basis of a graphically good but gameplay light demo, but I shall not do so with MTW2. I'll hold off and see the general opinion seems to be. In fact I may not buy it at all, I was so disappointed by the lack of innovation and the apparent backwards steps taken by RTW that I have little confidence in MTW2. Especially since they release demos with little free flow gameplay and, crucially, no indication of how the campaign map plays.

Dead Knight of the Living

10-18-2006, 01:51

If the demo truly is an indication of what is to come I honestly am disappointed. I wont the Agincourt battle with VERY LITTLE effort. I basically left my army in place where they started and really only had to move 4 or 5 units.

The AI seems to be just as weak as RTW. Since I don't play multiplayer I was hoping for a more MTW like AI.

And I feel that there was an attempt to dupe us. At the beginning of the battle you notice the French have three units off to your left flank. If you're a beginner or not really paying attention it gives the impression that the AI tried to flank you or attack your rear. But that is not the case.

The flanking army was basically forced to take that road as it was scripted.

Now, had a few units from the main army broke off and tried to go around my rear I might have been impressed.

I feel I'm going to overpay for this game and get bored with it just as quickly as I did RTW.

Belgolas

10-18-2006, 04:04

Ares

10-18-2006, 04:42

They should put in a custom battle feature in their demos. That'd be better than the heavily scripted historical battles.

Slyspy

10-18-2006, 04:49

Well it is just a demo. Also if you let the AI take control of your army(Group the army the select the botton for the AI to take control) You can easily see that it is improved over RTW's. AI is also something that won't be finished until the final project.

You see i thought that it was "just a demo" with RTW, but it turns out that the demo reflected the gameplay quite well. If I had known that I probably wouldn't have brought RTW. Since the demo of MTW2 suffered from all the flaws I mentioned above, just as the RTW demo did, I have little hope for the actual game being of much interest to me.

The AI better be sorted now, because the game is about to be released. Has it officially gone gold yet? The graphics were great (though I did notice a number of french knights frozen dead in the "horse leaping the fence" pose and a few other glitches), but you need gameplay as well.

Plus I hated the music in the demo, it was the same sort of messy, Civilisationesque ambient trash that featured in RTW. None of the power and character of STW. I hope, but doubt, that the music has been improved for release.

The choice of demos for both RTW and MTW2 seems odd to me. Why release a demo which does nothing to showcase the AI or the campaign game unless the literally is nothing to showcase except for the fancier graphics. I mean when I play a TW game I spend most of my time on the campaign map, yet there is no chance to try that aspect of the game before buying. In RTW this would of course highlighted the fact that the AI is utterly unable to cope with the freedom offered by the removal of the chessboard style provinces as well as various other flaws which weaken the AI to the point where the only way the game can provide a strategic challenge is if they cripple diplomacy by making it worthless. The whole world against the player in other words.

TB666

10-18-2006, 11:21

You see i thought that it was "just a demo" with RTW, but it turns out that the demo reflected the gameplay quite well. If I had known that I probably wouldn't have brought RTW. Since the demo of MTW2 suffered from all the flaws I mentioned above, just as the RTW demo did, I have little hope for the actual game being of much interest to me.

Except there is a huge text in the beginning clearly stating that this demo is different from the final version.
It never said that in RTW~;)

Slyspy

10-18-2006, 12:43

Except there is a huge text in the beginning clearly stating that this demo is different from the final version.
It never said that in RTW~;)

Yes but different in what way? So different that the AI doesn't need scripting in order to play, or different in that the French units are a slightly different shade of blue?

TB666

10-18-2006, 12:50

Yes but different in what way? So different that the AI doesn't need scripting in order to play, or different in that the French units are a slightly different shade of blue?
Well for starters a huge freaking campaign map :laugh4: .
And then better optimisation, less bugs, more balanced and support for SSE.
The scripted AI is needed because it's a historical battle. The AI need to behave in a certain way otherwise people would complain that the battle isn't historical at all.
The new demo that will come out the 24th is based on a newer built and will feature the fixes above, atleast the SSE support that's for certain.
The AI will still be scripted because it is still historical battles, maybe a few tweaks but that's if we are lucky.

Puzz3D

10-18-2006, 15:21

The support for SSE is only for single player. SSE multiplayer is unsupported.

Barkhorn1x

10-18-2006, 15:30

You see i thought that it was "just a demo" with RTW, but it turns out that the demo reflected the gameplay quite well.

I want to look at the bright side here but he does have a point. With RTW I really thought that such things as the AI, kill speeds and atrocious voice acting* would be taken care of in the final release. Those thoughts turned out to be hopes un-realized.

If I could highlight just ONE thing that just about everyone on EVERY board where the TW series is discussed has screamed for the most; that would be a decent TAC AI.

Did CA finally get the message this time? Here I am again hoping that they did. But we can't really tell from the demo now can we?

*"CREEEESHIAN ARRRRCHEEEERS!!!" :dizzy2:

Barkhorn.

CrownOfSwords

10-18-2006, 16:27

OK ive had the demo for awhile and haven't really given an impression yet out even though ive been reading many of yours. At first I wasn't impressed at all by the graphics and frame rate my computer was producing.. (I have a decent computer 256mb radeon 2.8 ghz a gig of ram) everything i should need to run the game smoothly. Well after cleaning out my computer for a good 2 hours this morning due to insomnia... (thank you midterms).. I gave the demo another blow this time I figured just for the hell of it I would increase the graphics up pretty high and just see what it looks like on decent settings. Well I was really suprised to find my computer to be running the game smoothly the models look awesome I love the new variety in units also really looking forward to what our talented modders in this community can do with the game. But moving on from graphics.

Aside from the fact that the AI is completely scripted; which sucks I wish they couldve given us just one custom battle to play around with i'd get a much better feeling for the game. But i've found myself to agree with the weakness of cavalry, they have a decent attack I just think their defense needs to be beefed up a bit. I was dumbfounded when I flanked a unit of French pikemen at Pavia with my general's bodyguards direct from behind and immediately about half of my cavalry died. But at the same time im sure all of you have seen this considering its scripted the French gendarms have a pretty easy time cutting a hole into your pike line at the begining of the battle from a frontal charge. I picture more of a braveheart scene than that.. they really need to implement a horse rearing animation where a horse refuses to charge into a wall of pikes it would definately save the lives of alot of horsemen and add realism to the game.

I have a few other pet peeves like the French chivralic knights having such an easy time killing all my Zwei handers thats some major bs, from what ive read zwei handers were a sort of elite unit quite capable of holding their own against some silly french knights. I am also irritate again with how musket units operate in the game, it seems its much like MTW again. Everytime the jerks stop they have to reload again I mean cmon now when it takes so long to reload the guys need to be reloading on the move, would be cool even to see some men fire as they attempt to flee from melee.

screwtype

10-18-2006, 17:30

Everytime the jerks stop they have to reload again I mean cmon now when it takes so long to reload the guys need to be reloading on the move, would be cool even to see some men fire as they attempt to flee from melee.

You can't load a muzzle-loaded weapon on the move.

Barkhorn1x

10-18-2006, 19:31

I want to look at the bright side here but he does have a point. With RTW I really thought that such things as the AI, kill speeds and atrocious voice acting* would be taken care of in the final release. Those thoughts turned out to be hopes un-realized.

If I could highlight just ONE thing that just about everyone on EVERY board where the TW series is discussed has screamed for the most; that would be a decent TAC AI.

Did CA finally get the message this time? Here I am again hoping that they did. But we can't really tell from the demo now can we?

*"CREEEESHIAN ARRRRCHEEEERS!!!" :dizzy2:

Barkhorn.

But then again, CA never made any comments vis the AI in the RTW Demo being different from the AI in the release version. But now they have!! :2thumbsup:

This is from the latest Dev. Blog:

The message from you, the community was loud and clear. As a result in Medieval II: Total War, the difficulty settings will only affect unit morale, fatigue and AI. As the difficulty ramps up, the influence of morale and fatigue become more apparent with the “Very Hard” setting giving you the most realistic battle experience possible. In addition we have included AI mechanics that will give the AI a faster and far more intelligent feel. Best of luck to anyone that can beat the AI on the “Very hard” setting with a full 20 unit army. My advice is: if you are new to Total War and want to just get to grips with the controls start on the “Easy” setting, if you’re a veteran of Total War games opt for “Hard” or “Very Hard”. Best of all I am confident that “Very Hard” will ensure M2TW is going to sit in your PC for a long, long time, I can’t see even the best Total War Players winning on “Very Hard” without more troops.

http://totalwardev.blogspot.com/

Here I am hoping again. ;)

Barkhorn.

CrownOfSwords

10-19-2006, 00:37

You can't load a muzzle-loaded weapon on the move.

BS you cant maybe not at the run, but at a walk you could without a doubt.

Dead Knight of the Living

10-19-2006, 01:34

Well it is just a demo. Also if you let the AI take control of your army(Group the army the select the botton for the AI to take control) You can easily see that it is improved over RTW's. AI is also something that won't be finished until the final project.

I took your advice my friend. I ran the Battle of Agincourt with all units under AI control. The AI demonstrated that not only was it no better than RTW, but worse. Right from the beginning the whole army left the protection of the defenses and advanced towards the French. Why would you leave prepared defensive positions to confront superior numbers. Unbelievable.

Strike 1.

The Bowmen stopped firing their weapons and actually attacked approaching French Knights. Why even give them a bow?

Strike 2

The King was left unprotected in the rear. When the French detachment to the rear threatened one unit of dismounted knights was sent to defend the rear alone.

Strike 3

The French Cavalry charged into the wooden stakes even though there was no enemy behind them. Many of them were impaled to do what? Test their mounts nerve.

Strike 4

The second go around there was really no difference. MAybe if I had run it a third time I'd have seen that brilliant AI show its true colors, but I doubt it.

But I'm going to be stupid and buy the game anyway. I know it's a demo. And I'm convincing myself it won't be as similar to the real game as the RTW demo was to RTW. After all, what's 50 bucks anyway. I'll just blow it on fastfood.

Polemists

10-19-2006, 01:50

I guess I am the only person on this entire forum who liked the Rome Demo and the Rome Total war without mods haha :)

I personally like these games and that may because this is only game like it that I have ever seen done so well (didn't like imp glory or civ 4 much).

I think demo is good, the animations make me thrilled, there is still a thrill of seeing two units charge at each other. The graphics look good and when i get my new graphics card they'll look even better.

I enjoy the battles greatly but I buy these games for all the campaign events, story, and just the whole excitment of it. I love the demo, just wish my german calvary would not cut down infantry so fast so i could watch them get cut down haha :2thumbsup:

RabidGibbon

10-19-2006, 01:51

I've played Shogun, Medieval and Rome. I've enjoyed each in their own fashion.

When I heard that a demo for MTW 2 was out I googled it, and downloaded the result. I got trouble at every step of the way to get the demo I had downloaded to work, but eventually I figured it out and clicked on the icon. As it started I wondered why the peeps at CA had repeated the MTW 1 intro sequence. I thought that , maybe they were telling their fans they were getting back to their roots. Then the menu screen came up, and it took me a little while to realise I'd downloaded a MTW 1 demo.

Back to the drawing board, and hope I have more luck next time.

But still looking forward to MTW 2!

Polemists

10-19-2006, 03:11

You may want to try your download at fileplanet rather then googling it. Just a thought.

AlJabberwock

10-19-2006, 06:03

My friends,

Those that will be happy are usually those that are happy most times already, and those that will be unhappy are usually already in that condition. If a 50 dollar investment will be of such significance that it will change this state of being negatively, it is probably better not to spend the money.

As I look at MTW I and the demo, is there really a significant reason you would not prefer the new full game with even just promises of improvements over the demo? I love STW, as many do, but if there were an upgrade to 3d, I would surely acquire it. I also like RTW, despite its shortcomings because there is nothing else in the field like it. If they upgraded it, I would probably acquire that too...

On the other hand 50 bucks will not otherwise have much effect on my life, or my son's, except what it might make us imagine.

Al Jabberwock

Prince of the Poodles

10-19-2006, 11:24

I think those that are unhappy are so as a result of the serious downgrade in gameplay from the original two games to Rome. The pessimism expressed on the board is a direct result of the disappointment that was Rome. (I, for example, played MTW for 2 years every day that I was able to, while rome got about a week out of me.)

Of course anyone would love to buy MTW with a huge graphical upgrade, but substituting cutting edge graphics for sound, replayable gameplay isnt really an improvement in my mind.

Anyway, Ive already preordered MTW2, as I did with Rome, and as I will for every TW game to come no matter if MTW2 is as bad as Rome or not. However, if money was an issue at all, I definitely would not spend it on any other TW products until I read some reviews other players.

That is the legacy of Rome. :shame:

Jambo

10-19-2006, 12:46

Barkhorn1x

10-19-2006, 12:54

After reading a post about grouping all units and putting them under AI control I went ahead and did exactly that in Agincourt.

All I can say is here's hoping that the Tac AI in the release version is radically different from the demo as:

1. English units gave up all advantages of terrain - especially the archers

2. The 3 French units that attack from the rear got caught up in a line of stakes and just could not get through or around them - it was on the level of silly. The English had to come to them - only to be slaughtered.

End result: A close defeat for a battle that only a very poor human player could lose. It would not even have been that close if those 3 French units didn't waste their time trying to move THROUGH the stakes instead of AROUND them.

Barkhorn.

Puzz3D

10-19-2006, 13:02

I definitely got my money's worth with RTW, like I have with all TW titles, even though I don't actually think RTW's that great a game and stopped playing it a long time ago.
I didn't get my money's worth with RTW. I wasted my time in multiplayer because of the desync, and I wasted my time in SP because of the savegame reload problem. Our entire clan stopped playing Total War online because of RTW.

Jambo

10-19-2006, 13:23

One thing it pays to do is stay away from the forums and bug list threads post-release. ;)

As soon as I found out about the save-reload problem my desire to play RTW ceased and never returned even when it was eventually fixed. Before that I was enjoying Rome quite happily. Knowledge isn't always beneficial.

LadyAnn

10-19-2006, 14:26

I didn't buy RTW/BI *blushes*

Puzz3D

10-19-2006, 15:06

As soon as I found out about the save-reload problem my desire to play RTW ceased and never returned even when it was eventually fixed. Before that I was enjoying Rome quite happily. Knowledge isn't always beneficial.
You're actually taking the position that if you don't know about a bug it doesn't hurt you? Just because you didn't know about the load/save issue it still ruined your campaigns.

lars573

10-19-2006, 15:32

BS you cant maybe not at the run, but at a walk you could without a doubt.
You obviously know nothing about muzzle loading weapons. I'd like to see you poor powder down a barrel opening maybe 4cm in diameter without spilling any while walking. I'd also like to see you force an irregularly shaped lead ball down the same barrel while walking.

CBR

10-19-2006, 16:19

Jambo

10-19-2006, 16:29

You're actually taking the position that if you don't know about a bug it doesn't hurt you? Just because you didn't know about the load/save issue it still ruined your campaigns.

Not that it "doesn't hurt you", the point I was trying to make was that you don't know it hurts you! The difference is subtle but it can make the difference to whether I play the game or not. Ignorance can be bliss. :laugh4:

The same could be said for the bug involving primary and secondary attack values. Before that was known (and it took a while to discover), it didn't bother anyone. Once it was known it ruined a lot.

econ21

10-19-2006, 16:36

The same could be said for the bug involving primary and secondary attack values.

What was that bug? Was it fixed?

lars573

10-19-2006, 16:49

If soldiers already had poured down the gunpowder and then ordered to move I doubt they will empty the barrels and start from scratch when stopped.

Now that guns have a reload time of about 45 seconds, it has an enormous impact that they have to go through the whole reloading process after they have moved. It also doesnt help them that they apparently only can use a 2 rank formation for maximum effect.

When I compare the gameplay of say Samurai Wars mod (guns that has a reload of 21 seconds and 3 rank formation) and then the guns in the demo, I find the M2TW guns to be awkward and badly implemented.

CBR
21 seconds for an Anquebusier? :laugh4: The guys who made Samurai Wars mod are on crack. That's way to fast. 45 seconds might be too slow but 21 is way to fast for a matchlock. An 18th century musketeer using a flintlock and paper catriges with pre-measured amounts of primer and charge, and an ignition system that was 80% reliable could with experience and training get 21 second reload times. But not a 16th century arquebusier using a powder horn and a burning wick for ignition.

CBR

10-19-2006, 17:40

21 seconds for an Anquebusier? :laugh4: The guys who made Samurai Wars mod are on crack. That's way to fast. 45 seconds might be too slow but 21 is way to fast for a matchlock. An 18th century musketeer using a flintlock and paper catriges with pre-measured amounts of primer and charge, and an ignition system that was 80% reliable could with experience and training get 21 second reload times. But not a 16th century arquebusier using a powder horn and a burning wick for ignition.
The mod is trying to replicate the gameplay of STW, guns had similar reload in STW and MI. So yeah I guess we are on crack just as much as CA was back then.

Of course its faster than real life but then again so is the movement rates (Archers had a 4 second reload in STW/MTW which is also faster than the historical average rate of fire) Personally I dont care about details like that since so many other elements are not historical either.

What Im interested in is the gameplay and what numbers to use to get a certain effect. The guns in M2TW might be closer to real life rate of fire but they are facing troops that move faster than real life, cant use more than 2 ranks for revolving ranks fire and have awkward movement.

edit: in MTW handgun/arquebus had 30 second reload.

CBR

CBR

10-19-2006, 17:58

What was that bug? Was it fixed?
RTW 1.0/1.1 had the primary and secondary weapon attack values mixed up so units with a missile weapons also used its missile attack value as its melee value. It was only discovered by modders several months after the game had been released and IIRC the 1.2 patch was nearly done by then but was delayed to include the fix.

CBR

fallen851

10-19-2006, 19:04

RTW never exited the beta stage until version 1.5.

Puzz3D

10-19-2006, 19:28

Not that it "doesn't hurt you", the point I was trying to make was that you don't know it hurts you! The difference is subtle but it can make the difference to whether I play the game or not. Ignorance can be bliss.
It does require a lot of ignorance to enjoy the recent releases of Total War.

Puzz3D

10-19-2006, 19:50

21 seconds for an Anquebusier? :laugh4: The guys who made Samurai Wars mod are on crack. That's way to fast.
We tested various reload times for guns, and the playbalance suffered. The 21 seconds is optimal given the range of the guns and speed of the units, the balance with archers and the casualties inflicted per volley. If you lengthen the reload, you have to increase the casualties per volley and that depresses morale in the target unit. So, if you change the reload time of guns, you have to rebalance every unit in the game. Our objective was to restore the gameplay of original STW not make a new gameplay.

CrownOfSwords

10-19-2006, 20:15

You obviously know nothing about muzzle loading weapons. I'd like to see you poor powder down a barrel opening maybe 4cm in diameter without spilling any while walking. I'd also like to see you force an irregularly shaped lead ball down the same barrel while walking.

Are you joking? You think its really that hard to take a powder horn and pour powder into a barrel while walking? Hell I bet a parapalegic could do it. :no:

LadyAnn

10-19-2006, 20:44

I don't think loading gun while walking is recommended.
- try to pour powder into the muzzle while walking: practice this: pour liquid into glass without spilling while walking.
- you need to pack the powder too. And to do so, it requires you to stop.
- safety issue: you may not want to trip with a semi-loaded gun!

Anniep

Zenicetus

10-19-2006, 22:28

I don't think loading gun while walking is recommended.
- try to pour powder into the muzzle while walking: practice this: pour liquid into glass without spilling while walking.
Anniep

Aside from wasting valuable gunpowder, you'd also get some smoke and sparking if any powder spilled on the burning hemp match cord. Probably not a good idea, especially if you're trying to conceal the unit's movement. As it is, I read somewhere that early gunners were easy to spot, due to the smell of the match cord.

I do think it's a little silly that the reload timer restarts from scratch at the end of a move. It's going to encourage using these units more as static defense, and not so much for flanking or other tactical movement after the battle starts. Reloading on the run doesn't make much sense, but if enough time for reloading has passed since last shot, and the unit is commanded to move, the guns should be ready to fire as soon as they stop. That reload timer variable is being tracked by the game anyway, so why reset it with a move command? Maybe it's just a bug that won't be in the final game.

spong

10-19-2006, 22:35

Aside from wasting valuable gunpowder, you'd also get some smoke and sparking if any powder spilled on the burning hemp match cord. Probably not a good idea, especially if you're trying to conceal the unit's movement. As it is, I read somewhere that early gunners were easy to spot, due to the smell of the match cord.

I do think it's a little silly that the reload timer restarts from scratch at the end of a move. It's going to encourage using these units more as static defense, and not so much for flanking or other tactical movement after the battle starts. Reloading on the run doesn't make much sense, but if enough time for reloading has passed since last shot, and the unit is commanded to move, the guns should be ready to fire as soon as they stop. That reload timer variable is being tracked by the game anyway, so why reset it with a move command? Maybe it's just a bug that won't be in the final game.

Even the static defence option doesn't seem that viable from the demo, they just won't bloody stay in one place even on gaurd mode.

lars573

10-19-2006, 23:22

Are you joking? You think its really that hard to take a powder horn and pour powder into a barrel while walking? Hell I bet a parapalegic could do it. :no:
Perfectly serious. It's not the pouring that's the problem. It's the tramping down powder and ball and not getting powder on the match cord. Early fire arms had a tendency to miss fire. Usually when the powder went of pre maturely. You might be able to reload a arquibus prone however.

edit: in MTW handgun/arquebus had 30 second reload.
Which is much better for early firearms.

Our objective was to restore the gameplay of original STW not make a new gameplay.
Why would you want to do that? :inquisitive:

Martok

10-19-2006, 23:28

Our objective was to restore the gameplay of original STW not make a new gameplay.

Why would you want to do that? :inquisitive:
Because the gameplay of the original STW was the most well-balanced out of the entire TW series. None of the other games--not even my beloved Medieval--has come close to matching it.

lars573

10-20-2006, 04:29

That's a joke. RTW was the first time they got it half right.

CBR

10-20-2006, 04:40

Which is much better for early firearms.

Better in what way? For gameplay reasons or for realism?

CBR

lars573

10-20-2006, 04:56

It's the best split. It's ludicrously too fast for handguns though. The earliest firearms shoulded fire faster than 30 seconds.

CBR

10-20-2006, 05:08

So would you say 30 secs is better than the 45 secs we see in M2TW? And couldnt they just fire every 15 secs but with half the effect?

CBR

Prince of the Poodles

10-20-2006, 07:52

That's a joke. RTW was the first time they got it half right.

Wow... :dizzy2:

I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that, in terms of gameplay, RTW was the absolute worst of the series by far. :inquisitive:

Ares

10-20-2006, 08:47

Wow... :dizzy2:

I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that, in terms of gameplay, RTW was the absolute worst of the series by far. :inquisitive:

Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. ~;) MTW was superior when it came to the campaign map gameplay; RTW was superior in the battefield gameplay. Now hopefully, M2TW will combine both of those!

econ21

10-20-2006, 10:20

Let's not derail this thread with another MTW vs RTW debate. That's been done to death. This thread is for demo impressions only and is long enough without unnecessary padding. There's an Entrance Hall thread on which TW game was the best, so off-topic debate can go there.

lars573

10-20-2006, 14:51

So would you say 30 secs is better than the 45 secs we see in M2TW? And couldnt they just fire every 15 secs but with half the effect?

CBR
Because the less than reliable matchlock could under perfect conditions and good luck get 2 rounds a minute (barring missfires, which until flintlocks happen with an amusing requency). But 1 round a minute would be more likely. Since most things in TW combat are accelerated in some way a 30 second reload time for aquebusiers is the best split realism and gameplay.

Wow...

I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that, in terms of gameplay, RTW was the absolute worst of the series by far.
In what alterante universe is that true?

Puzz3D

10-20-2006, 15:02

Puzz3D

10-20-2006, 15:06

Since most things in TW combat are accelerated in some way a 30 second reload time for aquebusiers is the best split realism and gameplay.
That's exactly why 21 seconds works best in STW. Since movement speeds have been increased in M2TW, the rate of fire should be even faster than 21 seconds.

lars573

10-20-2006, 15:19

CBR

10-20-2006, 15:35

Welcome to 16th century pike/shot tactics. Fire 1 volley run behind the pikes/halbreds and reload.
If this game would be anything near 16th century warfare the guns would be using more than 2 ranks for revolving fire. 6 to 10 ranks were used to make a continuous stream of fire. Multiple ranks could form up close to fire one massive volley which was a feature of the STW/MTW engine but we dont know if that is included in M2TW.

CBR

lars573

10-20-2006, 15:45

The other school of though there. Which you use would really depend on what you have more of, pikes, or guns.

ProudNerd

10-20-2006, 15:48

Oh yes yes! Nearing Medium detail and it runs fine on my 1.7 Celeron. MWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quickening is a very happy man today. Very happy indeed!:2thumbsup:

lol it runs good on meduem on my 754 sempron @1.4ghz with 1gb ddr400 and a vanilla 6600! :dizzy2:

i just got a am2 3500+ 64bit tho with an asus M2V-TVM AM2 All-In-One Motherboard :D Too bad i need to get new ram and everything :no:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=008&item=180037990109&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

CBR

10-20-2006, 15:51

Is this the story with guns in M2TW?

1. Reload = 45 seconds.
2. Cannot reload while moving.
3. Any progress towards reloading is lost if the unit moves.
4. Only the first rank can fire.
5. Units cannot be put in less than 2 ranks.
6. If the second rank is fully loaded and moves to the front rank, it can't fire for 22.5 seconds.

From videos I've watched it appears that infantry can traverse noman's land in less than 22.5 seconds. If so, that means an infantry unit could time its advance so that it takes one volley at maximum range and then takes no more volleys before closing with the gun unit for melee.
TBH guns are pretty frustrating to test in the demo. They fire off one salvo, then stand still a bit for reloading and then suddenly starts marching to face another target. At least it appears that after a unit moves it manages to remember that second rank had partially reloaded so you only have to wait those 22 secs or whatever it is. Or the game engine simply assumes second rank has half reload time.

Im pretty sure they have a reload of 45 seconds although sometimes it is difficult to get a gun unit to stand still and just fire and reload for more than one cycle. Effectively I had reload rates much slower than 45 secs in a few tests I just did, as they kept on turning and delayed their fire.

If the guns works this way in the final release I really cant see why anyone would even bother with guns. Just buy some more melee units, ctrl+a and charge the enemy, faster and less frustrating.

CBR

CBR

10-20-2006, 15:53

The other school of though there. Which you use would really depend on what you have more of, pikes, or guns.
Could you clarify please?

CBR

Viking

10-20-2006, 16:01

First impression of demo: it's teh s3x0r :2thumbsup:

I'll play some more now.

Puzz3D

10-20-2006, 16:49

Welcome to 16th century pike/shot tactics. Fire 1 volley run behind the pikes/halbreds and reload.
You can't use that tactic in the game because the guns will go into a reload cycle when you move them out in front. You also can't move a single rank which is the only rank that can shoot.

LadyAnn

10-20-2006, 17:29

Wonders if they would fix that?
I remember we asked for having guns pre-loaded: the first volley would not need to wait for loading cycle (soldiers can carry loaded gun even when walking). You only need to stop long enough to reload the guns subsequently.

Anniep

lars573

10-20-2006, 17:37

Could you clarify please?

CBR
I heard 16th/17th century warfare described once like this. Catholic infantry was mostly pikes, with the guns supporting them. Either with a volley in front of the pikemen before the other line closed or on the wings shooting into the pikemen. But the main point of decision would be a pike shoving match. Also you'd have sword/buckler men as anti-musket infantry. Protestant infantry was the inverse, used mostly guns with pikes or halbreds as anti cav support on the flanks.

AussieGiant

10-20-2006, 19:41

RTW movement speed was 50% faster than STW, and you have 25% more units to control. In addition to that, units routed on contact in RTW. M2TW movement speed is now reduced almost all the way back to STW speeds.

I'm now a very happy man.

Great news Puzz.

Cheers,

edyzmedieval

10-20-2006, 20:36

I got the Special Edition demo from Amazon, and I've played it. The battlemap parts look very exciting, but I am keeping my doubts about the AI and it's diplomacy.

ProudNerd

10-20-2006, 21:23

maestro

10-20-2006, 22:04

I got the Special Edition demo from Amazon, and I've played it. The battlemap parts look very exciting, but I am keeping my doubts about the AI and it's diplomacy.

You did? The new one? That's out on Tuesday? Screenies? :dizzy2:

ProudNerd

10-21-2006, 02:33

I found it very enjoyable but I cant comment on the graphics because of my awful specs. there are allot of different tactics in each battle an the sound is absolutely spot on! I have nothing but high hopes for the full game and will defiantly be buying it :2thumbsup: I just wish i coudl ahve seen the enhanced demo instead..

ProudNerd

10-21-2006, 02:39

I should say a bit more. One of the things I liked best was the sprawling battle fields they are just so hugely varied and even the dark sky and much better looking clouds add to the darker grittier feel of the demo, compared to the somewhat brightly coloured Rome. Its also nice to see rolling realistic hills back they really make using longbows fun! The combat animations aren’t really what I was expecting. they are too subtle and hard to see and a lot of them don’t seem to have a feel of force and impact as I was expecting. Still im sure it will be far more polished in the final release.

sorry about another post. I hope ican edit them when im a member. As well as post in hard and software..tech is my life.

CBR

10-22-2006, 14:54

I heard 16th/17th century warfare described once like this. Catholic infantry was mostly pikes, with the guns supporting them. Either with a volley in front of the pikemen before the other line closed or on the wings shooting into the pikemen. But the main point of decision would be a pike shoving match. Also you'd have sword/buckler men as anti-musket infantry. Protestant infantry was the inverse, used mostly guns with pikes or halbreds as anti cav support on the flanks.
16th century was a century full of tactical development and for that matter it continued throughout the 17th century too. AFAIK The Dutch, Swedes and English used more guns than the Spanish at one point(late 16th to early 17th century) but the actual use of guns were not that different: revolving ranks, skirmishers, guns operating as independent units or nearby the pikes, all that was more or less the same.

My main complaint is how the guns are implemented and how to use them in M2TW. They seem to require more micromanagment and even then they seem to not work very well with all that moving around and constantly reloading.

That the formation apparently only uses 2 ranks has some serious implications for gameplay too. If we look at STW/MTW then such units were 60 men units on normal and 120 on huge, compared to 200 men max for the large melee units in MTW. So in MTW on huge you had guns of 120 men in 3 ranks and the men using about 1.2 meters each (normal heavy infantry is 1 meter only)

In M2TW we have 240 men max on huge setting (I assume huge is same as RTW) and guns are 192 men and I think guns now use 1.5 meters per men. That means on huge setting guns will be 96 men wide instead of 40 in MTW and the actual width would be around 144 meters wide instead of 48 meters in MTW, so thats 3 times as wide gun units whereas the melee units havent changed much (240 instead of 200 men)

But instead of looking at my dry numbers just try Pavia again and imagine your guns are twice the size and compare them to your pike units.

It will not change much to play with smaller unitsizes either. Its preferable to use melee units in 4+ ranks so gun units will always be wide and awkward to use. At least for archers you can use much deeper formations but as it looks right now the guns have been utterly screwed. And with longbow reload of 15 seconds, missile units in general are pretty bad IMO.

CBR

edyzmedieval

10-22-2006, 15:57

You did? The new one? That's out on Tuesday? Screenies? :dizzy2:

Huh? I downloaded the demo from Amazon, and it says Special Edition on it...
What should be new?

Lusted

10-22-2006, 16:17

The 2nd demo isn't out yet, its out on the 24th.

Cheetah

10-22-2006, 16:17

missile units in general are pretty bad IMO.
CBR

It all depends on the cost. If missiles are cheaper than melee units then they will be widely used even if they are "not as good" as some of us might expect.

Also, why do you want to play on huge size? ~;p Everyone will be playing on normal. ~;)

Last but not least I would contest the statement that they are pretty bad. Kills from Pavia:

GB 152
pikes 77
pikes 42
Arq 21
Arq 39
Halbs 36
Halbs 28
ZweiH 166
ZweiH 45

Basicaly the arquebus units got as much kills as the halberds (of course one should credit the halberds with fighting better opposition: gendarmes and dismounted knights, though arqs were fighting some melee too). Also one should consider the morale effect. Whether this should be considered as efficient or not crucially depends on the price of the units. So, as long as we dont know the price it is really hard to say anything whether they are "good" or "bad".

Kills from Agincourt:
King: 60
DM Knights: 108
DM Knights: 107
DM Knights: 95
DM Knights: 143
Billmen: 32
Billmen: 54
Y.Archers: 107
Y.Archers: 48
Y.Archers: 33
Y.Archers: 40
Y.Archers: 73
Y.Archers: 71
Y.Archers: 39

Archers got an average of 58, not bad IMO, comparable to elite archers in MTW. Add the fact that they were shooting heavily armoured troops most of the time. Again, cost will be crucial but their kills seem to be fine.

CBR

10-22-2006, 18:03

Also, why do you want to play on huge size? ~;p Everyone will be playing on normal. ~;)
I guess "everyone" missed this poll (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1282) then or this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51415&page=2&highlight=unit+size)

Last but not least I would contest the statement that they are pretty bad.
Just remember that you are looking at kills for scripted battles. At Agincourt the French are attacking in silly waves that cant even cover the whole front, which gives your archers more time to deliver shots into the flanks of enemy units. And the archers who happens to get into melee have a high valor compared to the French.

Unit cost and upkeep might be one reason to include some units in armies, but lower cost and upkeep never made me buy crap units in MTW or RTW. M2TW now has limited recruitment for different units, and if you discover that you can get just as many archers as some basic militia unit then yes maybe the archers will be the best, if you cant fill your army with knights or other elite units that is.

CBR

Aracnid

10-22-2006, 21:24

I know that the AI is heavily scripted but on Pavia and Agincourt the French cavalry seem intent on charging straight into either my pikes, stakes or billmen, the never seem to deviate a tiny bit.

Without wanting to get to detailed on Agincourt towards the end of the battle you get attacked from behind by three French cavalry units. Everytime I see them coming a move two melee units to face the road the arrive on. Every time they charge these units. They don't try and avoid them and hit my archers in the back, they just charge the dismounted knights/billmen, why is this? It is suicidal. I get that the frontal attacks are scripted and to be fair the French don't have much choice, but in almost any circumstance French knights auto-home on pikes or units that can beat them and avoid nice juicy musketmen and archers.

Edit:Also I always use huge and mod my graphics settings to allow that. I play the Total War series so I can send vast armies into battle, whats the poin of having a full stack army if on the battlefield its abou 400 men?

Slyspy

10-22-2006, 22:19

Errr you answered your questions about the Agincourt demo yourself in your opening sentence.

Dead Knight of the Living

10-23-2006, 11:43

Wow... :dizzy2:

I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that, in terms of gameplay, RTW was the absolute worst of the series by far. :inquisitive:

That's my opinion. I bought Barbarian Invasion a few months ago. That sucked even more. Hated it.

I'm playing MTW1 right now. And I still love that game.

Basilios II Voulgaroktonos

10-23-2006, 11:49

I also like more MTW1 than RTW but tahts i think because i love the era of the game.i think its not that in grafics,ingameplay,inbattle,in strategy and other is better that RTW.maybe all like it more becvause of the medieval ages and not that RTW is really awfull and the worst of the series.In the end i believe that in judging conditions RTW is better in everything against MTW1 but MTW1 is coolest and more fun playing...

Mars

10-23-2006, 14:30

About guns...

As im a "happy" SSE user....

how the targeting works?
As far i understand it, u select a unit, the gun start to reload, than after 45 sec, they shoot.

They restart reloading, if u change the target?

If yes, the whole system is more than a joke...move one unit in....let guns go autoreaload, than after 35-40 sec u move out.

I assume, that the missles also dont walk behind units anymore and try to "catch" them?!?

I also did read some of this "blog" from pala, it really makes me worry, if i read about the routingsystem.

1. no chainrouts, or almost no chains anymore
2. if 1 unit rout, the nearby units are not effected
3. to recover a units need 150m !!!! unless u can chase a single unit :P

Well, the best in the old days was, that u could win 1v2 or 1v3. Now when i read this, it clearly tell me, that u end with big losses all the time, it also tells me, that much movement...outmaneuver is quite useless.

Does we face a frontal attack -Game?

When i look at the cav, down to charge and than no big point anymore, than flanking is kinda useless as well, especially when u read about the routing...
How usefull it is to move a cav in the back of ur enemy, if u hardly can rout something?

I already see some heavy static playstyle incoming, low movement, frontal attacks, boring fights....exlpoits out of the missles and down to mucho melee.

This fatique problem also didnt hit my expectations, basically we are back to the old system, if u play on "hard". Especially this settings i dont get, its only for SP or also for MP?

And can u see what settings u join or are u surprised once the game started?

The recover of fatique seems to work like STW, at a certain stage u wont get higher than "2bars". Im quite interested how far u can move till u lose 1 bar.

All in all, it looks dissapointing till now, i nearly lost the lust to even test it and i couldnt play it at all yet :/

MArs

Puzz3D

10-23-2006, 17:06

how the targeting works?
As far i understand it, u select a unit, the gun start to reload, than after 45 sec, they shoot.

They restart reloading, if u change the target?
Although I haven't played the demo, I think that's correct except it may only take 22.5 sec to shoot if the guns are in 2 ranks. In anycase, 22.5 sec is still too long if the open fire range is about 100 meters because an infantry unit in M2TW can cover that distance in 22.5 sec since the run speed in M2TW is still somewhat higher than STW/MTW and charge speeds are much higher. In STW, you had 21 sec reload, and 3 rank fire gave a 7 sec rate of fire. Infantry units ran and charged at 135 meters/minute (NI), 168 meters/minute (YS and SA) or 210 meters/minute (YA, ND and WM) which gives 44 sec, 36 sec and 29 sec respectively to cover 100 meters. That means all of the men in the gun unit get to shoot at incoming infantry either in 3 ranks or 2 ranks (full volley) even if you retarget at max range as long as the gun is not in skirmish mode. Even in skirmish mode you'll get off a couple of volleys when in 3 ranks.

I assume, that the missles also dont walk behind units anymore and try to "catch" them?!?
That is an issue in the old engine. Since RTW, running seems to work well and, in fact, it's best to run all the time since the fatigue rate for running was very low.

I also did read some of this "blog" from pala, it really makes me worry, if i read about the routingsystem.

1. no chainrouts, or almost no chains anymore
2. if 1 unit rout, the nearby units are not effected
3. to recover a units need 150m !!!! unless u can chase a single unit :P

Well, the best in the old days was, that u could win 1v2 or 1v3. Now when i read this, it clearly tell me, that u end with big losses all the time, it also tells me, that much movement...outmaneuver is quite useless.

Does we face a frontal attack -Game?
I don't know, but, if the overall morale is too low, the game becomes a rout fest and there is no possiblity of hammer and anvil tactics in team games because a 2 on 1 instantly routs the anvil. This means the armies have to stay close together which actually reduces the tactical possibilities. I would say the anvil should be able to hold for 2 or 3 minutes. If the ally arrives within a couple of minutes, the hammer and anvil tactic works, and if he doesn't it fails. The player who is the anvil has to be a good defensive player. He can't just stand there and do nothing.

I think a balance is needed between maneuver and attrition. In Samurai Wars we have carefully adjusted this balance so that, for example, 2 YS (cost 400 each) beat 1 WM (cost 1000) if the 2 YS use maneuver and one hits the WM from behind while the other fights frontally. Also, a spear will be routed by cavalry if the cavalry hits the spear from behind. However, it's quite difficult for 1 player to beat 2 players because the 1 player doesn't have enough units to chase off 2 player's scattered units. Also, since the maps are large, a player's units get tired chasing routers. So, even if a player beats 1 player by a lot, his units will be tired after chasing, and it will be very difficult for him to beat a 2nd player who has a fresh army.

We don't have any beginners playing Samurai Wars so there isn't a big difference in skill between the players. At most we have one player who is very used to playing high morale games in MTW, and is still adjusting to the lower morale of Samurai Wars. I've seen loosing players gets less than 300 kills, but I haven't seen a loosing player get only 50 kills. The armies start with 960 men.

I don't really see the point of making the gameplay so that 1 player can beat 2 or 3. The 1 player has allies, and he should be working together with those allies. If you're concerned about coming back from a situation where your allies were wiped out and did practically no damage to the enemy, that won't happen if the gameplay has attrition and doesn't have instant routs. It means it's less likely that 1 player can sit back, let his allies die and then come back to win it, but, as far as I'm concerned, that strategy isn't in the spirt of the game which should be to work with your allies.

Phil17

10-23-2006, 23:01

The demo I think was amazing :beam: and its good to see the medeval setting again. The graphics looks brillant and the new animations really add a new dimension of relism, well to some degree :yes:
I cant really comment on the AI etc since it was apparently scripted :dizzy2: but i found both the battles fun and immersive....as i did with all the other games in the series.
I positive this edition in the series will be just as good or better than any of the others, in terms of gameplay. And for me its a definite purchase. :smash:

Aracnid

10-23-2006, 23:18

Its not just on Agincourt that the French knight auto home on pikes, On Pavia having beaten the forces from the camp the guys next to the manor come and attack you.
Having beaten the first attack in my starting formation I put my pikes across the small hill next to the forest facing the manor, to their left I put my arquebusers with nothing in front of them, because this was an experiement the rest of my army was either killing the scots guard, chasing the routing cavalry or 200 meters behind my line. The Cavalry went straight for my pikes, charging uphill, ignoring a units of unguarded arquebusers.
The French charge at Agincourt is scripted, and unless the have scripted all AI cavalry to charge pikes (which imho is unlikely) and they couldn't have predicted that the French cavalry would be faced between a choice of arquebusers and pikemen, this means they wouldn't have scipted anything, so the AI (which I assume will be the same in the real game as in the demo) choses suicide over ripe targets.

Cheetah

10-24-2006, 01:46

I guess "everyone" missed this poll (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1282) then or this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51415&page=2&highlight=unit+size)

Well, first of all I was joking as I know that you prefered huge in RTW. ~;) Second, you are talking about SP and I was talking about MP (as usual). The two things are completely different as we know. In SP you can play on whatever setting your comp can handle, on MP there are norms, rules and tourneys so it is much more difficult to depart from the "norms". Third, your poll and thread is about RTW not medieval, and just shows my previous point, i.e. even though SP-ers voted for large and huge, MP-ers used normal size more frequently (either because of fear of lag or because of tourney rules, etc.). Fourth, MTW2 normal size will be larger than that of RTW so in a comparable poll I would expect more people to vote for normal.

Just remember that you are looking at kills for scripted battles. At Agincourt the French are attacking in silly waves that cant even cover the whole front, which gives your archers more time to deliver shots into the flanks of enemy units. And the archers who happens to get into melee have a high valor compared to the French.

Unit cost and upkeep might be one reason to include some units in armies, but lower cost and upkeep never made me buy crap units in MTW or RTW. M2TW now has limited recruitment for different units, and if you discover that you can get just as many archers as some basic militia unit then yes maybe the archers will be the best, if you cant fill your army with knights or other elite units that is.

CBR

All I want to say that without knowing certain key factors, such as the price of units, it might be a bit premature to conclude that "missile units are pretty bad".

screwtype

10-24-2006, 01:48

Puzz, how come you haven't played the demo yet?

Cheetah

10-24-2006, 02:00

About guns...
I also did read some of this "blog" from pala, it really makes me worry, if i read about the routingsystem.

1. no chainrouts, or almost no chains anymore
2. if 1 unit rout, the nearby units are not effected
3. to recover a units need 150m !!!! unless u can chase a single unit :P

Well, dont worry be happy. ~:)

1, What Pala said that there will be no instant chainrouts in the first 5 secs of the battle (like in RTW). No one likes a game where you deploy for a 10 mins and then routed off the field in 5 secs.
2, This holds for fresh units, see above reason. I assume that tired units will be more prone to chainrouts.
3, Well, in both MTW and RTW (and in BI) units recover if you dont chase them. It does not sound to be a big change.

Well, the best in the old days was, that u could win 1v2 or 1v3. Now when i read this, it clearly tell me, that u end with big losses all the time, it also tells me, that much movement...outmaneuver is quite useless.

I assume it was in STW, right? If so it was due to the musketeers. It was not possible in MTW, and it is not possible in BI. Also I dont see why manouvering would be useless, it is definitely not useless in the demo.

Does we face a frontal attack -Game?

I already see some heavy static playstyle incoming, low movement, frontal attacks, boring fights....exlpoits out of the missles and down to mucho melee.

All in all, it looks dissapointing till now, i nearly lost the lust to even test it and i couldnt play it at all yet :/

MArs

I see that you could not play the demo. Well, Agincourt is definitely a frontal attack game but Pavia is not.

I am a bit more optimistic than you. ~;)

CBR

10-24-2006, 02:07

Puzz, how come you haven't played the demo yet?
He has a AMD 2400+

I did send him a 80 MB vid of me playing Agincourt though :beam:

CBR

ProudNerd

10-24-2006, 02:14

That's my opinion. I bought Barbarian Invasion a few months ago. That sucked even more. Hated it.

I'm playing MTW1 right now. And I still love that game.

its hard to belive this is a tw forurm all you do is spam about how much you hate TW and how much you will hate the future games. RTW was an insane amount of fun. It crapped all over mtw.

CBR

10-24-2006, 03:14

Well, first of all I was joking as I know that you prefered huge in RTW. ~;)
In my few MP battles I had I found large to be the best for gameplay. When I got a new PC I went from large to huge in SP.

Second, you are talking about SP and I was talking about MP (as usual).
Yes of course there is a difference but that doesnt change the fact that most players are SP and a majority prefers to play on large or huge. AFAIK huge units of 240 men are still in M2TW so I fail to see why some people suddenly would lower their size setting except for lag.

No matter what cost the guns have they are still very awkward and has an outright bugged feel about them. Archers and crossbows are most likely better (at least in the tests I have done) so there is more use for them if their cost is ok.

CBR

PwnageBot2000

10-24-2006, 04:46

Did anyone know what was up with the militia halberdiers in the battle of pavia?? They seemed to have been reluctant to attack. Could this be a bug in the game? or the fact that they are "militia" halberdiers
And i didn't get why they had a "spear wall formation", it made them vulnerable instead!!

Dead Knight of the Living

10-24-2006, 13:59

its hard to belive this is a tw forurm all you do is spam about how much you hate TW and how much you will hate the future games. RTW was an insane amount of fun. It crapped all over mtw.

I'm sorry, I was posting from America and not Iran. I thought free speech and the offering of opinions was a legitimate practice in this country. I'll be sure an run my posts through the Ministry of Information next time so I don't accidentally post an opinion you don't like.

And if you read the title of this thread it is your impressions of the demo. I gave my impression of it and my impression is that the AI sucks. THe comment you quoted me saying was in response to an opinion given by another member. Responding to what another member already posted is not spamming.

But, just so you don't turn me into the Ministry of Information to have my head cut off I'll change my opinion just for you..... OH I LOVE THE AI IN THE DEMO. IT WAS GREAT. OH, AND RTW WAS EONS BETTER THAN MTW1.

THere, is that better.

Puzz3D

10-24-2006, 14:12

Puzz, how come you haven't played the demo yet?
AthlonXP, but CBR sent me several videos illustrating the gameplay of the demo.

Nobunaga

10-24-2006, 16:26

Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I don't really see the point of making the gameplay so that 1 player can beat 2 or 3. The 1 player has allies, and he should be working together with those allies. If you're concerned about coming back from a situation where your allies were wiped out and did practically no damage to the enemy, that won't happen if the gameplay has attrition and doesn't have instant routs. It means it's less likely that 1 player can sit back, let his allies die and then come back to win it, but, as far as I'm concerned, that strategy isn't in the spirt of the game which should be to work with your allies.

I don't think that mars is talking about beating 2 or 3 armies at the same time, but one at a time. Even the most experienced vet will easily loose when rushed
by three noobs at the same time.

screwtype

10-25-2006, 05:33

AthlonXP, but CBR sent me several videos illustrating the gameplay of the demo.

Oh, that's bad luck Puzz, but I think the newer demo is playable on an XP, isn't it?

I'll probably be DL'ing it myself sometime this week. Couldn't see the point of getting the first one anyway since it's apparently based on an earlier build.

Mars

10-25-2006, 12:59

even in MTW u could win 1v2. I did in many times, some battles was in CWB.
My ally did stand still and watched it...

In STW/MI u couldt constantly rout ur opponent in less than 20 sec, mostly caused my musks and the fire at once "bug".

I dont say u need to win vs 1 army with just 50 losses, but i remember tests we did with "turtel" armys and an completly inactiv player.

The outcome was amazing, the player who did nothing won aroudn 40% of the battles, ofc we didnt shoot him down.

Anyway, even if u didnt loss, ur army was almost dead after u routed ur enemy.
Ofc i want to win 1v2, thats my goal, to win 1v1 isnt worth to play that game.
Anyway, to rout in liek 5 sec is silly, ofc, i speak abotu smart movement and causing a chainrout when ur opponent does a mistake.

Chanirouts are needed, eles u always end with a almost dead army, even u play a crap player. Still it seems, that inactivity beats activity.

I worry about movement, in MTW (i call that the last real TW game) activity never could beat a sitting player. I remember when u (puzz) was closing ur border and put ur ma´s on hold....

there is no other way than running frontal on this wall!
Same goes for the turtel tests, the moralsupprot effect of standing close together is too huge in MTW.

Anyway, lets see the real deal once its out, but right now i fear we face another eyecandy game which looks great but dumps down the tactic once again.

Koc

Puzz3D

10-25-2006, 13:05

I don't think that mars is talking about beating 2 or 3 armies at the same time, but one at a time. Even the most experienced vet will easily loose when rushed
by three noobs at the same time.
He's talking about beating them one at a time. However, to to that you have to be able to beat the first two and take very few casualties doing it. That means chain routing is required and the routers have to all move in the same direction so that you can chase off a whole routed army with 2 or 3 units. One of the big proponents of this idea felt that a good player should be able to beat a 960 man army and only take 50 losses doing it.

Starting with MTW, routed units scatter in all directions which means you have to chase nearly every one of them individually. If you do that, your army is going to be too tired to beat a second, fresh army let alone a third one on top of that. You're better off only chasing the most dangerous units off the field, and the maps are bigger so it's going to take a long time before you can retrieve your chasers. Also, the outnumbered morale penalty was simply based on the number of large banners in STW (one for each unit). So, a partial unit counted as a ful unit for outnumbering purposes. In MTW, it's the number and quality of the men that's used for outnumbering. So, partial units or units of lower quality don't count as full units anymore for outnumbering purposes. In Samurai Wars which uses the MTW engine, beating a 960 man army while taking 300 losses is a big win, and that's with a gameplay that allows the best full strength units to be routed quickly when they are hit in the back.

Puzz3D

10-25-2006, 16:14

I dont say u need to win vs 1 army with just 50 losses, but i remember tests we did with "turtel" armys and an completly inactiv player.

The outcome was amazing, the player who did nothing won aroudn 40% of the battles, ofc we didnt shoot him down.
I think this was caused by the rock, paper, scissors not working well enough, and players using too much money. With a lot of money you could buy only the best units, and that army was mosly cav/sword with the swords pumped up so much that they beat cav. There was no opportunity for favorable matchups along the front because everyone had the same kind of sword units. A player could stand there, do nothing and be relatively safe. Shooters were also very weak in MTW/VI. If you ran to flank, fatigue weakened the attacker because fatigue wasn't optimized for the larger maps. LongJohn said fatigue was the same as STW, and I verified that with measurements. We tried to get CA to improve the RPS by lowering the cost of spears and to also lessen the fatigue rate, but all we got was a 10% reduction in running fatigue for cav.

In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, if a player doesn't move, he'll loose badly getting maybe 150 kills because the attacker will be able to make very effective matchups in a frontal assault. All you have to do is spend about 5 minutes neutralizing the shooters before you charge. You still have to chase scattered units off the field, but you can choose to chase only the most dangerous which I think is a smarter thing to do. If a few weakened enemy units return to the battle, they aren't going to be much of a threat.

Anyway, even if u didnt loss, ur army was almost dead after u routed ur enemy.
Ofc i want to win 1v2, thats my goal, to win 1v1 isnt worth to play that game.
Well I have no interest in playing someone who is going to stand there and do nothing. It isn't worth playing against someone like that, and I certainly don't want an ally who does nothing.

Anyway, to rout in liek 5 sec is silly, ofc, i speak abotu smart movement and causing a chainrout when ur opponent does a mistake.

Chanirouts are needed, eles u always end with a almost dead army, even u play a crap player. Still it seems, that inactivity beats activity.
It is more difficult to attack. If players are of equal skill, the defender will win.

I worry about movement, in MTW (i call that the last real TW game) activity never could beat a sitting player. I remember when u (puzz) was closing ur border and put ur ma´s on hold....
I didn't make the game so that pumped maa could beat cav. CA did that. I told CA this was a problem. I also told CA that the fatigue rate should be lessened because the maps were bigger. They said higher fatigue rate for movement made the battlefield seem larger, and they wouldn't change it. However, they did reduce the running fatigue rate of cav by 10% so that cav could better chase routers.

MTW/VI engine is good, but the units were not well balanced and the shooters were too weak and took too long to use their ammo. Xbows take 15 minutes to use all their ammo. That's too long. It drags out the battles and units get tired just by standing for so long.

there is no other way than running frontal on this wall!
That's a problem. You have to have diversified armies and a working rock, paper, scissors system to have anything other than a slugfest.

Same goes for the turtel tests, the moralsupprot effect of standing close together is too huge in MTW.
Morale support bonuses didn't change between STW and MTW. Morale penalties for being outnumbered and seeing friendly units rout did change, but so did the rout point. It was -24 in STW, -16 in MTW and -18 in MTW/VI.

CBR and I spend a lot of time trying to get people to play MTW/VI at 5000 florins, but very few players were interested. I also was one of the last players to give up on using 4 spears in an MTW/VI army at 10,000 florins.

Anyway, lets see the real deal once its out, but right now i fear we face another eyecandy game which looks great but dumps down the tactic once again.

Koc
Well it's going to be better than RTW, but I don't know if it will rise to the level of STW. M2TW is going to have to be pretty good to get my clan to play it online. We have Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, and the gameplay is very good. I think we'll have the desync problem in the newest beta_7 fixed soon, and the current 11b unit stat for MP may be the final stat. Only the battlefield ninja remains to be optimized, but it could stay as it is. We are going to have an MP era where each clan has it's own mon. We can handle up to 26 clans.

Nobunaga

10-25-2006, 16:41

Originaly posted by Mars
Koc

i knew it i really really really knew it

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Nobunaga

10-25-2006, 23:11

originally posted by Puzz3D

Well I have no interest in playing someone who is going to stand there and do nothing. It isn't worth playing against someone like that

no one has interest in playing against an inactive player, but if an inactive player can (some times) beat an active player than their definetly is a problem in the game.

if we have two games that are very similar in principle/structure (like stw and mtw for example). In the first game the experienced player can beat 2 or 3 opponents together but in the second he can't then obviously the first game requires more skill.

Now in stw/mi when two players of similir skills fight the battle will be very close and no easy victory will be acheived. However as the skill level varies more between the two player the more the victory will be easier and that will be shown in the battle results and in the number of casualties.

Now that doesn't exist in mtw to the extent that it existed in stw, and that is because stw requires more skill / in stw mistakes are punished more and inactivity is punished more.

naut

10-26-2006, 08:38

Graphics are awesome!

However, I never had to use proper tactics once.

And yes it does feel a lot like RTW.

EDIT: Although the kill speed and rout point is definatly better than in RTW, no near instant routing/unit destroyed in 5 seconds.

Mars

10-26-2006, 11:03

Well, i truly hope its any good, i really miss the game.

One problem i have myself is, im a feeling player, i know some stats, but surely my knowledge is less than some of the other player, like puzz.

But when there is something wrong, i feel it.

One example for the moralsupport.

In STW u could move with a h0 units( or was it h1?) close to the enemy army, and shoot it. In MTW there was something different, if u were quite close, ur unit did rout, more with lower fatique.

The problem is, u already raised the honour mostly.

There was a huge difference. we had tons of dicussions about the routingsystem, there where exploits, but in the end, the alldirection routing is a bad system. It causes lots of chaos, sometimes units routed trought u and rallyed in ur back and than u did rout urself. MAny times this happend and turned a already won battle in a loss.

My concerns are easy, once u meet a very weak player, u should steamroll him with ur skill and ofc not loose many units/mens. In MTw this was different, u always lost many mens even the enemy was a bad player.

This is what i mean with i "wanna win 1v2", imo its important that u have an outcome which relfect ur skill in a good degree. If 2 good player meet, than it should be a close one.

Anyway, chainrouts are important, no silly chanis, but chains with some logic behind. The routing must have a major effect to friendly units, as it is the only way to win vs a defender. Chainrouts also make it possible that u can use a weak army to defeat a strong one.

I hope u can follow my logic...

Mars

repman

10-26-2006, 13:52

if you play some unscripted custom battles with the new gold demo you get an good impression of the AI behaviour on the battlefield (even if the demo is not designed to work unscripted 100% correctly): a little bit too defensiv as the CA Developpers already mentioned and will be fixed in the first patch

repman

naut

10-26-2006, 13:57

I have faith in CA, and its good to know they are already addressing issues.

Puzz3D

10-26-2006, 13:58

no one has interest in playing against an inactive player, but if an inactive player can (some times) beat an active player than their definetly is a problem in the game.
The inactive player would not win a 1v1 in MTW. All you have to do is flank his units and you'll get more kills and win. What didn't happen in MTW was for the inactive player's army to rout as soon as one or two of his units routed. You had to beat more of the inactive players units individually than you did in STW because people played with too much money, and the unit matchups available were not as advantageous because the players basically used homogeneous cav/sword armies. The only place the RPS in MTW/VI is even close to working is at 5000 florins, and even then it's not as strong as it was in STW. Once you go over 6000 florins in MTW/VI, the RPS is clearly broken by the upgrading.

if we have two games that are very similar in principle/structure (like stw and mtw for example). In the first game the experienced player can beat 2 or 3 opponents together but in the second he can't then obviously the first game requires more skill.
Well both games require that you chase all the enemy units off the map. In STW, the maps were small and all units routed towards a single point on the map's edge. In MTW, the maps are large and units rout away from the threat which means you have to do a lot more chasing over a much greater distance in order to win. After you do all that chasing, your army will be scattered and tired, and in no shape to beat a second fresh army. Deciding which enemy units to chase and how far to chase them requires skill. If enemy units are rallying and coming back to beat you, then you did something wrong because a routed enemy army will not be able to come back and win if you play correctly.

This requirement to chase routed units off the map could be eliminated by changing the battle engine so that units went in to an unrecoverable rout instead of a recoverable rout. If that was done, you wouldn't have to chase at all, and could immediately turn your attention on the second enemy after initially routing the first enemy.

Now that doesn't exist in mtw to the extent that it existed in stw, and that is because stw requires more skill / in stw mistakes are punished more and inactivity is punished more.
Well it's not due to the battle engine. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI there is plenty of skill needed, and the ability to successfully attack hills as you could in STW is back in the gameplay because the RPS is strong enough, and there is a balance between attritional and positional factors.

I don't think you're never going to see a return in Total War of a strong RPS, units routing toward a single point or small maps. These things are gone, and it limits the ability of a player to steamroll multiple enemy armies.

Wandarah

10-26-2006, 14:09

Howdy.

I dunno if everyone has read this post, but it's bloody good. I hope Palamedes doesnt mind me crossposting, I havent seen it over here at the .org.

post deleted because i found it already. ho ho ho.

Nobunaga

10-26-2006, 18:29

Originally posted by Puzz 3D

Well it's not due to the battle engine. In Samurai Wars for MTW/VI there is plenty of skill needed, and the ability to successfully attack hills as you could in STW is back in the gameplay because the RPS is strong enough, and there is a balance between attritional and positional factors.

well samuri wars is considered by many TW experts to provide the best mp experience, and without your hard work and great stat knowledge that would have been not possible

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Puzz3D

10-26-2006, 20:42

well samuri wars is considered by many TW experts to provide the best mp experience, and without your hard work and great stat knowledge that would have been not possible

:bow: :bow: :bow:
Lots of people made valuable contributions to Samurai Wars, and of course it uses the wonderful battle engine that LongJohn and CA developed. Since CA revealed a lot of info about how that battle engine worked, you can develop a pretty good idea of what effect a certain stat change will have on the gameplay. This helps a lot in getting the gameplay to where you want it to be. In anycase, we used the original STW stat as the basis of Samurai Wars and the original STW gameplay as the goal since that's the gameplay that most of the longtime vets thought was best. We kept making adjustments based on battle experience feedback from those veteran players, and I'm happy with the gameplay that's been achieved. The beauty of it to me is that you don't have to know any stats to play the game. Both the army purchase and the gameplay is intuitive.

Ever since MTW, Total War puts more emphasis on the army purchase phase in the sense that smart purchasing can give you a significant advantage on the battlefield. That happens due to the large number of unit types and upgrade possibilities. I think Samurai Wars offers an alternative to that approach, and we've had the advantage of being able to refine the gameplay over a long period of time which CA can't because they have to move on to develop the next game. Also, the move to more realistic looking terrain and men actually makes it harder to see your units, and therefore harder to play the game. In Samurai Wars, the men are very clearly defined especially with the sashimo on each man's back, and they are clearly visible against the ground textures from a great distance. It's unfortunate that the engine used doesn't have the left/right click for select/attack that showed up in RTW and cav archers shooting on the move, but the older engine does have important features that didn't make it into the new engine used in RTW.

Wolf_Kyolic

10-27-2006, 03:59

I finally checked and having sort of a hate-love relationship with it.

First of all, it is much, much, much better than Rome. Movement speed is reduced down. CBR reported it to be almost exact Shogun speed and I would agree that. Killing speed is also reduced down so that the battles do not get resolved almost immediatly like in rtw. Overall battle pace makes sense. They have sort of nailed the original mtw feel in that sense.

Yet...

I do not like the morale system. Some units hold vs 3-4 enemy units where there are routing friends around and that is weird. May be it is because of their odd upgrades which CA decided. If that is the case, (we cannot know atm) then no big deal, however I still sense that the loosy feel of rtw is still there a bit. It does not feel solid enough to me. Strange things happen and I am not sure if it is just because of the upgrades.

On the positive side, infantry units totally obey. They do what you order them to and that totally disturbing cavalry movement animation of rtw is not there anymore. Yes they do move in an animated way still but now it makes sense. However you can still find them charging to a close enemy unit whereas they were supposed to follow your order and move to an other place but it is not as bad as rtw and since the speed is not insane anymore you can control them and get back to the order you gave.

Overall feel is weird. Something between mtw and rome. More of mtw actually but still romeish a bit.

Worst of all, it is hard to distinguish units from each other and there is a sense messiness at almost every bit. The reason for that is the graphics. Everything is sort of blur. It does not have the sharpness of rtw (in terms of graphics). Rather dark, pastel and blur and that causes difficulty in distinguishing things. Really annoying tbh.

Above is all I can tell from the demo. The release will tell if there is any tactical depth into it like the original had. Atm noone can tell with the custom battles and their units we are given. However I must add that I did not observe any affect of fatigue for example. It is like exactly same as rtw in that sense which is rather sad. BTW, You can disengage almost any unit without getting it to route like in rome (even a 10 men inf unit from 40 men unit...i was able to). Sad again.

Well to sum it up, m2tw is not a modded rtw like many of us expected. It is a whole new, different game and as far as I can tell, it is much better than rtw. Battles make sense now (sort of) and the speed is not insane. Units obey, no more noob cav animation and etc. However it seems there are some obvious shortcomings as I described above yet they can be fixed later with some patches (that is a whole different story which I will not mention here). But, the messiness caused from graphics will be there till the end so one has to either get used to it or just forget about the game.

Three things that annoyed me most were: Fatigue, morale and disengagement. May be it is early to moan about morale system since we do not know about the upgrades units are given yet lack of fatigue affect and presence of disengagement is still there obviously.

Ok that's all for now.

R'as al Ghul

10-27-2006, 10:14

I've finally played the gold demo. Overall it's a good impression. Nice graphics and animations. Movement speed feels okay now and I can even imagine to play MP with this engine, although it's still a bit fast with 20 units to manage. I could get used to that, though, it's better than Rome.
What really is a problem for me is to distinguish the unit types from the raised point of view. If I raise the camera so far as to get a good overview of my battle line, I cannot tell (only by the unit's speed of advance) what kind of unit the enemy throws at me, nor do I see how I can distinguish my own units. Part of this maybe that I'm not that familiar yet with their appearance and maybe you can distinguish them by their banner shape but not being able to tell if it's a Cavalry unit that attacks you was an odd experience. I had to zoom in to make out the horses.
Also, missile range seemed to be much higher than in MTW1 and higher than in Rome. I wonder if the effectiveness of missiles and especially firearms is connected to distance? It would be logical to have the muskets and arquebuses to be more effective at low range.
Cavalry seems to be just right. Of course one needs to see them fight without upgrades, because in the Otumba battle I had expected them to be stronger. Some of those Aztecs seem to be high valour, otherwise I don't get why my conquistadores didn't crash them faster.

R'as

Mars

10-27-2006, 10:30

Well both games require that you chase all the enemy units off the map. In STW, the maps were small and all units routed towards a single point on the map's edge. In MTW, the maps are large and units rout away from the threat which means you have to do a lot more chasing over a much greater distance in order to win. After you do all that chasing, your army will be scattered and tired, and in no shape to beat a second fresh army. Deciding which enemy units to chase and how far to chase them requires skill. If enemy units are rallying and coming back to beat you, then you did something wrong because a routed enemy army will not be able to come back and win if you play correctly.

nah, thats not the point.

If u look on it as 1v1, ofc u can controll it and stop chasing units.

The real problem we had in MTW, was units which routed trought ur army and did rally in ur back, just in range to give u a penalty, coz an enemy unit was in ur rear...

Also, let me mention the routingsymbol, i did ask for it many times. It is almost impossible to know which of units/cav is really chasing and whixh fighting.

Let me also mention the problems with units which u did ordered back, but got stuck in a routing enemy unit, than start to attack this unit again....

Ofc, this are problems with the basic mecanic, but it clearly shows the lack of controll.

We need badly a solution, where u can ensure that ur units are doin what u did order them.

Now lets look on a teambattle. In most cases u split ur army to overwight somewhere, i always had at least 3 splits, this needs some fast camera and some good controlling. Now i can say, that i can move my mainarmy on left (example) and also can keep controll on the right side, where the battle started, once on left the enemy goes for me, i have to pay more attention on my left. Now ofc, im almost lost to keep controll about my right units.

note: sorry, that i leave topic

All in all, its sad that i cant play it myself.

Orda Khan

10-27-2006, 11:22

I still maintain that only a general opinion can be formed by playing the demo. The upgraded units will not present a true feeling of battles other than those of a SP campaign where we would expect to see mis-matched units.

Most members have been praising the unit graphics, in particular the variation within a unit; no more clones. I remember posting in a thread about identifying your army and saying that faction colours, though they may look absurd, do at least allow you quick recognition. That being said, I could also see the benefit of less recognisable units and identifying them by their standards and heraldry was authentic. I have not played the demo, though I have seen it and I noticed that perhaps these standards are not as instantly recognisable as they could be. This is something I accept for the sake of realism and I am sure that after playing the game for a while the problem will become less noticeable

.......Orda

naut

10-27-2006, 13:12

Vinsitor

10-27-2006, 13:39

I'm really disturbed about the radar, using minimal UI, it's so ugly! :inquisitive:

Plz make a mod or some script or something, all I want is a minimal radar, with no buttons and sure no big textures around, just a box with the armies inside, plz!

Muad'Dib

10-27-2006, 18:15

https://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6688/4qe9.png (https://imageshack.us)

:laugh4:

Cesare diBorja

10-27-2006, 19:01

can'tget the blasted thing to load up:whip:

Too muchneed for external load up sites
It'smore troublethan its worth
I liked it better when you could load up from the primary source

spong

10-27-2006, 19:53

Just played the Gold Demo for the first time, played Otumba and then Pavia.

It's very strange, my main concern from the beta demo was that the combat finishing moves were badly synchronised, I observed in Otumba that this was still the case (this may however have been an exception due to the fact the enemy unit was routing). Otumba didn't impress me much, but when I loaded up Pavia everything was so much better! Everything is tidier;

#the combat animations work and synchronise properly (with the exception of the fleeing enemy I saw on the otumba map, I didn't see many other animations on Otumba so can't say for sure yet)

#there's no trouble with the cavalry deaths and now they're contextual (charging a pike makes them flip over while dying normally makes them collapse sideways, and flipped riders now stay put rather than getting sucked back to where their horse is lying)

#handgunners seem improved

# unit size and spacing has been tweaked

#the dismounted knights have better looking polehammers and more diverse helmet types

#time limit for the battle was increased

#even the general's bodyguard can no longer destroy pikes in a frontal attack

#dismounted knights no longer spin! they also seem to have been made less uber, about equal to zweihanders now.

I'm very happy if this is how the rest of the game will be.

Zenicetus

10-27-2006, 20:26

What really is a problem for me is to distinguish the unit types from the raised point of view. If I raise the camera so far as to get a good overview of my battle line, I cannot tell (only by the unit's speed of advance) what kind of unit the enemy throws at me, nor do I see how I can distinguish my own units. Part of this maybe that I'm not that familiar yet with their appearance and maybe you can distinguish them by their banner shape but not being able to tell if it's a Cavalry unit that attacks you was an odd experience. I had to zoom in to make out the horses.

FWIW, I'm having that problem too. The units look very nice when zoomed in close to see details, but zoomed out at "tactical" level, it's hard for me to tell what I'm looking at. I'm not sure it's just unfamiliarity with the units. It could be that the more varied appearance of individuals within a unit is actually working against quick unit identification, at a distance.

Maybe it also has something to do with the detailed grass background in the demo battles. It might get easier in desert terrain, or snow. I'm going to try turning grass rendering way down, or off, to see if it improves things.

It's not a deal-breaker for me, but it is making me pause more often during the battle, just to ID what I'm looking at.