Demo impressions and discussion (everyone please post here)

[econ21]

Now that some people legally have the demo, I am creating this thread for them to post any impressions they have of the demo and to discuss the demo.

To avoid profileration of threads, please use this thread for this topic.

Please do not discuss acquiring the game illegally here.

To start the ball rolling - can anyone comment on game speed (specifically kill rates and movement speeds)? Specifically, how they compared to RTW?

[Monarch]

Meh, tbh I was just playing not really taking any notes. It seemed alot like RTW tbh. :inquisitive:

Also I thought you campaign guys might be interested in this screen:

http://www.freewebs.com/monarch1/gmt.gif

French cav charged right on to my stakes....

But blood looks great, animations very cool, user interface virtually the same as rtw. Also cannons look sweet, when they load them that rocks, if they do a NTW3 on MTW2, that'll look great.

Erm, can't think of much else to say lol. Its hard to test unit speeds because for example in agincourt you just sit their whilst frenchies charge at you lol.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm sure the French cavalry is scripted to fight as such

[Monarch]

Scripted to charge...but onto my stakes...I wasn't aware they has kamikaze guys in medieval france (and ones that didn't even kill anyone in the process)

Btw, the tutorial said different type of units get different shaped banners, as I said I just raced round winning the battles, but can someone confirm this? IMO thats pretty cool :)

[TB666]

Ran it on medium setting and ran very good.
I was really surprised.

Tutorial Battle: was slightly pointless IMO but on the other hand I'm a TW vet so it is useless for us

Pavia: Awesome battles this.
Just hearing the german accent is just awesome.
Seeing the cavalry charge your landsknechter was slightly fun but the real fun was when you see your zweihander in action.
They are just as cool as we had imagine.
Also the first time I saw some finishing moves was from these guys.
Needless to say they can turn a unit into a bloody pile of corpses very fast.

Agincourt: Oh this battles was a bit tough on my computer but still fine.
The french infantry almost destroyed me but then I noticed that I had billmen ready so I was saved.

The music is great and so is the sound.
Graphics even on Medium looks wonderful.
The animations are so much better.
The AI is scripted like hell but in times where I felt that it could act on it's own I felt it was better.
Movement and kill-rates are fine now too.
Gotta remember that your troops have alot of bonuses compared to the enemy and still they lasted longer then in RTW.

I say M2TW is looking very very good

Some screens from Pavia

https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/207/1dx6.th.jpg (https://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1dx6.jpg)https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8705/2or4.th.jpg (https://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2or4.jpg)https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/899/3cv6.th.jpg (https://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3cv6.jpg)
https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7650/4ni3.th.jpg (https://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4ni3.jpg)https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6511/5su8.th.jpg (https://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5su8.jpg)https://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6880/6ye1.th.jpg (https://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=6ye1.jpg)
https://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2522/7mu2.th.jpg (https://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=7mu2.jpg)

[Monarch]

(i can't say if it is legal or not because i would break the forums rules)..

Its not up for download legally, only way to legally get it through PC Gamer magazine lol. So I thinks its fine to asume which way your getting in :P

Anyway, we need a mod for this, I want some custom battles :2thumbsup:

Btw, are any of the already announced mods looking at this? Its their first chance to get some actually textures are however it works lol, I hope they're going through this :2thumbsup:

Edit: Oh ye I have a question, those musketeers you see firing in TB666's screenshot, in game you can see their bullets, you can't see bullets in NTW2, but thats set a good 300 years later. I know squat about early fire arms, but could you see the bullets back then firing from the guns?

[Furious Mental]

Since the historical battles are scripted and the units all seem to have increased experience I don't think they would be a very good indicator.

[TB666]

Since the historical battles are scripted and the units all seem to have increased experience I don't think they would be a very good indicator.
Indeed.
All your units in Agincourt have 3 gold chevrons while the enemy have 1 bronze.
They don't stand a chance.
Still the battle last longer then in RTW with the same settings

[Lord ZORO Savage]

Are there custom battles in the demo?

[CBR]

I have done some test on running speed. I tried my best to find some flat pieces of terrain and make sure the units stayed at max warmed up so fatigue didnt reduce speed. There is still no way to mod the demo so testing is therefore a bit limited.

But here are the numbers I have come up for infantry (might try and test later today with the single cavalry)

Light infantry (in this case archers) ran at a speed of about 240 meters/minute. Heavily armoured units like dismounted knights did 180 meters/minute.

Im still not sure there is a movement class in between them but I did get some results for militia halberds (classed as heavy infantry but very little armour) that suggests they could be right in between at around 210 meters/minute.

So for those who dont know what these numbers mean:

In MTW running speed was 133/166/200 meters/minute for dismounted knights/heavy inf/light inf.

In BI it was around 250/300 for heavy inf/light inf. Which was a 10% reduction from RTW.

So it appears running speed has been reduced by around 20%

Killing speed is pretty difficult to say. In Agincourt we have English valor 7 units versus French valor 1. Some French units rout pretty quickly while others dont. A guess would be that its slowed down a bit from RTW, but these units are also heavily armoured, and heavy units in RTW didnt die quickly either.


CBR

[Lord ZORO Savage]

Thank you for the testing CBR

[Aenarion]

Any info on where this 'virtual' demo is pls?

[Lord ZORO Savage]

Any info on where this 'virtual' demo is pls?
Legally you can get it from PC GAMER MAGAZINE,illegally i can not say.

[Aenarion]

Ah I see ok thanks. :)

[Duke John]

So it is again scripted battles with high valour units? How is that supposed to give an indication (about AI and gameplay) wether it will be worth buying the game?

Perhaps I know enough already, I've got a download link and I am not even interested in using it. (I won't share the link, so don't bother asking.)

Have fun everybody! :medievalcheers:

[Taliferno]

Just browsing around some of the demo files, and I Found this in the preference folder:

[multiplayer]
hotseat_autoresolve_battles = 0
hotseat_disable_console = 1
hotseat_disable_papal_elections = 0
hotseat_save_prefs = 0
hotseat_update_ai_camera = 0
hotseat_validate_diplomacy = 1

A multiplayer campaign?

:gah:

[CBR]

Infantry marching has not been changed so still the 100 meters/minute.

The heavy cavalry in Pavia did just about 375 meters/minute running which IIRC would be 20% less than BI.


CBR

[Taliferno]

Heres the unit stats (unmodified by experience, etc) for the units in the demo.

A:attack
m:missile attack
D:Defence
EAA:Efective against armor
C:Charge

Landsknecht Pikemen. A:14 D:6 C:4

Arquebusiers A:8 (m16+EAA) D:4 C:1

Halberd militia A:12+EAA D:6 C:1

Zwei Hander A:18+EAA D:19 C:4

Culvern A:63 (Against buildings 230) D:9 C:0

Sword and buckler men A:21 D:20 C:3

Muskereers A:8 (m21+EAA) D:4 C:1

Gendarmes A:12 D:27 C:13

Pikemen A:12 D:5 C:3

Voulgar A:14+EAA D:14 C:2

Scots Guard A:24 (m13+EAA) D:20 C:3

Dismounted Chivalric Kinghts A:21 D:26 C:3

Crossbowmen A:8 (m5 +EAA) D:10 C:1

Sergeant Spearmen A:17 D:14 C:2

Chilvalric Knights A:15 D:25 C:13

Dismounted Noble Knights A:22+EAA D:22 C:4

Heavy Billmen A:16+EAA D:17 C:3

Yeoman Archer A: 10 (m8) D:9 C:3

I havent included any of the tutorial units or the general units. Also note that units like Halberd Militia can form spear walls making them better than their stats would suggest.

In regards to the demo, I already like it more than RTW, even with the extra experience etc thats the units get. Pavia was an excellent battle, and one I almost lost, which was a surprise (got an average victory in the end) considering I consider myself something of a master, as I've been playing since Shogun was released.

[Furious Mental]

I can't really tell exactly but it *seems* as though missile units hav greater range. The longbowmen on Agincourt and the Scots Guards at Pavia are like artillery (and of course the artillery can fire pretty far too). The arquebusiers, and more so, musketeers also seem to be able shoot pretty far as well, definitely further than in MTW, although I haven't checked to see how much damage they deal out at long range.

[Mount Suribachi]

So it is again scripted battles with high valour units? How is that supposed to give an indication (about AI and gameplay) wether it will be worth buying the game?

Perhaps I know enough already, I've got a download link and I am not even interested in using it. (I won't share the link, so don't bother asking.)

Have fun everybody! :medievalcheers:

It sounds like Pavia is much less scripted, so that should give a better idea.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

It sounds like Pavia is much less scripted, so that should give a better idea.
I think Pavia is scripted.

[Taliferno]

The start of the Pavia battle is scripted (the French calvary charge into your Pikes) but after that it seems to be down to the AI.

Agincourt is completely scripted.

[TB666]

Pavia is pretty much scripted as well.
However still some AI is there.
The cannons will always fire on the unit closes to it is something I have noticed.

[Taliferno]

Well to give an example for the Pavia battle, I sent my Generals unit (my only calvary unit) off to deal with the cannons. The remenants of the French calvary disengaged from the melee that they were in and gave chase.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Hello,

the demo doesn't work on my PC, because I have an Athlon XP without SSE2. :embarassed: Only CPUs with SSE2 are supported. :dizzy2: Do you know a solution? How can I fix that problem? I wanna also test the game.

Thank you,

Best Regards
|Heerbann|_Di3Hard

[Gustav II Adolf]

The demo is hard on my computer (p4 2.8, 1 Gb RAM ati 9600 256mb). I cant play without lag even on the lowest settings. It is still a great experience. I love the sound and feel of the gunpowder units. There is blood splashing when you hit the enemy! Cool feature but it is not beauterful on my computer.


/G

[The Blind Samurai]

how did you guys get the demo :help: where can i get it

Moderator edit: To the best of my knowledge, the demo is legally available from the US PC Gamer. Let's keep this thread to gameplay issues, not how to get the demo.

[Puzz3D]

The demo doesn't work on my PC, because I have an Athlon XP without SSE2. :embarassed: Only CPUs with SSE2 are supported. :dizzy2: Do you know a solution? How can I fix that problem? I wanna also test the game.
There is nothing you can do about it except buy a new computer. Possibly the full game won't have this SSE2 (extended SSE instruction set) requirement since it isn't mentioned in the minimum game requirements.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

What is SSE2?

[Monarch]

The pain in the ass of Athlon users :P

[Mount Suribachi]

So Pentium users (like me) at last get to shout "in your face athlon boy!" at all the snobby AMD users? ~;)

[LeftEyeNine]

AMD Athlon XP Barton cores have SSE2. Not a big chance there, Mount Suribachi :laugh4:

[shifty157]

AMD Athlon XP Barton cores have SSE2. Not a big chance there, Mount Suribachi :laugh4:

I dont know too much about AMD processors but I have the AMD 64 X2 4200. Does this have the SSE2?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Wow, I'm startled. I installed the demo expecting to get a slideshow, but I actually get a passable frame-rate on my P IV 2.53GHz, 512Mb RAM, Ti4200 64Mb system. It gets a little choppy on Pavia when the cannons fire, but that's about it. What a pleasant suprise.

This is on low settings, admittedly, so I still intend to upgrade.

[Faenaris]

I dont know too much about AMD processors but I have the AMD 64 X2 4200. Does this have the SSE2?

If that 64 stands for "64-bit", then you should be able to play the demo.

[shifty157]

If that 64 stands for "64-bit", then you should be able to play the demo.

Yeah it is 64-bit. Thanks for the good news.

[Kor Khan]

So it is again scripted battles with high valour units? How is that supposed to give an indication (about AI and gameplay) wether it will be worth buying the game?

To be honest, I don't think this demo is really intended for Total War veterans. It's more for people who are unfamiliar with the series and want a general impression of the graphics and gameplay. That's why it doesn't show things like the AI or any standard battles that you'll have on the campaign map, as it's generally a means of attracting new customers.

For diehard fans, the demo should only really be an hors-d'oeuvre for the full-blown game. Also remember that this demo features part of a relatively old version of the game (i.e. beta-stage). Several graphics bugs, AI errors, as well as performance and hardware issues that may since have been fixed will still be in it. That's why they' use historical battles that have scripted AI, to make this less obvious. It also doesn't matter to CA if not everyone can run the demo with their processors, as long as the full game works (at least I hope everyone will be able to run the full version, it would be bloody stupid of CA otherwise).

As I say, I don't think any of us should really be using the demo to make up our mind on Medieval II. This is for people who want to know if the general gameplay formula and graphics appeal to them.

[TB666]

Well speaking as a TW-vet I played the demo to see how it works on my computer.
Considering that my specs are:

2.3Ghz Celeron
512 MB
128mb Radeon 9800pro

I was very surprised when I could run the demo on medium setting and still it was smooth.
That alone determined the fact that I will be getting M2TW.
So the demo had some use(not to mention that the demo is alot of fun).
But you are right that the demo is mainly for new people.

[Zatoichi]

Well, I was a bit excited to see all of this demo stuff when I logged on, but my heart sank when I realised my old trusty Athlon 2700+ wasn't going to cut the mustard. Gah!

Looking at the minimum specs thread, and looking at the readme from the demo that was posted over at the twcenter, I'm pretty sure us Athlon users are shut out of the loop as far as the main game goes as well - they both state 'Pentium 4® (1500MHz) or equivalent AMD® processor'. Pre demo we assumed this meant the AMD prcessor had to be the equivalent of 1.5mhz and that would be OK, but now it transpires this actually means equivalent to Pentium 4 full stop - ie needs the SSE2 instruction set.

Meh, I could be wrong, but why code the battles for the demo using a better technology than is used for the retail game? I hope I'm wrong for the sake of all of us with slightly older processors.

[Kor Khan]

Well I'd have hoped that by the time the full game is finished, the guys at Creative Assembly would have programmed the engine to make it available to Athlon XP users. I mean they should have the time for it, and losing around 25% of all potential customers by failing to do so would be just plain retarded.
I'd have thought that CA would have enough sense not to do something like that. Also, remember that this is probably a slightly older build of the engine, with several incompatibility issues and graphics bugs that should hopefully be fixed by now.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

AMD Athlon XP Barton cores have SSE2. Not a big chance there, Mount Suribachi :laugh4:

THat isn't correct. I have a Barton 3000+ but these crappy CPU doesn't have SSE2. :shame:

https://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4156/barton3000mu3.jpg

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Well I'd have hoped that by the time the full game is finished, the guys at Creative Assembly would have programmed the engine to make it available to Athlon XP users.

All I saw in the forums, that is the 3 month old Games Convention Leipzig Demo. Very old.

[Maizel]

Its a good demo, although it's not for most people who've played any full version of total war before.

The graphics are amazing, and it runs better than i thought it would.

Although, has anyone noticed how knights sometimes kind of 'hover' above the ground when they're dead?

[Husar]

Hmm, my good old XP2400+ refuses to work because of SSE2, even though it's a bit more than the equivalent of an 1,5GHz Celeron, even without SSE2...

Anyway, I might get that fancy Core 2 Duo this week already, though I originally planned on getting it later...:sweatdrop:

[Zatoichi]

Well I'd have hoped that by the time the full game is finished, the guys at Creative Assembly would have programmed the engine to make it available to Athlon XP users. I mean they should have the time for it, and losing around 25% of all potential customers by failing to do so would be just plain retarded.
I'd have thought that CA would have enough sense not to do something like that. Also, remember that this is probably a slightly older build of the engine, with several incompatibility issues and graphics bugs that should hopefully be fixed by now.

Well, I sincerly hope you're right for the sake of that 25% mate!

As it happens irrespective of all this I ordered a new PC last week, so by the time the game hits the shops I'll be in posession of a machine capable of running it regardless of what version of SSE is required.

Unless they decide it's only compatable with Direct X 10 of course! :laugh4:

[TB666]

Although, has anyone noticed how knights sometimes kind of 'hover' above the ground when they're dead?
Yep, the floating dead problem.
Hopefully this is fixed now.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Its a good demo, although it's not for most people who've played any full version of total war before.

The graphics are amazing, and it runs better than i thought it would.

Although, has anyone noticed how knights sometimes kind of 'hover' above the ground when they're dead?

I want to see a 3vs3 or 4vs4. I don't need to see the fights man vs man. You don't have the time to take a look at the eye candy. 99% of time you zoomed out. I was in Leipzig and saw the demo there. The different textures per men in the units makes it more difficult to recognize the correct unit type. And the gamer need uber strong hardware for more then 5000 soldiers. 2 facts, why I don't like the graphics so much. Sometimes less is more.

[LeftEyeNine]

THat isn't correct. I have a Barton 3000+ but these crappy CPU doesn't have SSE2. :shame:


My bad. I just checked, my CPU doesn't have SSE2 as well.

I simply can't believe I won't be able to play M2TW with my machine. Curses..:furious3:

[redriver]

ok so my rig barely meets the min. req for the game.. here I try to run this demo at low settings for everythin' in graphics department.. runs smooth and all.. but. but everythin' looks like Quake 2 lol
blokey models with washed out textures.. everythin' besides the sky is so 1996ish and I ain't wastin' hundreds of dollars for just one game.
btw, RTW looks and runs better on my system. I can do med-high and everythin' looks shiny! the RTW UI is much cleaner and brighter. same goes for the unit cards and the general feel.. the only thin' that was better in the demo graphics wise is the grass! but then I do have it set on low in RTW as well.. so maybe it's not better after all! oh and the sky looks kinda cool until ya see the supernova.. eer I mean the big bright fuzzy ball of white in the sky... yes and the units movement speed is x10 of normal. any less and the game pauses!
then again, just like in RTW I spend most of my time zoomed out to get a better grasp of the battlefield and the graphics don't bother me as much. I'll try to run the demo on med-low next time.. Rome is my fav time period anyhow...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

It's not x10, it's 1.0. It then goes to 2.0 and 3.0.

[CBR]

Ranges for arqs in Pavia seems to be 120 meters and 150 meters for longbows in Agincourt.


CBR

[Biggus Diccus]

My bad. I just checked, my CPU doesn't have SSE2 as well.

I simply can't believe I won't be able to play M2TW with my machine. Curses..:furious3:

I just can't believe CA would make the game to require SSE2! I certainly won't upgrade my rig just for this game.

[Polemists]

My impressions.


I was very impressed as most have said it looks good. I ran it in highest just to see it (lagged alot) looked awesome. Even on medium you can still see it fairly accurately. Which is where I run it and it runs fine and I don't have a top end rig.

No this is not for total war vets, two scripted battles and a tutorial will not tell you every single detail. This is like most demos though what a demo is, it's a demonstartion of what is in game. It's pretty good demonstration.

Tutorial, rather easy, similiar to RTW but I advise you play it just to get used to camera. It's not bad just different

Agincourt- Fairly easy once you play through it. Your first time there is a nice scripted surprise I won't spoil.

Pavai- Challenging. I have been eaten time and time again I love it. I have won twice. One time I died they cannoned my General who was not even closest unit, though likely this was a accident still funny.
I am more impressed by my ally's AI who sometimes wins and sends help and sometimes is utterly beaten (surprises in a battle amazing I know)

Also I like that it's a challenge. Let's face it in Rome if you knew how to flank you won. Even in non scripted parts the comp is clearly not afraid of attacking. It is exhilirating to try to manage all over place and hope you can hold out long enough. I enjoyed it throughly. So MTW get's my :2thumbsup:

[Burns]

The battles are very nice and messy.

[tiny_titan]

I have a Sempron 2800 cpu , I am hoping that it will run the demo, can anyone with more tech savvy help me with that query. Being a resident of Australia we will not get the pcgamer magazine till the end of November as we are at least 2 months behind in overseas maagzines getting here which has the MTW2 demo I believe.

[Crusader Invasion]

I think the demo was very realistic (battle speed, kill rates, movement speed) and it was also fun. I played it on my dad's laptop so I could play it at full graphics and no lag at all. Agincourt was very challenging. That was an awesome demo in my opinion. Blood sprays were cool, good music, nice sound effects.

[Burns]

The battle speed... what do you guys think of that one. Units appear to move slower than in RTW. Some units steamroll others which I guess is alright.

[Crusader Invasion]

The one problem I had was with the camera on Hastings. Horses were a bit fat too (they looked like ponies).

[DisruptorX]

Is the starcraft UI back, or are those tabs in the screenshots default?

I can't wait to get my hands on the demo, in any event.

[Kourutsu]

It doesn't make any sense...

I used auto-detect, the game placed the settings to medium, and I did Hastings.

LAG! Disgustingly putrid lag. I have above-average requirements, I play on medium performance, and yet I lag! Someone explain this!

Well I faced the lag. I played Pavia, didn't use a lick of strategy, and still won. The old CTRL-A right click strategy still seems effective here...

[the_mango55]

It doesn't make any sense...

I used auto-detect, the game placed the settings to medium, and I did Hastings.

LAG! Disgustingly putrid lag. I have above-average requirements, I play on medium performance, and yet I lag! Someone explain this!

Well I faced the lag. I played Pavia, didn't use a lick of strategy, and still won. The old CTRL-A right click strategy still seems effective here...

The demo is heavily scripted, the enemy comes in waves instead of all at once, it is made so that people can feel challenged but still win.

Plus it is an old build, you will notice that it is one of the newer blogs where they claim that they have done a lot of work on "blobbing" or whatever they call it, and they claim to have done said work "this week". Considering this demo was made over a month ago, this feature will not have been included.

[ChewieTobbacca]

Got my issue today and played around....

First off, one can eliminate a lot of lag by turning off shadows completely. I turned it off and voila!, game runs smooth as butter on high settings with a P4 3.0Ghz GeForce 6600 255mb vid card and 1gig RAM.

Next... one can use the Minimal UI to make it MTW/STW style. Very very nice and useful.

Kill rates and unit speeds are pretty good from what I have seen - units don't move too fast and kill rates aren't bad when one plays with a more even field (as in Pavia). Will get more when I play more...

[player1]

Just browsing around some of the demo files, and I Found this in the preference folder:

[multiplayer]
hotseat_autoresolve_battles = 0
hotseat_disable_console = 1
hotseat_disable_papal_elections = 0
hotseat_save_prefs = 0
hotseat_update_ai_camera = 0
hotseat_validate_diplomacy = 1

A multiplayer campaign?

:gah:

I hope this means that hotseat MP is possible.
After all, that is very simple type of MP to make (no synchornized moves, no network code, etc...).

[Polemists]

I agree that this is scripted. However I tried ctrl-a and lost quite a few times. Though i've heard diff reports from diff people. I think i've played Pavai now 9 times and won 3, so i'm like 1 for 3 :). haha.

I also agree that while a great game I'm pretty sure CA has improved it greatly.

Lastly I'm sure even though the demo is fun and the game good I'm sure some people will find some aspect to complain about if they really want to but all in all great demo great game ahead, I personally won't need any mods :) (well maybe a time one, i like years over turns)

[Dave1984]

I'm running a well above average rig and the game just looks stunning, although oddly I experienced some lag on Hastings.
However after removing the grass (I'm not a fan of grass that appears in clumps and criss-cross lines anyway) I didn't have any trouble at all, apart from in the cases where the flags seemed to stutter a little.
I seem to remember the Rome demo having a similar problem, though- is this just because the game hasn't been optimised yet (which I believe they do last?).

As for the game itself, I was impressed. It seemed a little clunky to begin with and the older sounding chap who did the battle intros sounded like my old Egyptology lecturer at uni, prompting me to skip the intos completely.

However the speed appears to have been slowed down noticeably- having needed to press pause alot in RTW, it was a refreshing change to only need to press pause to examine the troops and textures.
I tried using all the graphical settings and have to say that even on medium the detail and the look was more than good enough.
It all seemed darker, grittier and more adult than the bright colours of Rome, which I welcome entirely, and certainly the dark clouds of Agincourt and the beautiful sunrise of Pavia added a whole new dimension to the atmosphere.

The much-hyped 'finishing moves' were subtle enough and varied enough to avoid turning it into something arcadey, although I did notice one of them involved the foot knight spinning around to deliver the blow, something which makes me wince whenever I see it. Perhaps they should modify it so that in attempting to do so, the perpetrator gets stabbed in the back or side.
I was happy to see some injured men crawling away from the melee, and standing back a little the ebb and flow looked satisfyingly brutal and natural.
I was interested to see the clothing and armour of troops become splattered with mud and blood, although on the mounted knights especially the blood reminded me of the fire effect on troops in RTW.

I can't really comment on the AI as a result of the scripting, although in one case at Pavia my flank was turned quite effectively with a feigned pike assault on the right, only for Gendarmes to burst from the trees on the left.
On the other hand, a unit of French Heavy infantry tried chasing my general all over the field unsupported and increasingly isolated.
After the initial assaults which I feel where the scripted ones the other French attacks that were reacting to my movements tended to be well executed and troops well supported by each other.

The use of the stakes at Agincourt was interesting- no knights have as yet managed to charge into them, but that isn't really the point- they avoid them, and thus avoid the archers, which is. Some foot troops did attempt to pick their way through them but their formation was so dispersed when they reached the other side that they were torn apart by the billmen I had ordered forward to wait for them.

The movement speed and killing rates do seem to have been decreased and, as mentioned, even when it got hectic I was never forced to use the pause button. There was always plenty of time to assess the situation, and "holding" a unit by engaging it with another worked for far longer than in RTW.

The sounds themselves were fine. The music didn't particularly stand out for me although I did use Vercingetorix's idx extractor to unpack the sound files and noticed that several of the generic soldier sounds were RTW names- EQUITE17, for example, or HASTATI09.

I'm heartened by this demo, and, bearing in mind the game should have been fine tuned since this, I'm now very excited.

[screwtype]

Just browsing around some of the demo files, and I Found this in the preference folder:

[multiplayer]
hotseat_autoresolve_battles = 0
hotseat_disable_console = 1
hotseat_disable_papal_elections = 0
hotseat_save_prefs = 0
hotseat_update_ai_camera = 0
hotseat_validate_diplomacy = 1

A multiplayer campaign?

:gah:

A hotseat MP campaign would be a very nice feature IMO. It's one I requested ages ago at the .com.

[screwtype]

...

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

What's SSE2?

It is a CPU extension developed by Intel. The AMD socket A CPUs don't have it ( 32Bit AMD proccessors). And I have the last version of that CPU :embarassed:

[screwtype]

It is a CPU extension developed by Intel. The AMD socket A CPUs don't have it ( 32Bit AMD proccessors). And I have the last version of that CPU :embarassed:

Yeah, somebody asked the same question earlier in the thread and got a reply, so I deleted the question.

Thanks for the answer though. I have a 64 bit AMD so hopefully the game will work for me...

[Ringeck]

My main problem will probably be the graphics card. Anyone tested it with Gainward Geforce FC5700 256DDR? I think I'll need an upgrade anyway.

[Ituralde]

Before I write my impressions from the demo I just wanted to give my rig, as I was afraid I wouldn't be able to run M2:TW.
Pentium 4, 2,66 GHz
1024 MB RAM
Nvidia Geforce4 Ti4200

I ran it on medium settings and everything was smooth as hell. Looked ugly too, especially the units with bad textures and all blurry. So I manually changed those settings and it looks and plays nice now. Good that I can put off my computer upgrade a little longer and not have M2:TW force me to do it.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Denali]

The demo looks pretty cool so far imo.
In bi/rtw only a very few units had the "anti-armour" ability, in mtw2 itll be ofc much more like mtw, lots of units are strong against armoured units.

The movement speed looks pretty good 2 to me, not too fast but not too slow either.
I cant really say much about the AI, Agincourt is completely scripted. I tried to test the AI, i left the start positions you have by the stakes and withdrawed about 100 meters back and took a hill but it didnt really work , cause the AI just followed my straight away... too much scripts..

Pavia was better, after the cav-charge at the beginning there were only a few scripts, eg the art the cav that pulled back after the reinforcement arrived. I faced Spearmen and when i tried to flank them with my general-cav-unit they turned around and faced me so that i couldnt charge them. Pretty cool.

But the demo is not made for TW vets, there isnt even a possibility to play a custom battle, a real pity :embarassed:

I play on highest details (Athlon 64 3500+, Geforce 7800 GT and 2048 MB RAM and the graphics are just wonderfull, same with the animations, everything is so smoothly and fluent, ive never seen this before in a strategy game.

If their are some cool MP-Features like friendlist, decent block buttons that actually work and no more crappy gs servers and most of all a good balance and a great gameplay like mtw this game will be a hit :P

[Maizel]

It doesn't make any sense...

I used auto-detect, the game placed the settings to medium, and I did Hastings.

LAG! Disgustingly putrid lag. I have above-average requirements, I play on medium performance, and yet I lag! Someone explain this!

Well I faced the lag. I played Pavia, didn't use a lick of strategy, and still won. The old CTRL-A right click strategy still seems effective here...
Try a video driver update

and make sure your graphic cards support the thingie version 2 feature (pixel shader?- I forgoit, can't be bothered to look) otherwise set it to 1.0.

[Fenix7]

Is it becaus I don't have the newest drivers for Radeon 9600 Pro 128mb or it is becaus of the graphic card, but I do get a blank screen and ''no signal'' warning.

I can access into the game and even run the tutorial but then that message.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Ive played it, on all highest settings, the graphics were great, and the combat. The kill rates are slightly down, but not much, as are the movement speeds. The coats of arms and non-clone armies are the best feature, I never thought I would notice them that much, but they are really a good feature.

The thing that I didnt like, is the cavalry. As I expected, they are underpowered, where they should have been better than in Rome (the stirrup thing). In Pavia, I charged the french forces coming to my right, not the pikemen, but the dismounted knights, with my heavy general's bodyguard, and sustained heavy causualties, whereas such a charge should have mowed those infantry. I really hope this is fixed.

[shootfast]

Great so far.

Best bit was when the French cannons in pavia took out their own KING!:oops: Thats pretty much won the battle for me or lost it for the french.:2thumbsup:

Also more I play, more it looks more like the BKB super mod.

[Ituralde]

Played the Battle of Pavia 5 times now as it really offers some challenges and options instead of just having to sit there and wait as was the case with the Agincourt battle. I won four times the last one was even a close victory although their general died on my landsknechts in the first assault, I kind of took it too easy from then on and typed something in the forum too while playing so I lost a lot of men.
The one time I didn't win I scored a Draw, I think because the time ran out on me. Saved me, I guess, since I was down to my Generals Bodyguard, while the French still had roughly 30 Gendarmes and their General on the field.

I really like the demo, first off because it helped me see whether my system would be able to run Medieval 2 and I'm surprised that it does so well.
The battles are a lot of fun to play and the feeling is much better as it was with the Rome Demo. Still my soldiers sometimes don't really obey my orders or kind of hesitat a moment before reacting on them, which is a bit annoying. Also my Arquebusiers seem to slip out of my control from time to time.

Kill ratio and morale are at a nice level once again, which had me surprised in my first Pavia battle where I was counting on fast routing of the enemies but instead got pinned and flanked by the advancing French forces. So the AI, when not scripted acts well on its own. I often got caugth off guard by some cavalry unit that I overlooked and which consequently attacked my weak spots. It was also nice to see that Landsknechts are only capable of killing cavalry, anything else attacks them and they're torn to shreds and I'm not even speaking about missile fire.

The only thing that I noticed and really bugged me is the fact that the shortcuts for formations don't seem to work. No matter how often I press shift + 1 they just won't move into a single line. Those were the only times I had to pause then, because I had to bring up the interface with the formations and select them there. Besides that the speed of the game is good. Slow enough for tactical decisions but still fast enough to not get boring. Although the Battle always threw enemies at you from the very beginning, so I guess a usual battle should play out a little slower still.

Well, that's all for now.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

In Pavia, I charged the french forces coming to my right, not the pikemen, but the dismounted knights, with my heavy general's bodyguard, and sustained heavy causualties, whereas such a charge should have mowed those infantry. I really hope this is fixed.

The dismounted knights are very heavy infantry with polearms, they should trash an unsupported cavalry charge. Cavalry in Rome was waaaaaay overpowered anyway, so I'm pleased at this development.

[SpencerH]

I seem to be running into this problem from the readme:

VIDEO ISSUES

Monitor Display

Monitor display goes black when the game resolution is set to a value
that the monitor cannot display. The game can only detect the video
modes supported by the graphics card not the monitor. Should you find
you have set the resolution and cannot run the demo, in order to reset
the resolution open the medieval2.preference.cfg file found in the
demo installation directory in a text editor.

Change the following lines to match below:

battle_resolution = 1024 768


Excuse me, but my monitor can handle more than 1024 x 768!

Also when I open the medieval2.preference.cfg file all I have is this

[video]
widescreen=0


shouldnt there be more, or do I add the line (rather than change it) ?

BTW I tried the auto detect settings and my video setting are on medium

Any thoughts?

[Kourutsu]

Try a video driver update

and make sure your graphic cards support the thingie version 2 feature (pixel shader?- I forgoit, can't be bothered to look) otherwise set it to 1.0.

How does one update a video driver?

And my card is a Radeon X600.

I hope this all comes out good in the end, if not, its off to buy World of Warcraft...AND I WANT TO KEEP MY SOUL!

[BaldwinIV]

The demo looks great! I played all battles and the new stuff in MTW 2 is even better than I expected!
I was also surprised that the game runs not bad on my computer even on high graphic details.
My PC:
CPU - Intel Celeron 2.66 GHz
Memory - 512 MB RAM
Video Card - A 9550 GE, 256 MB
I'll buy another 512 MB RAM and a big Hard disc.
:charge:

[doc_bean]

How does one update a video driver?

And my card is a Radeon X600.

I hope this all comes out good in the end, if not, its off to buy World of Warcraft...AND I WANT TO KEEP MY SOUL!

go to the ati website (google ati or something) go to drivers (possibly support) download the latest cataclyst drivers, have fun.

[R'as al Ghul]

I seem to be running into this problem from the readme:
Change the following lines to match below:
battle_resolution = 1024 768
Also when I open the medieval2.preference.cfg file all I have is this
[video]
widescreen=0

shouldnt there be more, or do I add the line (rather than change it) ?
Any thoughts?

Try to do a search for "battle_resolution" in the demo folder. If that doesn't return anything I'd just add the line and try to run a battle.
If it works with the added line you can work your way up by editing the line to the next logical value.
Disclaimer: I can't run the demo. :wink:

[drone]

I can't run the demo either (older Athlon), but I might want to look through the files to get a feel for the moddability when the demo is legal to download. Is it possible to change the valour settings for the units in the demo? I would assume so, and this might give a better feel for the kill rates.

[Fenix7]

Driver update for Radeon or Nvidia will do the trick. I've solved my problem that way.

Ok, about the demo. I don't have anything to say against graphics. They are marvelous, but let's focus to the game engine.

Cavalry charges head on, on heavy infantry units are nothing but insanity. This is ok, but they are dying a bit quickly.

Secondly it seems to me that when units are not supported well are routing pretty easily. This is ok as well.

Melee battles. They seem a bit fast to me, but won't claim anything atm. I wrote this after playing the demo for 20 minutes and now I'm rushing to work, so this is very rough and biased description of the demo.

The main thing which have pleasently surprised me is that I don't have any lag even on medium settings despite I have ''only'' Pentium 4 2,6 ghz, 1024 mb and radeon 9600 pro 128 mb.

[Dave1984]

Driver update for Radeon or Nvidia will do the trick. I've solved my problem that way.




Absolutely, I was pretty concerned when I booted it up the first time and was getting a fair bit of lag, esp. on my system but after I updated my drivers it plays on the highest settings as smooth as my baby son's cheeks.

[SpencerH]

Try to do a search for "battle_resolution" in the demo folder. If that doesn't return anything I'd just add the line and try to run a battle.
If it works with the added line you can work your way up by editing the line to the next logical value.
Disclaimer: I can't run the demo. :wink:

The file is easy to find, its just that it doesnt contain any info (aside from the "widescreen = 0". Adding the line "battle_resolution = 1024 768" does nothing (except give me another major crash - number 6 or 7 so far).

Maybe someone with a working version can look in the medieval2.preference.cfg file and see what they have there.

[SpencerH]

As it turns out you MUST HAVE the most recent drivers for the Radeon 9800 for the cfg file to be properly set up. Now to see if it works !!

[Orda Khan]

So CA have decided to make a game that supports only Intel CPU's and newer AMD? Nobody minds adding some RAM or even, perhaps, a Graphics card.

Solution.......New PC? Spend loads of money that should be directed to better use? Only to find that MTW II is a bit of a let down?
Maybe I'll buy it in a year or two, when I can justify spending the money....and when possibly my PC meets the requirements.

Or I can hope this SSE2 issue is confined to the demo and not the game. Answers to this question is what I think we all need. I could care less what the demo is like, we can all pretty much work that out

......Orda

[SpencerH]

I only played the tutorial so far, does it seem dark to anyone else?

[SpencerH]

So CA have decided to make a game that supports only Intel CPU's and newer AMD? Nobody minds adding some RAM or even, perhaps, a Graphics card.

Solution.......New PC? Spend loads of money that should be directed to better use? Only to find that MTW II is a bit of a let down?
Maybe I'll buy it in a year or two, when I can justify spending the money....and when possibly my PC meets the requirements.

Or I can hope this SSE2 issue is confined to the demo and not the game. Answers to this question is what I think we all need. I could care less what the demo is like, we can all pretty much work that out

......Orda

I can see the wintel conspiracy theorists emerging from under their rocks even as we speak. ~;)

I wouldnt buy a new PC for one game either. Even a new graphics card seems ridiculous unless there are other games that also need it.

[Biggus Diccus]

So CA have decided to make a game that supports only Intel CPU's and newer AMD? Nobody minds adding some RAM or even, perhaps, a Graphics card.

Solution.......New PC? Spend loads of money that should be directed to better use? Only to find that MTW II is a bit of a let down?
Maybe I'll buy it in a year or two, when I can justify spending the money....and when possibly my PC meets the requirements.

Or I can hope this SSE2 issue is confined to the demo and not the game. Answers to this question is what I think we all need. I could care less what the demo is like, we can all pretty much work that out

......Orda

A lot of people will surely be disappointed (and annoyed) by this, myself included. I have never heard of any software, and surely not a game, that requires SSE2 to run.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

Or I can hope this SSE2 issue is confined to the demo and not the game. Answers to this question is what I think we all need. I could care less what the demo is like, we can all pretty much work that out


I think the full game will also support old cpus. But it is annoying, that they don't give us a comprehensive demo, that can play all TW fans in the world. :dizzy2:

[Spartanian]

Well i got a 2 years old AMD 64 3200+ and then demo runs without probs.

Colors and graphics are deeper,(darker),but the "playable" zoom is too far from the units..so u can see only BLACK POINTS on the field:embarassed: cant see differends between the units(in playable zoom)..maybe im too old:laugh4:

...i like mtw graphics moore than because u r closer to the action,and for me looks better in playable zoom than all this graphic improvements they made with rtw and mtw2.

Speed and killratio seemd slowed down.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

maybe im too old:laugh4:

Maybe? :laugh4:

Wann biste mal wieder in Vi?

[Biggus Diccus]

Well i got a 2 years old AMD 64 3200+ and then demo runs without probs.


Yeah, but a lot of people have the older Athlon XP CPUs that should run the game just fine. As of now these CPUs can't run the demo because they lack SSE2.

[Divine Wind]

Sorry, i must be the only computer noob here i guess, but how do you go about checking if you have SSE2 or not? Where do i go, what do i click?

Thanks

[Spino]

The demo won't work with older Athlon XP chips? WTF?!? That's so sad it's funny. :inquisitive:

The Athlon XP series is an extremely popular chip with gamers. Who in blazes greenlit that design decision?

I guess CA & Sega didn't bother to check out Valve's handy user survey...

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html


SURVEY RESULTS
This survey began on March 3rd, 2006. This page last updated: 7:37pm PST (03:37 GMT), April 04 2006 Unique Samples: 711,302

Processor Vendor
AMD128Azzith 1 0.00 %
AuthenticAMD 366,937 51.59 %
CentaurHauls 45 0.01 %
CyrixInstead 1 0.00 %
GenuineIntel 344,308 48.41 %
GenuineTMx86 3 0.00 %

AMD CPU Speeds
Below 1 Ghz 4,664 0.66 %
1 Ghz to 1.09 Ghz 4,194 0.59 %
1.1 Ghz to 1.19 Ghz 4,479 0.63 %
1.2 Ghz to 1.29 Ghz 5,829 0.82 %
1.3 Ghz to 1.39 Ghz 5,510 0.77 %
1.4 Ghz to 1.49 Ghz 9,903 1.39 %
1.5 Ghz to 1.69 Ghz 35,734 5.02 %
1.7 Ghz to 1.99 Ghz 94,386 13.27 %
2.0 Ghz to 2.29 Ghz 167,950 23.61 %
2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz 30,727 4.32 %
2.7 Ghz to 2.99 Ghz 2,880 0.40 %
3.0 GHz and above 676 0.10 %

Other Settings
RDTSC 711,301 100.00 %
CMOV 711,215 99.99 %
FCMOV 711,186 99.98 %
SSE 700,697 98.51 %
SSE2 510,825 71.82 %
3DNOW 366,964 51.59 %
HyperThreading 163,877 23.04 %
NTFS 658,058 92.51 %
Out of 711,302 systems surveyed only 71.82% (510,857) of them can handle the SSE2 instruction set, leaving a whopping 28.18% (200,445) of these users crap out of luck. If Valve's user survey is an accurate indication of the gaming population (and I believe it is) then CA & Sega are seriously gambling with MTW2's potential sales figures. I also find it curious that CA did not incorporate a 'fall back' basic SSE mode so as to maximize compatibility.

I find it very difficult to believe that Sega would be so short sighted regarding system compatibility so I am cautiously assuming that the release version of MTW2 will not require a SSE2 compatible processor to run.

But if it doesn't...

:wall:

[Barkhorn1x]

Sorry, i must be the only computer noob here i guess, but how do you go about checking if you have SSE2 or not? Where do i go, what do i click?

Thanks

Download and unzip this freeware program = CPU-Z:

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

Run the .EXE and look at the "CPU" tab - "Instructions" box. If SSE2 is listed you are OK - if not, then not.

Barkhorn.

[R'as al Ghul]

Get CPU-Z from this site:
http://www.computerbase.de/downloads/software/systemueberwachung/cpu-z/

The download link is in the middle beneath Download Links it says "CPU-Z 1.37".
Unzip and run cpuz.exe, it reads the data of your CPU.
Somewhere in the middle it says"Instructions" followed by either SSE or SSE2 as one of the points.

R'as


Sorry, i must be the only computer noob here i guess, but how do you go about checking if you have SSE2 or not? Where do i go, what do i click?

Thanks

P.S.: Lol, Barkhorn was faster....

[Barkhorn1x]

I think the full game will also support old cpus. But it is annoying, that they don't give us a comprehensive demo, that can play all TW fans in the world. :dizzy2:

Well, this demo is NOT the public release demo, now is it?

Everyone should just chill out until that one is released. Then feel free to rant if the SSE2 isssue is not addressed.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Get CPU-Z from this site:
http://www.computerbase.de/downloads/software/systemueberwachung/cpu-z/

The download link is in the middle beneath Download Links it says "CPU-Z 1.37".
Unzip and run cpuz.exe, it reads the data of your CPU.
Somewhere in the middle it says"Instructions" followed by either SSE or SSE2 as one of the points.

R'as



P.S.: Lol, Barkhorn was faster....

We must have crossed posted. :juggle2:

Barkhorn.

[TB666]

Archer posted this on TWC



According to some semi-official statements, the demo - which is featured in the PC Gamer magazine disk and distributed illegaly around the net, might not be the "official" demo, which suppose to come out in the very near feature.

So please, do not base anything on this demo - regardless of how you gotten it -

That includes the recent threads about the compatibility with certain CPU-s and systems.

Once we have the official web-release of the demo, we will know it for sure.

Until then, DO NOT make your conclusion about the final product, based on this "special edition" demo.

Thanks!

[Ibn Munqidh]

I only played the tutorial so far, does it seem dark to anyone else?

Yeah I have noticed that too.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Does anyone know how to disable the stupid green markers?

[TB666]

Does anyone know how to disable the stupid green markers?
Open your wordpad and open the file "medieval2.preference.cfg"
There you can find the option to remove the green markers and banners.
1= On
0= Off

[Divine Wind]

Thanks for the quick help guys.

However not good news, here is another user without SSE2.

Oh well, may as well go and cancel that pre-order until we have firm confirmation for .com

:no:

[highlanddave]

Barkhorn1x and R’as al Ghul, I downloaded the CPU-Z and ran it. It is very cool. The only bad thing I can see is it makes a very tiny screen that is hard to read. Is that something I can change?

It is odd that my 2001 bought intel chip has the sse2. I still can not play, because I have a pre-windows 2000 operating system, however.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

I installed the demo but it gives me an error when i start the game.What you think i should do?
Sorry i had some writing mistakes.

[Barkhorn1x]

I installed the demo but it gives me an error when i start the game.What you think i should do?
Sorry i had some writing mistakes.

Tell us what specific error it is for starters.

...and what are your system specs?

Barkhorn.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

First what is SSE?

[Lord ZORO Savage]

I have a AMD Athlon 64 ,2 ghz ,256 Mb Ram ,G-force 5
Sorry AMD Sempron 2800 ,2ghz ,256 Mb ram ,G-force 5 128

[DukeofSerbia]

I dont know too much about AMD processors but I have the AMD 64 X2 4200. Does this have the SSE2?

Yes, it has even SSE3, like all Athlons 64.:2thumbsup:

[Barkhorn1x]

Sorry AMD Sempron 2800 ,2ghz ,256 Mb ram ,G-force 5 128

OK, first off you do not have a CPU that supports SSE2 (a CPU "instruction set") and that is why - primarily - you can't play the demo. Your 256 MB of RAM is not helping either as it is now a 1 GB minimum world.

Barkhorn.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

In the README it says that the processor must support SSE2

[Zatoichi]

Hi there LZS. Yes indeed, we need an SSE2 compatable processor to play the demo. Unfortunately you and I (and 28% of the gaming population by all accounts) cannot play this version of the demo.

There is a chance that when Sega release the demo for 'official' download this may no longer be a requirement.

We just don't know. Patience is a virtue by all accounts.

[Nathanael]

And hopefully will run on Win98, too . . .

I know, I know, it's terribly unlikely. :embarassed:

[Puzz3D]

First what is SSE?
"SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) is a SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instruction set designed by Intel and introduced in 1999 in their Pentium III series processors as a reply to AMD's 3DNow!"

"SSE2, introduced with the Pentium 4, is a major enhancement to SSE. SSE2 adds new math instructions for double-precision (64-bit) floating point and 8/16/32-bit integer data types, all operating on the same 128-bit XMM vector register-file previously introduced with SSE. SSE2 enables the programmer to perform SIMD math of virtually any type (from 8-bit integer to 64-bit float) entirely with the XMM vector-register file, without the need to touch the (legacy) MMX/FPU registers."

[tgi01]

The green arrows will dissapear if you change the following :

disable_arrow_markers = 1 ( from 0 to 1 )

In the medieval2.preference cfg file



TGI

[SpencerH]

"SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) is a SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instruction set designed by Intel and introduced in 1999 in their Pentium III series processors as a reply to AMD's 3DNow!"

"SSE2, introduced with the Pentium 4, is a major enhancement to SSE. SSE2 adds new math instructions for double-precision (64-bit) floating point and 8/16/32-bit integer data types, all operating on the same 128-bit XMM vector register-file previously introduced with SSE. SSE2 enables the programmer to perform SIMD math of virtually any type (from 8-bit integer to 64-bit float) entirely with the XMM vector-register file, without the need to touch the (legacy) MMX/FPU registers."

Well, I'm glad thats cleared up then ~;)

[SpencerH]

In the README it says that the processor must support SSE2

Some semprons support sse2 so dont give up yet. Find out what sempron you have or use one of the programs mentioned earlier in the thread.

I would think you need more RAM though. What OS are you running?

[player1]

A lot of people will surely be disappointed (and annoyed) by this, myself included. I have never heard of any software, and surely not a game, that requires SSE2 to run.

Yes, there is, Adobe CS2!

Although, it's a professional software, so CPU upgrade is not so big issue if you can afford such software.

But for video game?!? :inquisitive:

[SpencerH]

Its a SEGA-Intel conspiracy I tell ya!

[Kourutsu]

go to the ati website (google ati or something) go to drivers (possibly support) download the latest cataclyst drivers, have fun.

Damn... did I get the Media Center edition of Windows XP? My DxDiag file is calling it 'Windows XP Professional'. But I have Media Center on my computer!

I cannot afford to mess up my computer now, not when I have waited so long for this game.

[econ21]

So it appears running speed has been reduced by around 20%


Belatedly coming back on this - it is interesting that the major realism mods (EB and RTR) cut movement speeds by 20% from RTW.

If, as you say, BI was 10% slower than RTW and M2TW 20% is slower than BI, this means that units may run slower in M2TW than in the realism mods.

[Kourutsu]

Alright, everything is going smooth now.

Played Agincourt, no lag at all on medium settings.

I just want to discuss the fighting sequences now. First off, a majority of them are awesome. And very realistic, IE the Zweihanders pushing down their visors and blocking attacks. But there are a few that are just a little out there. Such as the dismounted knights with pole-arms hopping into the air, and then pulling a 360 degree and slamming their weapons into the enemy.

Now, I'm no expert. But I find it hard to beleive that a man adorned in full plate armor can pull off such a move.

[CrownOfSwords]

Which issue of PC Gamer is the demo in? I just went and looked at the november issue and I didn't see anything about MTW2, where did you guys get that issue by subscription or from store?

[Bob the Insane]

Which issue of PC Gamer is the demo in? I just went and looked at the november issue and I didn't see anything about MTW2, where did you guys get that issue by subscription or from store?

It is the December issue, #155... You know how they release the issues a month before, November's in October, December's in November (or even late October)... It is so they can get a Christmas edition in and have 13 issues a year...

Actually if you look in the bottom right of the last page of the November edition (#154) if gives a not so subtle hint about MTW in the next issue...


Now, I'm no expert. But I find it hard to beleive that a man adorned in full plate armor can pull off such a move.


Well whether he can or not does not add up to whether it would be a good idea or not...

Maybe showing off in a dueling situation (like the re-enactors they copied the animations off) it's okay but in a large melee I would not want to be turning my back on the enemy...

But still, small beans really when everthing looks so much smoother and less mechanical...

I have been spoiled by RTW, see the enemy coming and rushing your men into a good formation just does not seem to cut it here, you need to keep your guys in good order and perpare in advance.

[CrownOfSwords]

yeah i figured that out finally, is it possible to get these issues in the store yet or is it just be subscription?

[CBR]

Belatedly coming back on this - it is interesting that the major realism mods (EB and RTR) cut movement speeds by 20% from RTW.

If, as you say, BI was 10% slower than RTW and M2TW 20% is slower than BI, this means that units may run slower in M2TW than in the realism mods.
Yeah most mods did a reduction of 20-30% IIRC

RTW heavy infantry had a running speed of around 275-280 meters/minute(m/min) so mods who reduced the movement modifier to 0.8 would then have them running at around 220 m/min. The 0.7 would give a speed of around 195 m/min.

Personally I used 0.7 even for BI mods which as about 175 m/min


CBR

[legion commander167]

im downloading now i can't wait to play it i can run rome on high great with out any lag can i run the demo on medium or high?

[Mars]

well, once i said....to controll the speed u need skill and this fact didnt changed!

Look at STW, now that was speed, noone complained these days. Anyway, the speed isnt what makes the game good or bad. Its also not the "blob" stuff some spoke about.

Im more interested how long units last, how the fatique is, killratio of missles, this cav thingy scares me a lot... just to call a few.

Puzz ofc worry about speed :P

Some ideas are not bad, like static money, and also the limit of the units isnt that bad, at least they try to work aroudn the balance. That its impossible to balance all these units isnt something new, but its a first step.

I saw that they work on a ladder...



So far so good, the problem is still the same, its SEGA i have my doubts that they will make the game too complex, so i bet the moral and penalty system will be dumbed down like the last TW versions.

Mars

[R'as al Ghul]

Assuming the 3d Gamers download is the real deal it still says:

The processor must support SSE2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE2

At first glance the whole readme is the same.
:wall:

R'as


Archer posted this on TWC:

According to some semi-official statements, the demo - which is featured in the PC Gamer magazine disk and distributed illegaly around the net, might not be the "official" demo, which suppose to come out in the very near feature.

So please, do not base anything on this demo - regardless of how you gotten it -

That includes the recent threads about the compatibility with certain CPU-s and systems.

Once we have the official web-release of the demo, we will know it for sure.

Until then, DO NOT make your conclusion about the final product, based on this "special edition" demo.

Thanks!

[Bob the Insane]

Anyone else taken the opportunity to switch the camera to unrestricted and simply taken a wander over the battlefields ignoring the actual battle?

It is pretty sweet, I wonder if the campaign battlefields will have this much detail in them?

I think they are a little bigger than RTW but I am unsure because there is so many little hills and trees and building it is hard to compare them by eye...

[DisruptorX]

Well, my impression of the demo is:

Graphics are great, framerate terrible. I'll have to turn the settings down a bit, or hopefully the final product will be optimized more. Either way, looks good.

Troops seem to move at a realistic rate. No more schools of fish style movement, from what I've seen. Looks like defense will be a good tactic, jugding from this, foot archers seem easier to use than in Rome, where they were run down rather quickly.

The Demo levels are pre-made battles with scripted enemies, though, so its hard to say what the AI is like. I never have liked the historical battles, but as a demo its not too bad.

Oh, and the option to disable the damn starcraft UI from Rome is actually in the menu now! No more text-file editing to get rid of it. I hate huge UIs and developers' fetish for them, and they make no sense. Does anyone who plays RTS games not use hotkeys?

Kind of odd that the first demo battle in "Medieval": Total War 2 takes place in 1525, but hey, I'm not complaining. Muskets and Zweihanders are awesome. Very Happy I actually defeated a unit with my muskets, something I've never done in MTW. I now love muskets. Killed the french king in a hail of shot. There are going to be some awesome Renaissance battles in the full version if its anything like demo.

Sluggish commands are back, and doubling clicking doesn't always register, but overall thumbs up.

[Mount Suribachi]

Oh, and the option to disable the damn starcraft UI from Rome is actually in the menu now! No more text-file editing to get rid of it. I hate huge UIs and developers' fetish for them, and they make no sense. Does anyone who plays RTS games not use hotkeys?



Um, me? And I've been playing Shogun from day 1 ~:)

[Kwartjuh]

The demo is great! I really think that CA listened to the community with this game. Its not to fast, nor to slow. And if you think it is a little fast, you can set it to slower in the settings.

I dont have a state-of-the-art computer, but i can run it mostly on medium / heavy. Only shadows are lowest, and grass is low. The rest looks AMAZING!

[Mars]

well, i dont care about eyecandy....great grafix doesnt keep u playing a game for a good time. this jsut hold a few days, than u can take it off.

Nah, the demo doesnt allow u much to say aobut the game yet, the "battles" u can fight, dont give u a good impression especially as u cant test much. the computer follow a static order...

U also cant test any of the promised changes. Its much better than RTW, but its too early to fall in love and hype something.
I did read the blog of pala, he used the word "balance" quite a lot, this make me worry, as i saw what he understand or mean with "balance". I truly hope that the balance doesnt mean, that we are down to a static ammount of cash and this 1/3 for unitclasses only.

it needs more than this!

One real insteresting question is, they did use the untis/stats from SP for MP or they finally did manage to really balance it a bit?

what about fatique?

How much is the moralsystem dumped down?

...

Mars

[Zatoichi]

Well, as my home PC isn't up to snuff thanks to being based on an Athlon 2700+ I've not had the chance to try the demo.

However, it's a slow day at work, so I'm busy downloading from 3dgamers with the intention of trying it on one of the MESH computers our IT team bought a few months back to act as my team's servers! AMD 64 4400 and an NVidia 6600LE card should enable me to get some idea of how the game plays - just have to wait until 5:30 when everyone has gone home!

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

well, i dont care about eyecandy....great grafix doesnt keep u playing a game for a good time. this jsut hold a few days, than u can take all the crap off.


1000% agree. I wanna fight good online battles. There isn't time to zoom into battles. TW isn't a FPS.



Nah, the demo doesnt allow u much to say aobut the game yet, the "battles" u can fight, dont give u a good impression especially as u cant test much. the computer follow a static order...


We need a custom battle demo. 3vs3 with AI.



One real insteresting question is, they did use the untis/stats from SP for MP or they finally did manage to really balance it a bit?

what about fatique?

How much is the moralsystem dumped down?


In the next blog he wants to write about.

[Puzz3D]

well, once i said....to controll the speed u need skill and this fact didnt changed!

Look at STW, now that was speed, noone complained these days.
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.

[Kourutsu]

I just remembered.

~ Brings up Medieval Shell.

40% Larger elephants once more!

[spong]

I just dloaded and played the demo and I really enjoyed it, though I have to say I'm glad there's some time left before the release because I have one problem with it and thats that the combat animations are no where near as nicely synchronised as we have seen in the trailers and videos, I have frequently watched as soldiers would do a scripted attack against thin air, attacks that from the previews are supposed to stick into people going nowhere near them, finishing manevers against fallen troops being performed against invisible soldiers on the ground in completely the opposite direction. I find this very confusing as, either they have it working properly and caught it for the vids, and this is just a really unrefined version in the demo, or its as is and someone who made the video spent ages initiating melees and watching very carefully to capture the one-off perfect moves.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

[Tamur]

Downloaded via fileplanet last night and played once through each of the battles & the tutorial. The first thing I did in each of the battles was pause and just look around the battlefields.

The vegetation is truly phenomenal; Agincourt town and the manor are both very well done. I love the variety of troops, this is such an improvement over RTW.

The landscape has such rich variation, it's quite impressive, especially at Agincourt. If the battle hadn't been so scripted, I would have marched my army over to take advantage of the cliffs off to the left, some really nice terrain over in that area. In fact, the variety of terrain is so much better than RTW, judging from only these two battles, that I'm wondering if terrain will once again be installed at a tactical factor in battles? We'll see how the random terrain generation does throwing interesting combinations together, but I'm hopeful.

As has been said, the battles play out at a decent pace, except for the 2 seconds it takes for the cavalry to be slaughtered at Agincourt. I was surprised and gratified that I actually had to flank the French to get them to rout.

[maestro]

Dunno why everyone's getting in a tiz about this being an "illegal demo" unless you have it fro US PC Gamer or whatever. I just logged into Fileplanet and I'm downloading it legally at over 300kb/s :inquisitive:

God bless Fileplanet and their reasonably priced Founders Club subscription for 50 quid a year :2thumbsup:

[Lusted]

My first impression of the demo:

WOW.

The graphics are amazing, combat feels much better than RTW, and the combat speeds and kill speeds are much nicer. And, i find this surprising, i do not have the urge to mod it, im really happy with it as it is.

[spong]

I just read on TWC that in the medieval2.preference.cfg file in the demo folder - you can edit out the green markers, banners etc. as you could in Rome, also found out myself by playing around that you can set the unit size to 160 like it was on huge setting in Rome.

I'm finding the game runs fine, I have an AMD Athlon 64bit 3200+ 2ghz, 1 gig of DDR RAM, ATI Radeon x850 XT Platinum Edition graphics card - I've got the unit setting on huge through the .cfg file, unit detail on highest, no anti-aliasing, 1280x1024 (default monitor res), shader 2, building detail low, textures, shadows, vegetation, grass and effects all medium, bloom and reflections turned on.

Looks as good as the screenies and no loss of framerate.

I agree with Lusted that it seems really nice and I don't feel the need for mods, apart from what I mentioned earlier with the combat animations being a bit crazy but CA can still fix that I think.

[Tempiic]

Its hard to test out whether or not having overlapping units gives a penalty with the scripted games.

But I think it might be, however I am far from sure.

With agincourt, if you have your front line of dismounted foot all cluttered together, it seems the french first infantry wave is on its way to finish these 3 units untill their 2nd cav charges in and their own whole group routs. Your own casualty rate seems to be much higher than if you use the plain line deployment as it is as start)

If you change nothing in the battle line from start and just watches, the English only start getting into problems during the 2nd french infantry wave.

However, with the high valour units of the english and a semi-cluttered french infantry wall, it is hard to be completely certain.


(Finding out whether battlefield upgrades happen during the battle or actually after the battle, is a hopeless case with all your high valour units)

Funny Fact: I've seen many many times dismounted knights being stabbed in the head, throat, chest or back when they try to do their whirling hammer attack. Jay!

[Ulstan]

"Such as the dismounted knights with pole-arms hopping into the air, and then pulling a 360 degree and slamming their weapons into the enemy.

Now, I'm no expert. But I find it hard to beleive that a man adorned in full plate armor can pull off such a move"

I believe they were fully capable of such a move (ignoring the hollywood myth that knights in full plate armor were clumsy beasts who could hardly even move) but question whether it would have been the wisest maneuver to pull off in a full scale melee.

Oh well, if there's one unit that can get away with a ridiculously 'for show' killing move it's knights :p

[Tempiic]

I also noticed AI cav switching from lances to swords during melee.

[SirGrotius]

I'm running a well above average rig and the game just looks stunning, although oddly I experienced some lag on Hastings.
However after removing the grass (I'm not a fan of grass that appears in clumps and criss-cross lines anyway) I didn't have any trouble at all, apart from in the cases where the flags seemed to stutter a little.
I seem to remember the Rome demo having a similar problem, though- is this just because the game hasn't been optimised yet (which I believe they do last?).

As for the game itself, I was impressed. It seemed a little clunky to begin with and the older sounding chap who did the battle intros sounded like my old Egyptology lecturer at uni, prompting me to skip the intos completely.

However the speed appears to have been slowed down noticeably- having needed to press pause alot in RTW, it was a refreshing change to only need to press pause to examine the troops and textures.
I tried using all the graphical settings and have to say that even on medium the detail and the look was more than good enough.
It all seemed darker, grittier and more adult than the bright colours of Rome, which I welcome entirely, and certainly the dark clouds of Agincourt and the beautiful sunrise of Pavia added a whole new dimension to the atmosphere.

The much-hyped 'finishing moves' were subtle enough and varied enough to avoid turning it into something arcadey, although I did notice one of them involved the foot knight spinning around to deliver the blow, something which makes me wince whenever I see it. Perhaps they should modify it so that in attempting to do so, the perpetrator gets stabbed in the back or side.
I was happy to see some injured men crawling away from the melee, and standing back a little the ebb and flow looked satisfyingly brutal and natural.
I was interested to see the clothing and armour of troops become splattered with mud and blood, although on the mounted knights especially the blood reminded me of the fire effect on troops in RTW.

I can't really comment on the AI as a result of the scripting, although in one case at Pavia my flank was turned quite effectively with a feigned pike assault on the right, only for Gendarmes to burst from the trees on the left.
On the other hand, a unit of French Heavy infantry tried chasing my general all over the field unsupported and increasingly isolated.
After the initial assaults which I feel where the scripted ones the other French attacks that were reacting to my movements tended to be well executed and troops well supported by each other.

The use of the stakes at Agincourt was interesting- no knights have as yet managed to charge into them, but that isn't really the point- they avoid them, and thus avoid the archers, which is. Some foot troops did attempt to pick their way through them but their formation was so dispersed when they reached the other side that they were torn apart by the billmen I had ordered forward to wait for them.

The movement speed and killing rates do seem to have been decreased and, as mentioned, even when it got hectic I was never forced to use the pause button. There was always plenty of time to assess the situation, and "holding" a unit by engaging it with another worked for far longer than in RTW.

The sounds themselves were fine. The music didn't particularly stand out for me although I did use Vercingetorix's idx extractor to unpack the sound files and noticed that several of the generic soldier sounds were RTW names- EQUITE17, for example, or HASTATI09.

I'm heartened by this demo, and, bearing in mind the game should have been fine tuned since this, I'm now very excited.

Wow, thanks for the cogent review--the above makes me very excited to try out the demo later today!

Do you guys think the game will run all right on my rig?

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
2GB DDR2 Performance SDRAM at 800MHz
250GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200 RPM w/ 8MB Cache
Dual 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX

Haha, j/k, sorry:

I have a Pentium IV 2 Ghz (upgrading to 3 Ghz for this game)
1 GB RAM
Geforce 6800 GT 2/ 256 VRAM

From what I read before, this should do okay at medium settings but I should be mindful of turning off shadows and grass.

Anyway, I'm very excited--I'm so glad they slowed down the battles!

[Kenchi_Sulla]

I have tried the demo and it feels better then RTW. Hard to say but this is the comment I have posted in the Kenchi forums:

Have to be carefull with conclusions, it is better then the RTW demo, camera movements seemed smooth, battle detail is better (more overview, nicer graphics ofcourse).

I was able to do a few tests:

Heavy cavalry charging pikes - pikes win
Heavy cavalry charging tired and slightly outnumbered pikes - pikes rout
Heavy cavalry in long melee - cavalry routs/dies
crossbows vs cavalry in melee - cavalry takes heavy losses
melee fights seemed slower paced then vanilla RTW. Slower walking speeds.

Overall it felt like a mix of MTW/RTW. Ofcourse this is just a beta demo - we still have to see the full game but I'm pretty positive about it!


Great to see familiar names like CBR, Tempiic and the likes :) Hope to meet you in the MTW2 lobby...

[Orda Khan]

crossbows vs cavalry in melee - cavalry takes heavy losses
Now I don't like the sound of that. Why would cavalry take heavy losses in MELEE against a unit that has a long reload sequence and has scant weaponry apart from the crossbow? I remember voicing concerns about cav v arbs with Tosa in MTW. We both agreed that even light cav should scatter crossbows and such. The horse alone would do enough damage

......Orda

[sunsmountain]

As for SSE2, programs are typically optimized for those instructions but do not require it, as I think they can be approximated and/or executed by slower SSE instructions. But i'm not entirely sure...


M2TW movement speed is now reduced almost all the way back to STW speeds.
Good to hear, now if somebody will be kind enough to grab a hexadecimal editor and remove the extra valor and scripting (set to 0, delete), we can perhaps get some insight into the AI, which I doubt being a very old version. That leaves multiplayer balance as an unknown, but good to hear there might be a hot seat option!

[CBR]

Hm In Pavia I have not noticed any heavy losses when the general is fighting crossbows.


CBR

[Bob the Insane]

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
2GB DDR2 Performance SDRAM at 800MHz
250GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200 RPM w/ 8MB Cache
Dual 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX



You know I have the parts for that very machine (well with a 7950GT Gfx card) priced out on Newegg right now... $2,200 or there abouts

Oh... the temptation....

[Satyr]

I just put a computer together that is most of that one. It screams and that is without the SLI video cards using a 7900GT instead.

I won't get to dl the demo until Wednesday but I am getting excited reading all these good reviews.

[spong]

Ok so I've been playing the demo on and off all day since dloading it from fileplanet this morning, in between sessions visiting here and TWC to hear other people's views and discuss what bothers me. Aside from one or two things which I believe will have either already been fixed (as this is early beta stage code which has been improved upon since despite only just being released, or so I hear), be fixed by release or be fixed in a patch or mod I'm very impressed. Perhaps too impressed, I'm starting to wish I hadn't dloaded it at all now because with roughly a month to go before Play.com's 'proposed' UK release I've realised something terrible (cue best Will Shatner voice) I...can't go back!

It's just too amazing, how can I go back to my RTW campaign with the dreaded clone armies now I have bathed in the glory that is MIITW? I have tasted paradise, nirvana, and now I want to stay there!

Damn you CA for releasing a demo of such an amazing game with so long left to release, I need to get my fix, better fire up the demo again! Once more into the breach!

[Kenchi_Sulla]

I'm sorry that I confused you. The general was fighting an infantry unit and was fired upon by crossbows. Took severe casualties while taking fire (so did the infantry unit ofcourse).

Cavalry chews up crossbows in melee.

[econ21]

I've had a go with the demo and overall, I was very favorably impressed. The tutorial, Hastings, gives you a good flavour of the move and kill speeds - IIRC you don't have uber units and you have time to take things in. Game speed feels slower than MTW. Cavalry is not overpowered as in RTW - to be honest, it may be a little underpowered and reminds me of RTR. Cavalry depends a lot on getting a charge, but my impression was that it might be easier to execute a proper charge in M2TW than RTW (where you needed a good run-up) but I am not sure. Your archers are ok, but not that good - I could not break the peasant charge with them alone. The in-game advice tells you that your spearmen are your best melee units. We are not in Kansas anymore.

Agincourt gives you more of a sense of a battle than Hastings. The longbows seem well balanced IMO. I watched specific enemy units to see how many casualties they took from fire before hitting the English mainline. Not many. Good bows (e.g. longbows) may also less powerful than in RTW - not Cretan archers mowing down the opposition here, I suspect. Some people may be disappointed at this, but bear in the mind the targets were on foot, clad in full plate and with shields. Plus, the time the enemy took to close with my lines was not very long. By contrast, the stationary French crossbows - in mail and without pavises - did get wiped out without me targetting them. Looking at the list of kills per unit at the end of the battle, the longbow kills were significant but not disproportionate. Cavalry charging at braced English dismounted knights got trashed (although the dismounted knights did suffer on the impact). But the cavalry that gets around your rear was much more dangerous and ripped into my (non-braced) heavy billmen. They did include a 2 hit point general's unit though (a recent bug bear of mine from RTW - 2 hit point heavy cavalry is just too dominating). It was quite a fun battle - I ended up losing nearly all my non-longbow units, apart from the king. If the French had coordinated their attacks rather than coming on in waves, I would have been toast.

Pavia gives you more freedom and also more variety of units. I confess I lost first time (encouraged by an in-battle to message to go for the second artillery park, when it was irrelevant) and only drew the second. I don't have as much of a feel for how some of the units (e.g. arquebusiers or pikemen) work. The kill rates seemed slower, and morale higher, than in most RTW battles. French crossbowmen did lethal damage to my Zweihanders; they also held out for a reasonable amount of time against my knights - two units of crossbowmen threatened to defeat my depleted 2HP unit, so I had to pull them out and only finished them off with another charge later.

The demo feels VERY different from the RTW Trebia one (which appalled me) with the kill/run speeds & morale levels being much more to my taste.

Surprisingly, my big concern was with the graphics. They were not nearly as good as I expected. I think RTR, Goth mod etc run far better on my computer and give a much better visual experience. I guess this is because my computer - or specifically the graphics card - is not up to it (Pentium 4 3.40GHZ with 1048 RAM; Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB). I got between 8-20 FPS depending on the settings. Typing this, my eye-sight is still blurred from the experience. It put me on medium quality for most things, but I did not like the medium quality unit graphics - they looked like faceless zombies. What impressed me most on medium was the wavy grass with flowers blowing the wind. But I do not play Total War to admire the countryside, so I switched off everything I could - grass, shadows, bloom, effects - and cranked up the unit detail to highest (although apparently high is enough). That seemed to give me better FPS and more like the quality of unit graphics I was used to from RTW mods. But I am thinking about upgrading the graphics card.

[x-dANGEr]

Simon, put the Shader Version to 1, and decrease the unit scale, then enjoy the beautiful graphics you'd get. (Till you upgrade or get a new GPU ~;) )

[Polemists]

True, while I don't like all the side stuff I realize cranking it down for me personally also makes me lose a bit of the feel. Even when I tried high it moved quite a bit slower, and there are some other games I want so I will probably be looking to uprgrade my card.

On medium the units don't look bad in my view, when all fighting in a mob. However the difference is quite comparable when you compare highest to med. I assume quite a few people will upgrade there grahpics card, while this isn't the do all game you may need to upgrade for. Most people should keep in mind these requirements are on low end, I can think of at least five games with way higher graphics req's coming out end of year. I think this is last game anyone will see with requirements this low.


Still I have fun at medium :). It may not be a HD IGN faction video but still looks good.

[spong]

Just played Pavia again.

I'm starting to agree with what some other people have said about the movement speed of foot units being too fast, cavalry seems fine, but infantry, even heavily armoured, seem to be able to close the distance a little too quickly, by that I mean it should be normal for you to be caught unprepared by cavalry, but the speed of some of the infantry is so great that its quite easy to not be ready, not have fired enough volleys etc. before they close, a good strong defensive position should give plenty of time for several volleys and for line infantry to brace before the enemy closes but currently its just not quite there, almost but not quite, maybe this will change.

I'm generally reserving my negative judgement until the game is released proper, I still have faith that CA will iron out the issues that we've seen in this demo and I'm more confident that the most pressing ones on my mind (ie the animations not connecting properly) will be dealt with even if the others, which are minor gripes, may not.

[maestro]

Well.. wehere to start?

Firstly I'm glad it plays nicely on my rig at 1600x1200, maxed out :2thumbsup: However, I can't help but think that it looks very cluttered on the battlefield. It's difficult to see what's going on and the minimap is next to useless. Dunno if it's just me but I just found it very hard to see what units were doing unless I was zoomed in close - so no overall tactical view. Also, I couldn't click on a unit's banner to select them so attacking a particular unit in a melee was difficult.

But yes, the graphics are excellent; great scenery, great textures and effects and the models' animations are cool. To be honest, though, it's the city / castle battles which I hope excel and the campaign I'm more interested in.

[Lord ZORO Savage]

does a sempron 2800+ 2ghz support SSE2 or 1

[DukeofSerbia]

Its a SEGA-Intel conspiracy I tell ya!

:laugh4: Maybe, maybe...

[frogbeastegg]

My own cautious verdict is that I'm left curious. I want to know how the game plays without the scripting, and with bigger armies and more space between them at the start - in short, what a normal battle is like. I want to try things out, tinker, experiment, fight a few easy battles so I can zoom in close and watch. I don't feel able to make any other verdict based on this demo; there's not space or time to work as I like to because of the scripting and starting proximity of the armies. I can't say if the speed is right, or if the units perform as I hope they will.

This is how MTW's demo left me feeling. STW's made me want the game that very minute. RTW's made me want to play unscripted normal battles to prove it wasn't as bad as I thought.

Here's hoping this demo can be modded as the others were, providing real battles.

For those having performance issues, try turning shadows completely off. I have a P4 3.0, 2GB DDR RAM, and a geforce 7600GT; the game auto-detected the video settings to the highest settings for most categories and the second highest for the others. Yet it ran very badly. Turning this and that down didn't make so much of a difference; sticking shadows to lowest helped a fair bit. Turning them off let me whack all the settings back to the highest levels and add in AA x2, with it all running perfectly.

I will definitely extend thanks for the little differences I have noticed, things I've been wanting and we have been asking for. Things which could have (some might say should have) made in into RTW or BI, but didn't. For example the menu toggle for the minimal UI, the addition of speed controls to the minimal UI, 1280x1024 resolution available from the menu without hacking the files. Tiny little details which make for a much more polished, user friendly product. It gives me this tiny little tentative feeling of hope - if they have listened and implemented on such small things, then maybe on the larger things ...

And I like the music. I found RTW's was so disappointing; this is a return to the highs of the original two games. I still have the battle and victory tracks of STW and MTW/VI on my playlist Liking the voice acting in general, and the English announcer in particular; if you can't have Sean Pertwee a nice old English gent will do very well as a second. No more pubescent teenagers with breaking voices, huzzah!

Cautiously optimistic. Not so much so that I would pre-order, but if I saw it for £25 around released I might buy. If some modded battles for the demo appear and they play well I’ll probably pick up a copy on release day. I admit if not for my disappointment in RTW I’d pick this up on release day at full price. I’m reluctant to repeat what happened before, and go through the vicious cycle of hope to disillusioned disappointment again. I guess that is my main problem with this demo and the recent splurge of information: I am unable to take anything on trust.

[DukeofSerbia]

Surprisingly, my big concern was with the graphics. They were not nearly as good as I expected. I think RTR, Goth mod etc run far better on my computer and give a much better visual experience. I guess this is because my computer - or specifically the graphics card - is not up to it (Pentium 4 3.40GHZ with 1048 RAM; Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB). I got between 8-20 FPS depending on the settings. Typing this, my eye-sight is still blurred from the experience. It put me on medium quality for most things, but I did not like the medium quality unit graphics - they looked like faceless zombies. What impressed me most on medium was the wavy grass with flowers blowing the wind. But I do not play Total War to admire the countryside, so I switched off everything I could - grass, shadows, bloom, effects - and cranked up the unit detail to highest (although apparently high is enough). That seemed to give me better FPS and more like the quality of unit graphics I was used to from RTW mods. But I am thinking about upgrading the graphics card.

Almost the same except I have Athlon64 3000+ (soon will be o/c). But I will upgrade soon...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

My new 7600 GT arrived today, which supports Shader 3.0. However, the game will only let me utilise 2.0. Does it not support 3.0, or is something wrong?

[econ21]

Simon, put the Shader Version to 1, and decrease the unit scale, then enjoy the beautiful graphics you'd get.

Just tried it - yes; you are right - getting 26-30 FPS and things look MUCH prettier. Thank you. :bow:

Playing Agincourt again, I did find things a little fast - I tried to move around more this time and while focussing on a specific unit manoeuvre, I would find a far away part of my line was taken out before I noticed it.

[frogbeastegg]

My new 7600 GT arrived today, which supports Shader 3.0. However, the game will only let me utilise 2.0. Does it not support 3.0, or is something wrong?
I don't get offered shader 3.0 either. Maybe it's not in this build?

[econ21]

Not so much so that I would pre-order, but if I saw it for £25 around released I might buy.

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:)


I guess that is my main problem with this demo and the recent splurge of information: I am unable to take anything on trust.

Well, modders are sort of like my "money back guarantee".

[DukeofSerbia]

I don't get offered shader 3.0 either. Maybe it's not in this build?

I am sure that is true. Every new PC game use SM 3.0 (in nVidia terminology). So, they will include that in new game.:2thumbsup:

[Dave1984]

Wow, thanks for the cogent review--the above makes me very excited to try out the demo later today!

Do you guys think the game will run all right on my rig?

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
2GB DDR2 Performance SDRAM at 800MHz
250GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200 RPM w/ 8MB Cache
Dual 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX




That's pretty much my rig except I've got 4GB RAM and 3.0ghz processor, although as I mentioned I did encounter stuttering which was later recitifed with a driver update.

I know you were joking with that one, but it's just to mention that mine stuttered without the latest drivers!

I haven't noticed crossbowmen inflicting heavy losses on general's cavalry at Pavia at all- in fact, I've had him clatter into them several times with satisfyingly devastating results (after unchivalrously wiping out the Scots Guard).

The only ranged unit that's really bothered him was the cannon, which fired a split second before the charge hit home.

[Masy]

Right, just downloaded and had a quick whizz through. First impressions:

Difficulty seems a fair bit higher, the battles seem to be more of a challenge. As frogbeastegg said though, this could be down to scripting, and we won't really know until the release of the full game. However, I noticed the enemy charging my flanks more, targeting my general etc. And bear in mind that on the RTW trebia demo, one could sit and watch as the whole roman army died charging up a hill. Even on the hardest difficulty setting, I had only to move my elephants about a bit. These scenarios you can certaintly not just sit back and watch; Pavia was quite a challenge (I did prevail first time though *smug*). I guess this bodes well.

Graphic aren't as awestriking as I expected, but i will follow this advice and see
put the Shader Version to 1, and decrease the unit scale, then enjoy the beautiful graphics you'd get.

My PC seemed to cope well on high/medium settings (and it's 3/4 years old), even in a massive battle like Agincourt.

Not too fond of the new music, but hey, can't have it all.

[DVX BELLORVM]

Have you noticed how cavalry automatically switches to the secondary weapon after the initial charge? That wasn't the case in RTW, unless you alt-right clicked on the enemy. Good work CA.

[Nikolaos]

Hallo Guys i am new here,

I would like to ask you if you had similar problem with me.
The game runs perfectly but when in game and i press a key button most times
the game pauses and the shell plus the keyboard binds show up.The sound mutes and the speed is tripled.This force me to use only the mouse in-game something very irritating.
I posted in the total war forums too but no answer
Can someone please help me?

My regards,
Nikolaos

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[CBR]

I'm starting to agree with what some other people have said about the movement speed of foot units being too fast, cavalry seems fine, but infantry, even heavily armoured, seem to be able to close the distance a little too quickly, by that I mean it should be normal for you to be caught unprepared by cavalry, but the speed of some of the infantry is so great that its quite easy to not be ready...
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

[Lord of the Isles]

Only done the tutorial and 15 mins of Pavia, so just first impressions here.

The main one is the ... how can I explain it ... cartoon feel to the graphics? I've set the options to mostly medium, which gives me some lag but I wanted to see how good it could look. I've got:

Intel 2.53GHz
768 Mb main memory
Radeon 9250 256 Mb memory

The detail is fine (given I don't have a high spec machine) and I love the non-clone aspect of the units but there's something about the look that disappoints. I think it's the colours: a combination of a general darkness (that others have mentioned in this thread) and too many similar hues that gives it an unrealistic look. I find it hard to pick out units unless I'm zoomed right in (arrows turned off) and when I zoom out everything seems a little blurred and it's hard to make out what's happening.

May just be a combination of my machine and the fact that Pavia takes place at dawn though.

Other than that, unit speeds about what I expected: better than vanilla RTW but still a little too fast.

[Zatoichi]

Well, I finally got to install the demo on a work PC after everyone had gone home - I am impressed! I'll add my voice to the general positive consensus being voiced around here, although I still find the battles a little hectic. Nothing like the initial shock of RTW though. I'm very keen to try unscripted battles, and of course see how the campaign AI stacks up as well.

All in all, a good demo, and well worth abusing my company's fast internet connection and beefy server PC to play on! Unfortunately I've now had to uninstall it to cover my tracks, but I did get to play through the tutorial and play both battles 2 times. I actually lost Pavia the first time, but in my defence I wasn't paying too much attention as I was trying to see the different musket and pike animations! My general met his end at the hands of the French crossbowmen who he foolishly engaged in woods while I was looking elsewhere.

I'd like to spend more timre tinkering with the demo to get more of a feel for the battles, but I'm not able to play the demo on my home PC due to a severe lack of SSE2. By chance I'd already ordered a new PC last week before all the Athlon hoohah with the demo broke, but nothing to do with wanting to play this game with all the bells and whistles on, just because after 4 years my trusty rig is beginning to show its age (well, that's what I told Mrs Zatoichi anyway).

Roll on November 10th (or thereabouts)!

[Mount Suribachi]

Played Hastings & Agincourt. So far I've got mixed feelings. Everything did seem to be happening to fast for me @ Agincourt. I won, but only just. Had the king & 3 half unit of archers left. As soon as I concentrated on one part of the battle, I'd lose another unit somewhere else. Twas all just a bit hectic.

I need to go back and replay it & tweek my graphical settings. Probly should update my drivers as well.

[Bob the Insane]

What is everyone's impression of the size of the battlefields in the demo...

I think they are much larger than in RTW, but that could be down to the amount of stuff in it...

if you move the camera to one corner of the battlefield you can no longer see the far one...


A second observation. The cannons on the Pavia battle have a wickedly long range and are pretty accurate... Though this did lead to a comedy moment in one playthrough where the French King was blown up right near the begining of the battle... :laugh4:

[Cheetah]

I just played the demo and I like it. ~:) I like both the feel of the game in general (menu, music, etc) and the feel of the battle. Two rather easy battles ~;) ~;p The AI sent in units without much support, caring not at all about open flanks etc. Of course if it is scripted then it tells little about AI. Anyway, who wants to play vs the AI when you can play vs humans ~;)

About archers holding out too well vs cavalry. Well, those scots guards melted away vs the generals bodyguard, and while the crossbowmen indeed were able to hold out much longer, they could not kill a single cavalrymen. So, from what I saw I am not worried at all.

Some infantry can indeed run pretty fast like those zweihanders, but I assume they dont have too much armour on them. Pikes in formation moved rather slow, seemed to be ok.

As for the mess, well medieval battlefields were rather messy ~;p , I assume generals could see even less than what we can see. So it is a kind of historicaly accurate feature ... Also you can use the unit icons to check how your unit feels in the heat of the battle (winning, losing, worried about morale, etc), so you can get an educated guess about what is going on. Last but not least: have faith in your troops!!!

All in all, I am optimistic, CA guys can learn, you can preorder the game ~;) most of us will love it; IMHO it will be considered as a worthy successor of MTW and not as the re-selling of rtw.

:knight:

[Quickening]

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:

[Puzz3D]

As for the mess, well medieval battlefields were rather messy ~;p , I assume generals could see even less than what we can see. So it is a kind of historicaly accurate feature ...
It would be better if the men were clearly distinguishable from enemy units and against the ground textures from the distance at which you play the game. I could understand non-clarity as a result of a weather effect, but not in clear conditions. It probably means you have to play with banners turned on.

[Censor]

"Such as the dismounted knights with pole-arms hopping into the air, and then pulling a 360 degree and slamming their weapons into the enemy.

Now, I'm no expert. But I find it hard to beleive that a man adorned in full plate armor can pull off such a move"

I believe they were fully capable of such a move (ignoring the hollywood myth that knights in full plate armor were clumsy beasts who could hardly even move) but question whether it would have been the wisest maneuver to pull off in a full scale melee.

Oh well, if there's one unit that can get away with a ridiculously 'for show' killing move it's knights :p

I can do that, it's just that my back would be rather sore and I wouldn't be in the condition to fight anybody after doing such an acrobatic maneuver. It'll be amusing at least, I guess we can all be super-soldiers vicariously.

[Celtic_Guardian]

Well speaking as a TW-vet I played the demo to see how it works on my computer.
Considering that my specs are:

2.3Ghz Celeron
512 MB
128mb Radeon 9800pro

I was very surprised when I could run the demo on medium setting and still it was smooth.
That alone determined the fact that I will be getting M2TW.
So the demo had some use(not to mention that the demo is alot of fun).
But you are right that the demo is mainly for new people.


YIPPIE there is hope, now to get my desktop into my corner of this dorm room, because it wont work on my laptop i can gurantee.

[SirGrotius]

I enjoyed parts of the demo but ominously I became bored in the middle of the Agincourt battle although that was interesting in the end.

I like that battles seemt to last longer and I like the new graphics, but the game auto-detected "high" settings on my computer (probably because of my graphics card, Geforce 6800 GT w/ 256 VRAM) but my system was sluggish (only a gig of Ram).

More ominously for me was I felt that the game was almost exactly the same as Rome. I didn't like that the interface was so similar and the units even look and behave similarly IMO. I'm a bigger fan of the campaign, so I'm sure things will look up.

I do like the combat animations though and the post-battle celebrations are awesome!

[Zimfan40]

I enjoyed parts of the demo but ominously I became bored in the middle of the Agincourt battle although that was interesting in the end.

I like that battles seemt to last longer and I like the new graphics, but the game auto-detected "high" settings on my computer (probably because of my graphics card, Geforce 6800 GT w/ 256 VRAM) but my system was sluggish (only a gig of Ram).


Hmmm, the game autodetected "high" settings for me, also, despite my less than impressive built-in videocard(Geforce 6150, 128 RAM). I ended up having to play with most settings on low. And this with 2 gig of RAM(methinks I'll be buying a new video card).

[the_mango55]

The guns are much better in this game than MTW, and I like it.

In Pavia, immidiately after the first cavalry charge is repulsed and the general takes out the Scots Guard, move back and arange your dudes on that hill, pikes in front, guns behind, and halberds and zweihanders to the sides. As enemy infantry approaches, I get all the guns to fire on them at the same time, and nearly the whole front rank is cut down! making them easy pickings to engage my pikes from the front and be flanked by the zweihanders.

Eventually the time limit expired and it ended in a draw.

[Mars]

Well, i personal dont like some of the combinations, at least for MP.

This all reminds me on the early gundays of STW. Lucky we got that changed later, down to power4 if im right ?!?

Anyway, if u see how cav works and imagin a MP battle, i fear that we wont have a change to get some of the missles down with our cav. It will get shooted to pieces and will rather rout instead of killing some missles.

This said, imagin plz the way the battle will work out.



The combination of the "new" cav and these missles will cause a loss of tactic conserning the interupting or killing of missles in the early stages of the game.
I already see some long missleduells in the start and rather the missles are almost out of ammo or the are almost dead.


Mars

[Wandarah]

Cautiously positive. On the .org.

Run for your lives! The end is nigh!

[Black Prince]

I think the Demo is very good - I'm sure it's set-up though to allow you to win these battles fairly easily - I won both Pavia and Agincourt without being particularly clever I thought.

It seems that you can change the movement speed of the game - so making things slow down which is a good innovation.

Also although my PC is a couple of years old the graphics didn't slow things down at all. It seems that the quality changes the closer you zoom in - so more details are added as you zoom closer. All in all it looks pretty good. The only sad thing being now have to wait about a month or so before seeing the final thing.

[Mars]

I think the Demo is very good - I'm sure it's set-up though to allow you to win these battles fairly easily - I won both Pavia and Agincourt without being particularly clever I thought.

It seems that you can change the movement speed of the game - so making things slow down which is a good innovation.

Also although my PC is a couple of years old the graphics didn't slow things down at all. It seems that the quality changes the closer you zoom in - so more details are added as you zoom closer. All in all it looks pretty good. The only sad thing being now have to wait about a month or so before seeing the final thing.


well, with gold valour units ur supposed to roll the none upgraded units.

[Duke John]

A question, or more like a request for a test:
If a missile unit is on guard and in melee, are you still able to fire missiles? Or is the missile unit forced to melee?
(Remember the Legionaires still being able to fire javelins or even archers shooting arrows when in melee).

Thanks,
DJ

[spong]

Well, i personal dont like some of the combinations, at least for MP.

This all reminds me on the early gundays of STW. Lucky we got that changed later, down to power4 if im right ?!?

Anyway, if u see how cav works and imagin a MP battle, i fear that we wont have a change to get some of the missles down with our cav. It will get shooted to pieces and will rather rout instead of killing some missles.

This said, imagin plz the way the battle will work out.



The combination of the "new" cav and these missles will cause a loss of tactic conserning the interupting or killing of missles in the early stages of the game.


Mars

It might be ok though because of a few factors - gunners and crossbowmen take some time to reload between volleys, I've watched them do it and I have seen cavalry and infantry close with them quickly and not lose too many casualties, they play hell with slow moving pikes though. Conversely longbowmen can fire very fast in comparison but against heavily armoured knights they don't inflict too many casualties, so it may well balance out.

[IceTorque]

If a missile unit is on guard and in melee, are you still able to fire missiles? Or is the missile unit forced to melee?

A small number of the back row will fire, the rest stand their with their hammers out and only go into their combat animations when struck.

Command delay is still in, as well as the delay when a unit is ordered to make a sharp change of direction.

Apart from that the rock, paper and scissor mechanic seems very strong, and balanced. The battles play so much better and a tad longer. Cav moving through friendly infantry is very similar to MTW.
There were no arrows clipping the heads of their companions in front, or that dreaded last volley. Units usually engage as a whole, formations are kept during melee, no sign of that other type of blobbing. Units will stop and fight as soon as they touch an enemy unit, I hav'nt tried out the unit stacking yet, I'm just having too much fun playing the damn demo, It all just feels so right.

Yes thats right, this jaded gamer just found a new set of rose coloured glasses.


P4 2.6C, 9800 pro 128 mb, 1GB ram. everything high, shader one, bloom and shadows off. Looks fantastic, runs as smooth as silk.

[Lord of the Isles]

It would be better if the men were clearly distinguishable from enemy units and against the ground textures from the distance at which you play the game. I could understand non-clarity as a result of a weather effect, but not in clear conditions. It probably means you have to play with banners turned on.

That's a good summary of what I was trying to say. The soldiers don't stand out well against their background, leading to a cartoon/painted feel to the graphics. I've just tried Agincourt and while it doesn't have the same 'muddy' look as Pavia, being a brighter day, the men still blend in too much with the scenery and each other.

As for the banners: IIRC, the banners of a selected unit don't bob up and down in the traditional TW way. I found it difficult to make out which unit was selected without double-clicking on its icon and getting centered on it. I can almost see myself playing with those horrible green arrows switched on.

But before I sound too negative, game play is the thing and I'll have to wait and see how that goes once we have an unscripted/unvalour-fixed/modded game to try.

[Tempiic]

There were no arrows clipping the heads of their companions in front, or that dreaded last volley. Units usually engage as a whole, formations are kept during melee, no sign of that other type of blobbing.


Actually I have had a few friendly fire casualties, but then I placed a friendly unit just too near in front of them. Still it did not happen often nor was it devastating. I did not encounter friendly fire yet when moving through a missile unit that is shooting.

Had quite a few times that formations werent kept when in melee, resulting in an unit fighting in a dispersed formation, untill the rear met up with the fighting front.

Something I found funny. During hastings when you rejoined the main army and deployed your spears behind the archers. After firing at the incoming peasants I gave the spear units charge orders. But only the first 8-10 spearmen actually dashed through the archer unit to engage the (similiar sized) peasants. The rest kept waiting at the back of the archer unit, untill I gave the order anew.


Well, i personal dont like some of the combinations, at least for MP.

This all reminds me on the early gundays of STW. Lucky we got that changed later, down to power4 if im right ?!?

Anyway, if u see how cav works and imagin a MP battle, i fear that we wont have a change to get some of the missles down with our cav. It will get shooted to pieces and will rather rout instead of killing some missles.

This said, imagin plz the way the battle will work out.



The combination of the "new" cav and these missles will cause a loss of tactic conserning the interupting or killing of missles in the early stages of the game.
I already see some long missleduells in the start and rather the missles are almost out of ammo or the are almost dead.

I don't share your concerns completely. At Pavia my cav dealt very easily with the french scottish guard and at Agincourt sometimes the 'flanking' french cav actually went after my archers first, killing them rather easily. Generally speaking, archers go down fast when stuck in melee. And they dont do that much casualties per volley, unless massed. And even then. The french frontal wave units routed more because of combination of factors rather than missile damage alone.

[Dark_Magician]

Please advise me on how to best manage available missile units, based on your demo experience.
What is the difference of operating bow, crossbow, gunpowder and artillery units? Is it best to keep bow units behind main line of infantry, gunpowder units in front of it and crossbow units both ways? Does width of unit matter?
Is there problem of missile units shooting the backs of infantry if positioned too close to them in the direction of fire?
What mode is best to be used, guard mode, skirmish mode or something else?
Did you notrice any problems with firing missiles at the enemy units climbing uphill to your positions?

[spong]

Please advise me on how to best manage available missile units, based on your demo experience.
What is the difference of operating bow, crossbow, gunpowder and artillery units? Is it best to keep bow units behind main line of infantry, gunpowder units in front of it and crossbow units both ways? Does width of unit matter?
Is there problem of missile units shooting the backs of infantry if positioned too close to them in the direction of fire?
What mode is best to be used, guard mode, skirmish mode or something else?
Did you notrice any problems with firing missiles at the enemy units climbing uphill to your positions?

In the current demo although all the units you mention are present we only get to control bowmen and handgunners, and these are quite seperately in very distinct battle scenarios so its difficult to comment. It's possible to make some observations,however. In both Pavia and Agincourt your missile troops are deployed behind either line infantry or defensive terrain (stakes at Agincourt) and having played several times through both I have noticed and heard from other accounts that exposed missile troops are quickly exploited by the AI, so short answer is yes it is best to keep them behind other infantry. So far it seems that all missile troops have phenomenal range, so in some circumstances (ie if the distance between two armies is great) then having the missiles deploy forward and retreat after a time could work but as the battles in the demo the armies are deployed relatively closely its difficult to say for sure at this stage. In both cases the missile troops can fire over friendly soldiers deployed in front of them and I have not noticed a problem with friendly fire excepting shooting into units engaged in melee, and you are forewarned of this in the tutorial. Didn't notice any problems with firing at enemies advancing uphill. The guard/skirmish mode is largely dependant on the situation whether a defensive position or open battle line, but its important to note that in this demo at least handgunners do not get the option to skirmish. The width of deployment doesn't appear to matter as archers will fire en mass in a high arc at distant enemies and handgunner fire the first rank, who then withdraw to the rear to reload and allow the second rank to move up and fire, and so it repeats.

Hope that helps clear some things up for you.

[Dark_Magician]

Hope that helps clear some things up for you.

thank you

[CBR]

I think the guns are awful. Apparently you dont get any advantage out of more than 2 ranks. They are also in a pretty loose formation so just imagine playing at huge unit setting using 2 rank formations that are 150+ meters wide.


CBR

[spong]

I was just reading over at the official forums someone made a valid point about how innefective pikemen are in offense which is innacurate for the period, hope this changes by release too, anyone else care to comment on this area?

[CBR]

One thing I noticed about the pikes in Pavia is that they are quite slow when in special formation and of course cant run at all. It is impossible for you to see if they are using that special formation unless you actually select the unit to see if its turned on or off. At least in RTW it was pretty easy to see if they were in phalanx or not.

But yes historically later medieval/early renaissance pikemen were used offensively and were certainly effective and became the dominant melee unit type.


CBR

[Kourutsu]

But yes historically later medieval/early renaissance pikemen were used offensively and were certainly effective and became the dominant melee unit type.


CBR

Yeah, but they were vulnerable to missile volleys and those buckler men from Spain.

[spong]

Yeah, but they were vulnerable to missile volleys and those buckler men from Spain.

yeah but on Pavia they get pwned by Gendarmes and Royal Bodygaurd Cav.

What? no horse and frenchman kebab?

[CBR]

Yeah, but they were vulnerable to missile volleys and those buckler men from Spain.
Missile volleys kill all kinds of soldiers no matter what melee weapon they have. Artillery had great effect against massed columns and the Swiss certainly learned a few lessons.

Sword and buckler men, well yes they had a few successes against disordered pikes. There are also examples of them getting slaughtered by pikes. The Spanish started out with few pikes in the late 15th century. After the early phases of the Italian Wars they built up their forces mainly of pikes and guns. Just look at the Tercio structure from 1534, it had pikes, arquebusiers and muskets and AFAIK no sword and buckler men are mentioned.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

This all reminds me on the early gundays of STW. Lucky we got that changed later, down to power4 if im right ?!?

Anyway, if u see how cav works and imagin a MP battle, i fear that we wont have a change to get some of the missles down with our cav. It will get shooted to pieces and will rather rout instead of killing some missles.
Yes the guns in STW/MI v1.02 were reduced to power 4 which is what they were in original STW v1.12, but the accuracy was not put back. So, the guns in STW/MI v1.02 ended up being 2x stronger than the guns in original STW v1.12. This means cavalry cannot successfully charge a full size gun unit in STW/MI v1.02.

When we made Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01, we noticed that the original STW v1.12 guns were a little weak. Since we were including the naginata cavalry unit in Samurai Wars, we decided to make heavy cav and naginata cav be able to frontally assault a full unit of guns while yari cav and cav archers would not be able to frontally assault without routing. We also wanted the no-dachi and warrior monk infantry types to be able to frontally assault guns. Tests showed that these goals could be met with guns 1.5x the effectiveness of the guns in original STW v1.12, so that's what we did.

In STW, all the units, except for the battlefield ninja, are the same size. This makes designing the playbalance of cavalry and infantry charging guns easier. If you go to smaller unit size for cavalry, it's harder to get the playbalance because the guns are more effective against the smaller units. You are likely to end up with guns that are either too effective against the small cav units or too ineffective against the large inf units.

[KARTLOS]

In the battle of agincourt I noticed that the longbows seemed to have little effect on the french knights. They arrive at the stakes having lost few men until they impail themselves.
These concerns me and suggests that the effectiveness of longbow arrows has been severely underplayed. The longbow was an immensely powerful weapon caplable of pearcing arour with relative ease. In reality alot of the knights would have been killed on their horses.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[CBR]

Longbow discussions and their ability to penetrate plate armour is sometimes like openening a can of worms.

But no. Longbows should not have some super ability to penetrate heavy plate armour at long distances. Against heavy cavalry longbows generally had some kind of protection or other ways to disrupt the charge as arrows alone rarely could stop a charge. There was a reason for the ditches, stakes, potholes and archers standing in marshes, that we hear of in the sources.


CBR

[spong]

"Puzz3D - Yes the guns in STW/MI v1.02 were reduced to power 4 which is what they were in original STW v1.12, but the accuracy was not put back. So, the guns in STW/MI v1.02 ended up being 2x stronger than the guns in original STW v1.12. This means cavalry cannot successfully charge a full size gun unit in STW/MI v1.02.

When we made Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01, we noticed that the original STW v1.12 guns were a little weak. Since we were including the naginata cavalry unit in Samurai Wars, we decided to make heavy cav and naginata cav be able to frontally assault a full unit of guns while yari cav and cav archers would not be able to frontally assault without routing. We also wanted the no-dachi and warrior monk infantry types to be able to frontally assault guns. Tests showed that these goals could be met with guns 1.5x the effectiveness of the guns in original STW v1.12, so that's what we did.

In STW, all the units, except for the battlefield ninja, are the same size. This makes designing the playbalance of cavalry and infantry charging guns easier. If you go to smaller unit size for cavalry, it's harder to get the playbalance because the guns are more effective against the smaller units."

in that case it may interest you to know that in the m2TW demo I changed the unit size to huge in the .cfg file, now obviously being the demo we don't know how accurate this is but while the infantry unit size whent up to around 100-190+ while the cavalry and archer numbers remained quite low (around 60), so its possible that they've brought the archer numbers down in line with the cavalry.

[spong]

In the battle of agincourt I noticed that the longbows seemed to have little effect on the french knights. They arrive at the stakes having lost few men until they impail themselves.
These concerns me and suggests that the effectiveness of longbow arrows has been severely underplayed. The longbow was an immensely powerful weapon caplable of pearcing arour with relative ease. In reality alot of the knights would have been killed on their horses.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

also at Agincourt and other places the archers aimed for the horses to slow the Knights advance and not the knights themselves.

[KARTLOS]

also at Agincourt and other places the archers aimed for the horses to slow the Knights advance and not the knights themselves.

I dont think they really aimed for anything at all, particularly at longer distances. They would fire a volley of arrows into the air rather than aiming at specific targets.

[KARTLOS]

Longbow discussions and their ability to penetrate plate armour is sometimes like openening a can of worms.

But no. Longbows should not have some super ability to penetrate heavy plate armour at long distances. Against heavy cavalry longbows generally had some kind of protection or other ways to disrupt the charge as arrows alone rarely could stop a charge. There was a reason for the ditches, stakes, potholes and archers standing in marshes, that we hear of in the sources.


CBR

I am not suggesting that the longbows should be able to stop the charge, but they should be able to inflict heavier casualties. Im thinking of a moderate increase in effectiveness rather than a total revamp.

The longbow was an extremely powerful weapon however. It was at least as effective as early gunpowder weapons. The main reason for the switch to guns was not that they were more effective, but that they were easier to use. Lonbows required great physical strength and technique to use. Hence the archers needed to spend alot of time practising/training. whereas a gunpowder weapon good be used by any rapily assembled force.

[Orda Khan]

The Longbow, bodkin, plate armour debate has gone round and round in these forums many times. It's not worth going into it again

......Orda

[Orda Khan]

It would be better if the men were clearly distinguishable from enemy units and against the ground textures from the distance at which you play the game. I could understand non-clarity as a result of a weather effect, but not in clear conditions. It probably means you have to play with banners turned on.
Of course. Standards and Coat-of-Arms were used to distinguish friend from foe on the battlefield. There were no sashi monos in Europe

......Orda

[Midnight]

Yeah, I also thought the longbow was particularly underwhelming in that battle, but that's mainly after hearing the advisor telling me how crucial a weapon it would be (hah!). I don't really mind it not mowing through plate-armoured knights, but it would have been nice to see it have slightly more impact.

[Orda Khan]

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:)
I can. A pre-order with Amazon at £25 will see you pay precisely that. Should the actual release price drop (even with Amazon themselves) you will still be charged £25......and you will receive it late.
This is a fact that I experienced and the reason I would never pre-order again

......Orda

[spong]

I am not suggesting that the longbows should be able to stop the charge, but they should be able to inflict heavier casualties. Im thinking of a moderate increase in effectiveness rather than a total revamp.

The longbow was an extremely powerful weapon however. It was at least as effective as early gunpowder weapons. The main reason for the switch to guns was not that they were more effective, but that they were easier to use. Lonbows required great physical strength and technique to use. Hence the archers needed to spend alot of time practising/training. whereas a gunpowder weapon good be used by any rapily assembled force.

-Suits of later plate armour were often tested by having a crossbow or handgun fired into them at close range.

-It was most often sheaf arrows that penetrated plate armour at close range.

-Breastplates were worn well into the 16th century due to their effective protection from contemporary firearms even at close quarters, some even being worn as late as the 18th century.

-Earlier handguns used a dry-mix powder which when tested misfired often and did not penetrate alot, wet-mix was introduced later and improved both these areas.

- At Agincourt the longbowmen did not prevent the french from closing with the English line, the conditions, disorganisation of the French nobility, their ignorance of the english archers and the willingness of the archers to engage in melee all spelt their undoing.

- There are few examples of longbowman versus longbowmen but one example is the Battle of Shrewsbury 1403 in which Cheshire archers engaged the King's Guard Archers, who broke as a result of the volleys aimed at them, it has been observed that at this battle the most casualties caused by longbowmen were other longbowmen.

All in all plate armour was highly effective against missile weapons, which caused much higher casualties in more lightly armoured troops. The longbow vs. crossbow vs. handgun vs. plate debate is pointless because they all had their place in differing styles of warfare and different situations, hence why they were all used for so long.

The longbow was a highly effective weapon, you've already mentioned its key downside which is why no other country employed longbowmen like the English and stuck to lighter archers, crossbows and handguns.

[CBR]

I have seen from 15 to 20 dead chiv knights from the 490 longbows. In MTW I think it would have been slightly more lethal.


CBR

[spong]

it'll probably get tweaked before release anyway :)

[Tempiic]

For the longbow units that did not saw close combat, i seem to get around 75-90 kills each per battle. Targets mainly being mounted and dismounted french knights. That is if I redeploy them into 2 lines. 3-4 of these units, when still at full strenght and didnt get stuck in melee, often dealt with the rear french knights units, at least taking out 1 of them completely by themselves and aiding in finishing off the 2nd off after it dealt with one of my billmen.

[the_mango55]

I think that the longbow kill rates are pretty good, I mean we're talking about heavily armored dudes here, not easily killed.

The real reason that the longbow is not nearly as effective on M2TW agincourt as in real life Agincourt was that the "muddy feild" is absolutely useless, it doesn't slow the enemy's advance AT ALL. That way the enemy is upon you before your longbows can do much damage.

[econ21]

I can. A pre-order with Amazon at £25 will see you pay precisely that. Should the actual release price drop (even with Amazon themselves) you will still be charged £25......and you will receive it late.
This is a fact that I experienced and the reason I would never pre-order again


Off-topic - I think the opposite happened to me this year; a pre-order price fell and what I was charged automatically fell to (I think you are not billed until it ships and you can cancel a pre-order; so I can't believe sticking to a higher older price would be a smart business practice - I was about to cancel, which is why I noticed the price had automatically fallen). I'm sorry you had the opposite experience but with M2TW, I doubt the price will drop below £25 now.

On receiving it late - I used to worry about that, but Amazon have been very good of late: it tends to arrive on the Friday release data.

[Ja'chyra]

I downloaded the demo, took the best part of 2 days with my current connection :embarassed: , and now all I get is an unspecified error. Anyone know what this means or is it just that my laptop can't handle it? My specs are

Intel Core Duo T2300E Processor 1.66GHz

667 MHz FSB

2MB Cache

1024 MB RAM

80 GB Hard Drive

DVD Rewriter MultiDrive

14.1" Widescreen Display

Microsoft Windows XP Home

128MB Intel 945 Shared Graphics

[Basileus]

I downloaded the demo, took the best part of 2 days with my current connection :embarassed: , and now all I get is an unspecified error. Anyone know what this means or is it just that my laptop can't handle it? My specs are

Intel Core Duo T2300E Processor 1.66GHz

667 MHz FSB

2MB Cache

1024 MB RAM

80 GB Hard Drive

DVD Rewriter MultiDrive

14.1" Widescreen Display

Microsoft Windows XP Home

128MB Intel 945 Shared Graphics

I read that some ppl with laptops and with built in intel gpu could not run it, maybe the gpu does not support ssu2..check the specs of your gpu

[Bob the Insane]

In one attempt of Agincourt I withdrew my men to the hill to the rear of your position (sacrificing a unit of foot knights to get there)...

I have the longbows in two lines with the infantry in a line infront...

The French dismounted knights really slowed down going up the hill and were winded or exhausted at the top and took a lot of casualties.

Additionally the longbows range was greatly increased by the hight of the hill...

[SpencerH]

So I "played" Agincourt and I have to say I'm a little disappointed by the demo.

1) There is something very strange with the colours that makes it very difficult to see the units. Since others have mentioned it, it cant be a result of my declining vision. I found myself constantly zooming in and out trying to see what was happening in the melees. Of course by the time I did that it was over. Turning up the gamma brightness didnt seem to help.

2) The game is still way too fast. Between the poor observation of the units and the running speed of men in plate armour across a plowed field (no less), I barely did any unit maneuvering but won anyway. I think I might have won if I had done almost nothing at all.

EDIT: I havent played any TW game in a while so that may have effected how I experienced the overall game speed.

3) This was Agincourt right? The battle synonymous with the effectiveness of the longbow? Well, you could've fooled me! From what I could see (see point 1), the longbow was virtually useless especially in the light of the olympic speed of the French knights (maybe the had some of the clear that BB used). Almost every longbow unit ended up engaged in melee with knights at some point.

4) We still dont know about the AI.

[Fenix7]

I have seen from 15 to 20 dead chiv knights from the 490 longbows. In MTW I think it would have been slightly more lethal.

In reallity 500 longbows would easily kill (yes with arrows) 150 chiv knights if not even more. Longbow like eastern bows were very effective killing weapons, but sometimes you have to make game less realistic to get better gameplay. I would say that we all agree on this.

[CBR]

3) This was Agincourt right? The battle synonymous with the effectiveness of the longbow? Well, you could've fooled me! From what I could see (see point 1), the longbow was virtually useless especially in the light of the olympic speed of the French knights (maybe the had some of the clear that BB used). Almost every longbow unit ended up engaged in melee with knights at some point.


Actually no. Agincourt is synonymous with stupid/arrogant nobles ruining a good battle plan ~:)

I agree with the colours. At a distance the some units are really bad.


CBR

[CBR]

In reallity 500 longbows would easily kill (yes with arrows) 150 chiv knights if not even more. Longbow like eastern bows were very effective killing weapons, but sometimes you have to make game less realistic to get better gameplay. I would say that we all agree on this.
I dont know how you can come up with such a number. Do you mean 150 knights dead or 150 total dead and dismounted because of dead/wounded horse?

Either way it doesnt make sense as we are told some of the French knights reached and broke through the English right(IIRC) wing. As they werent that many, and would have faced at least a third of the overall English force of archers, they would been slaugthered according to your estimate. Or just check Poitiers where archers had to move to the flanks of a French cavalry force before they could hit unarmoured parts of the horses and eventually rout it.

The French quickly learned that doing mounted attacks prepared dismounted Men-at-Arms was a bad idea. But they kept using cavalry on the flanks to directly attack the archers and were actually succesful a few times. Either the French were utterly stupid throughout the whole war (oh Im certain that idea would appeal to some) or they had the right idea...


CBR

[Terry]

There was a "Battle of Agincourt" show on the History channel that went into great length about the real effectiveness of the english longbow against the french armor. They tried to show in detailed tests that the penetration effect wasn't as great as generally believed. The big winner for the English was the mud and the archer's daggers. As the arrows took their toll on the horses, the knights were reduced to fighting on foot. The archers were more nimble in the mud as it didn't stick to their footwear as it did to the armor. The lowly archer, not in the ransom business, was quick to stick their blades thru the faceplate of a fallen foe.
There was also discussion of troop costs and how cheap the longbowman was in contrast to a more armored man at arms. That was one reason there were more of them as well.



Terry

footnote: I just looked it up. It was the Battlefield detectives series...

[Barkhorn1x]

The French quickly learned that doing mounted attacks prepared dismounted Men-at-Arms was a bad idea. But they kept using cavalry on the flanks to directly attack the archers and were actually succesful a few times. Either the French were utterly stupid throughout the whole war (oh Im certain that idea would appeal to some) or they had the right idea...

CBR

I've been re-reading Hans Delbruck's volume on Medieval Warfare - his clarity when analyzing source material for these battles makes for stimulating reading.

Re; Delbruck, it is always a mistake to assume that Medieval commanders were somehow incompetent and that one arm was superior to all others - and one has to take into account the particulars of the 'campaign' and how that effected the major battle.

The longbow was effective - but not quite THE deciding factor at Agincourt. Terrain, the line of stakes and the dismounted English knights amoung the archers (which emboldened/enabled them to fight in melee w/ the French knights) were just as important. In some battles the long bow was important, in others archers were ridden down by heavily armored knights. Another factor, according to Delbruck, is that the French were a blocking force outnumbered by the English and that the English were the attackers.

Delbruck's comments on Crecy - which was similar tactically to Agincourt:


"The unprecedented effectiveness developed by the English bow at
Crecy we have attributed to the special tactical conditions which the
situation and the commander had created for this battle."..."But the
success at Crecy cannot have due to the bow itself, for it would not then
be understandable how the crossbow could have been just as important as
the bow both before and afterward, and why the bow did not play a greater
role in the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages."


Barkhorn.

[spong]

There was a "Battle of Agincourt" show on the History channel that went into great length about the real effectiveness of the english longbow against the french armor. They tried to show in detailed tests that the penetration effect wasn't as great as generally believed. The big winner for the English was the mud and the archer's daggers. As the arrows took their toll on the horses, the knights were reduced to fighting on foot. The archers were more nimble in the mud as it didn't stick to their footwear as it did to the armor. The lowly archer, not in the ransom business, was quick to stick their blades thru the faceplate of a fallen foe.
There was also discussion of troop costs and how cheap the longbowman was in contrast to a more armored man at arms. That was one reason there were more of them as well.



Terry

footnote: I just looked it up. It was the Battlefield detectives series...

Agreed 100%

[CBR]

There are few issues with the bows.

They have a very slow reload of about 15 seconds. When an enemy unit enters within range they have to through that 15 second loading cycle before getting the first shot. Against cavalry at Agincourt that means one salvo only.

M2TW longbows have a range of 150 meters compared to MTW if 120 meters and MTW bows had a reload of 4 seconds. M2TW heavy cavalry will take a few more seconds before reaching their target (higher run and charge speed but longer distance to cover)

So lethality per arrow shot is higher in M2TW but the reload is drastically slower. Longbows are actually just as slow as crossbows and arbalesters in MTW :inquisitive:


CBR

[SpencerH]

There are few issues with the bows.

They have a very slow reload of about 15 seconds. When an enemy unit enters within range they have to through that 15 second loading cycle before getting the first shot. Against cavalry at Agincourt that means one salvo only.

M2TW longbows have a range of 150 meters compared to MTW if 120 meters and MTW bows had a reload of 4 seconds. M2TW heavy cavalry will take a few more seconds before reaching their target (higher run and charge speed but longer distance to cover)

So lethality per arrow shot is higher in M2TW but the reload is drastically slower. Longbows are actually just as slow as crossbows and arbalesters in MTW :inquisitive:


CBR

That explains the bizarre results then. Despite my hope for better, it's looking much less likely that I'll buy this game without knowing that there have been some serious changes to the final version (and what the changes were).

[SirGrotius]

I played the demo again with shadows off and I had a much better experience! I really enjoyed the battles now that I wasn't plagued by lag.

Anyway, I did not find the longbowmen to be ineffective. In fact, I found them extremely effective but I turned on fire arrows. I think each of those units killed about 80-90 men.

[spong]

There are few issues with the bows.

They have a very slow reload of about 15 seconds. When an enemy unit enters within range they have to through that 15 second loading cycle before getting the first shot. Against cavalry at Agincourt that means one salvo only.

M2TW longbows have a range of 150 meters compared to MTW if 120 meters and MTW bows had a reload of 4 seconds. M2TW heavy cavalry will take a few more seconds before reaching their target (higher run and charge speed but longer distance to cover)

So lethality per arrow shot is higher in M2TW but the reload is drastically slower. Longbows are actually just as slow as crossbows and arbalesters in MTW :inquisitive:


CBR

Seems a bit silly given that IIRC english longbowmen could (historically) shoot 12 shots per minute. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[demonot]

i cannot get the demo to work. i have all of the latest drivers and everything is within specs but all i get is this Error message.

Error Signature
Appname: medieval2.exe AppVer: 1.0.0.0 Modname: medieval2.exe
ModVer: 1.0.0.0 Offset: 008c1040

any help as to why it's not working is greatly appreciated. thank you.

[Sarmatian]

What does "IIRC" mean?

[Barkhorn1x]

Longbows are actually just as slow as crossbows and arbalesters in MTW :inquisitive:

CBR

That does not sound very good at all - they should be at least twice as fast, IMO. :gah2:

Barkhorn.

[Tyford]

"What does "IIRC" mean?"

If I Remember Correctly

[CBR]

Seems a bit silly given that IIRC english longbowmen could (historically) shoot 12 shots per minute. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Well AFAIK we cannot be sure about their precise rate of fire. The 12 shots a minute comes from a much later estimate IIRC.

One of the rare archers today who can shoot the heavy 150+ pound drawweight bows prefers to shoot 6 shots/minute or less. An experienced archer can do 20+ with a lighter 60'ish pound bow but he is not gonna be very accurate.

But Im not so concerned about historical accuracy in this case, but more about balance/game mechanics. Just imagine you see the enemy coming at you and you turn your archers. It takes time for the unit to move, adjust its ranks and then spend 15 secs to load an arrow. You might only get perhaps 3 salvos against an infantry unit attacking and losing one salvo because you moved a bit is 1/3 of your total firepower!

The combination of awkward moving, adjusting ranks, then standing and doing nothing and finally they reload...

Just doesnt feel right and was certainly not something you worried about in STW/MTW.


CBR

[Gealai]

15 sec of reloading times are, if true, too much. I'm myself an archer and can shoot quite fast, around 7 arrows per minute, with a standard targetbow while retaining decent accuracy, enough to hit a mansized target at 50 m almost every time.
Of course the arrows have to be in the right position ( sticking into the ground or in a stabilized quiver which faces you in the right angle, and of course this are perfect conditions. Still I think that 10 sec per shot would be closer to the reality...

[CBR]

That does not sound very good at all - they should be at least twice as fast, IMO. :gah2:

Barkhorn.
I just checked the crossbows at Agincourt. Appears they are having same reload as the bows. Although sometimes they just stand there for a bit before reloading.

The arqs of Pavia are shooting every 22 seconds or so and thats with the revolving ranks formation. So that must mean 45 second reload. They also have a tendency to just stand there and do nothing for a while.


CBR

[Spino]

I just checked the crossbows at Agincourt. Appears they are having same reload as the bows. Although sometimes they just stand there for a bit before reloading.

The arqs of Pavia are shooting every 22 seconds or so and thats with the revolving ranks formation. So that must mean 45 second reload. They also have a tendency to just stand there and do nothing for a while.


CBR
Ouch. Fifteen second reload times for archers and even longer reloads for crossbows? In TW battles that is an eternity! I shudder to think how horse archer/crossbow units are going to fare with those reload times. It sounds like the missile heavy factions are going to have a helluva time making a go of it in SP and MP battles.

One thing for sure is if these prolonged reload times and oddball missile unit behavior are present in the retail release you can bet people are going to go bananas about it in the official and unofficial forums.

Anyway congratulations, it looks like you guys identified the first major item for the 'to fix' list for the first patch.

[TB666]

I just checked the crossbows at Agincourt. Appears they are having same reload as the bows. Although sometimes they just stand there for a bit before reloading.

The arqs of Pavia are shooting every 22 seconds or so and thats with the revolving ranks formation. So that must mean 45 second reload. They also have a tendency to just stand there and do nothing for a while.


CBR
Well all those problems are known to CA atleast the arqs.
That problem is fixed by now(atleast I hope it is)

[KARTLOS]

There was a "Battle of Agincourt" show on the History channel that went into great length about the real effectiveness of the english longbow against the french armor. They tried to show in detailed tests that the penetration effect wasn't as great as generally believed. The big winner for the English was the mud and the archer's daggers. As the arrows took their toll on the horses, the knights were reduced to fighting on foot. The archers were more nimble in the mud as it didn't stick to their footwear as it did to the armor. The lowly archer, not in the ransom business, was quick to stick their blades thru the faceplate of a fallen foe.
There was also discussion of troop costs and how cheap the longbowman was in contrast to a more armored man at arms. That was one reason there were more of them as well.



Terry

footnote: I just looked it up. It was the Battlefield detectives series...


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