View Full Version : My eventual ascension to MTW2 Your comparisson?
I recently recieved word from my company that I will be getting a new Lap top for home use. This was unexpected for me, and it means I dont have to upgrade my home desk top.
So given this unforseen circumstance it looks like within the month I will be moving into the MTW2 realm. I never played RTW and dont really know what to expect but thought it appropriate to make a post here.
Why? I wanted to say thanks to those who have reenergized my desire to play MTW. I like a lot of you have had this game for years and logged hundreds if not thousands of hours on it. I had put it to rest and a few months ago while browsing the forums had seen the "pics and history" thread and that got me back into MTW.
MTW surpassed my expectations for a game. While not perfect, it has provided me with the absolute best return on my entertainment dollar then I could have ever imagined. So I doubt I will be posting much more here in this hall (granted I didnt post much before but still)....
So thanks to all the good blokes her for making MTW fun to play again. I would like open the thread up to a discussion on comparisons in game play between 1-2 if you have them.
Odin
Deus ret.
02-21-2007, 21:15
Sorry to see you moving on, Odin.
So I doubt I will be posting much more here in this hall (granted I didnt post much before but still)....
Don't be too sure about that part. I paused with MTW for over a year due to RTW:RTR, but occasionally kept in touch with it through these forums, and although I didn't play anymore, I still kept on adding my twopence here and there ...which is why I eventually returned to this game ...to hell with it! I've spent so much time playing it and it's already the third time I do so! ...erm nevermind, my point was that there's always a lot to say about MTW, much more so than with its successor (haven't tried my luck on M2TW yet).
Whatever you play, have fun! We'll see you around for sure....
Ah, another poor soul falls victim to the lure of the pretty graphics. ~D
I enjoy Medieval 2 well enough, but for me it still doesn't have quite the same "fun factor" as MTW. To each his own, however! Either way, Odin, we'll miss you around here. Don't forget to stop in now and then and say hello. ~:)
You'll be back! :laugh4:
My biggest problem with Rome was the tedious micro-management required on the campaign map (and I generally like to micro-manage!). Moving the agents and stacks around was a royal PITA, since they "real-timed" piece movements (which allows for all kinds of ways to exploit the AI). Battles are smaller, you rarely get the epic make-or-break battle that makes MTW exciting. Playing whack-a-mole with easily beaten rebel stacks did not add to the enjoyment. The AI (campaign and battle) was pretty bad in Rome, supposedly M2 is much better. I suppose overall, it was still a fun game, but it lacked the gameplay that made MTW great.
Haven't played M2TW yet, I need a PC upgrade first, so I don't know it's state aside from quick glances in the Citadel. But my opinion is that the decision to eliminate the Risk-style campaign map hurt the gameplay severely. Hopefully the new AI performs better.
Congrats on the new PC, and have fun with M2TW! :medievalcheers:
Edit-> Every now and then, crack open a MTW campaign and post back!
Sorry to see you moving on, Odin.
Don't be too sure about that part. I paused with MTW for over a year due to RTW:RTR, but occasionally kept in touch with it through these forums, and although I didn't play anymore, I still kept on adding my twopence here and there ...which is why I eventually returned to this game ...to hell with it! I've spent so much time playing it and it's already the third time I do so! ...erm nevermind, my point was that there's always a lot to say about MTW, much more so than with its successor (haven't tried my luck on M2TW yet).
Whatever you play, have fun! We'll see you around for sure....
It isnt that I want to move on and not post here, but with the upgraded lap top I will put my old system to rest and give it to my son. MTW will be taken off and the hard drive reformatted.
I dont think I will load up MTW on the new rig, I might but since this kind of fell into my lap (pun intended) I think fate is urging me forward to the next phase of MTW, which is 2.
I have been keeping tabs on MTW2 and from 85% of what i have seen its a great game, worthy of the mantle.
Ah, another poor soul falls victim to the lure of the pretty graphics. ~D
I enjoy Medieval 2 well enough, but for me it still doesn't have quite the same "fun factor" as MTW. To each his own, however! Either way, Odin, we'll miss you around here. Don't forget to stop in now and then and say hello. ~:)
Yes pretty graphics and a free lap top from my company. Id be foolish not to give MTW2 a go if I get a rig that can run it.
I will be around for the time being the new rig might take awhile who knows?
Adrian II
02-21-2007, 21:34
I would like open the thread up to a discussion on comparisons in game play between 1-2 if you have them.I don't have M2, but I have played R:TW for a while on a friend's computer and didn't like it a bit. The battles are ten second turkey shoots.
Whatever. I respect your decision. I hope you'll be back one day soon, and if not, then I hope you won't be lost completely to our round table.
:bow:
Yes pretty graphics and a free lap top from my company. Id be foolish not to give MTW2 a go if I get a rig that can run it.
Oh, I know; I understand your reasons quite well. I just had to gently mock you, is all. ~;)
Whatever. I respect your decision. I hope you'll be back one day soon, and if not, then I hope you won't be lost completely to our round table.
:bow:
Adrian, you're the soul of eloquence as always. You said it much better than I did. :bow:
There are two aspects of the RTW campaign game that are massively overstated by fans of that type of campaign. One is the use of terrain on the campaign map, and the other is the freedom of movement and movement points system.
The freedom of movement tends to be restricted to the roads and flatland anyway, so you won't see many, if any, of those epic hill battles of MTW. In short wherever you're attacked there's not much difference unless you're on a bridge or, of course, inside the settlement. This means that the AI will enter your provinces unchecked and besiege your settlement first. This unfortunately makes the majority of battles, sieges unless you go out actively looking for and engaging enemies. The movement points system also applies to agents, which means tediously clicking them around the map also. The AI cannot use this system well, and is prone to dividing it's forces. The player can exploit this and cut off the smaller AI stacks and neutralise them. With the MTW system he would have to fight the AI's combined force for the province in one epic battle.
As to the battles, they are without a doubt absolute "turkey shoots", as Adrian II put it. Missiles are overpowered and RTS-like with movement and kill rates very imbalanced. Most of the maps look very similar, with sloping hills and perhaps a distant coastline which is outside the usable area anyway.
I haven't played M2TW, I've no doubt it's an improvement, but it is based on the same thing. The battles have supposedly improve but the campaign map works in much the same way.
The most tedious aspect is having to move agents using the movement point system. The MTW option of being able to send them on missions, ignoring them until their eventual success or failure is IMHO the far superior style of play.
I've heard the complaints of the RTW battles as "Turkey shoots" and some of the other dramatic AI failings.
However with MTW2 I have been impressed with what I have read thus far by way additional dimplomatic and economic features. Dare I say it seems a more well rounded complete game the MTW?
In MTW once you got past the first 50 years making florins wasnt hard (particularly if you play vanilla) and after that was it really a challenge to get quality troops? From what i read in the MTW2 forums economic security isnt certian and that it takes a touch more moxy to actually get enough florins to be able to manage an army.
Believe me MTW is one of my all time favorite games, but by 1225 I had standing armies of the best troop types in multiple provinces with hundreds of thousands of florins in reserve, and I didnt play below the hard level.
So while the RTW engine may lack in battles, it seems to bring up some of the other dynamics of the game that glare in MTW.
OmarPacha
02-22-2007, 16:13
MTW2 is another game, a kind of game completely different by MTWVI; unfortunately it is a game much more suitable for teenagers.
Better graphics and effects can not balance the many lacks of MTW2 above all in the strategic gameplay that ought to be the core of the entertainment.
One for all, the choice of the kind of movement (more than a choice, maybe the loss in CA of some developer), very similar to one of Civilization series.
Maybe the main problem of MTW2 is just Viking Invasion, a game to which the first should never be compared.
My suggestion is to try to play at expert level the XL mod, maybe the best mod for MTWVI 2.1. You'll discover how harder is get money and how is difficult to win only by military power.
A good and clever use of agents is needed to achieve victory, or to get rid of giant factions and wait, while you can't.
I've seen rebel armies still unbribable at eleventh trial, Kings take over 18 assassins before to be killed, battles that could not be won automatically neither by an army 5 times bigger, and so on.
Playing as expert MTWVI means reaching a depht that requires skill and care, and that, is in my opinion, much better than wasting time to follow the green-yellow-blue-magenta line of movement of MTW2 units.
Greetings
My suggestion is to try to play at expert level the XL mod, maybe the best mod for MTWVI 2.1. You'll discover how harder is get money and how is difficult to win only by military power.
A good and clever use of agents is needed to achieve victory, or to get rid of giant factions and wait, while you can't.
With all due respect, I have been playing the XL mod at expert (most of the time) for almost 2 years.
I have heard lots of grumbling about the movement in MTW2, certainly it seems tied into the system of time movement. While I wasnt thrilled with how movement worked in MTW, it worked mainly because each turn was a years time and its reasonable to assume that an assassin could move from Greece to Novgorod in a year.
By no means am i looking for a certification of MTW2, if I buy it and I dont like it I will shelf it. While I wouldnt be happy, the 40.00 I would pay I could swallow.
You did mention
the many lacks of MTW2 and that is what i am curious about. I think the movement issue is certainly valid, but better graphics, in my mind is certainly not a negative. If it cripples the AI's ability to give me a decent game then i concede.
However from what I gather from the citadel boards the main issue thus far is the shield issue and there is apparantly a fix available (user created). Yep there are some issues but MTW2 seems to do a better job (while not wonderful) at the diplomacy game (in mtw it really dosent mean much) and a much better job at handling the pope with player related issues.
Clearly those two items, along with the better graphics are positives. While I respect opinions and I am always ready to concede when I am wrong you didnt provide specifcs on the
many lacks of MTW2 above all in the strategic gameplay .
Can you give some other then better graphics?
I never played RTW and dont really know what to expect but thought it appropriate to make a post here.
This is the main problem here Odin. You seem to be arguing against many of our points, though you say that you have never played Rome? Rome is to Medieval II, what Shogun was to Medieval. I think you should pick up RTW first before moving onto M2TW. Here in the UK you can get RTW (without BI) for just £10, probably less on ebay or Amazon. Once you've experienced this type of campaign for yourself you may find yourself looking at this from a wholly different perspective. The diplomacy thing, is a bit of a moot point, as it's basically ruined by:
The most tedious aspect is having to move agents using the movement point system. The MTW option of being able to send them on missions, ignoring them until their eventual success or failure is IMHO the far superior style of play.
Diplomacy is also highly illogical in RTW, I'm not sure if it's been drastically improved in M2TW, I would hope so, but it would need a lot of major improvement over RTW. The only improvments in diplomatic functions are the sheer number of options open to the player, such as tributes, map information, ordering a faction to attack another etc. The problem is, is that it seems to work in a very basic way, that is, you have to offer the AI a lot, money and lands, in order for them to accept anything you offer them. It's reactions and requests are seemingly very random.
gunslinger
02-22-2007, 18:29
My suggestion is to try to play at expert level the XL mod, maybe the best mod for MTWVI 2.1. You'll discover how harder is get money and how is difficult to win only by military power.
While I can't offer an opinion on Rome or M2, I can wholeheartedly support this opinion. Viva VikingHorde!
This is the main problem here Odin. You seem to be arguing against many of our points, though you say that you have never played Rome?
either you have mistaken the tone of my posts, or something I have said has stuck a nerve with you. I dont see any problem at all, I simply desired to engage in a conversation of back and forth. If you deem that as an argument well thats your choice, I think my prior 3 years of posting here will reveal I am far from an argumentitive person, on the contrary I support discussion and diolgue.
If i came off as arguing, well I do appologize.
Thank you for those who responded and gave your feedback I do appreciate it, perhaps our paths will cross again from time to time.
Odin
Adrian II
02-22-2007, 19:42
Odin, you wanted to hear comparisons from members who played both 1 and 2 and that is what they gave you. But nobody in their right mind will discourage you from trying and finding out by yourself.
As for me -- like most people here, I guess -- I like the stories, the relaxed banter and the fireside chats in this section, so I just hope we will see you back from time to time.
Take care. :bow:
Innocentius
02-22-2007, 19:48
There are two aspects of the RTW campaign game that are massively overstated by fans of that type of campaign. One is the use of terrain on the campaign map, and the other is the freedom of movement and movement points system.
The freedom of movement tends to be restricted to the roads and flatland anyway, so you won't see many, if any, of those epic hill battles of MTW. In short wherever you're attacked there's not much difference unless you're on a bridge or, of course, inside the settlement. This means that the AI will enter your provinces unchecked and besiege your settlement first. This unfortunately makes the majority of battles, sieges unless you go out actively looking for and engaging enemies. The movement points system also applies to agents, which means tediously clicking them around the map also. The AI cannot use this system well, and is prone to dividing it's forces. The player can exploit this and cut off the smaller AI stacks and neutralise them. With the MTW system he would have to fight the AI's combined force for the province in one epic battle.
As to the battles, they are without a doubt absolute "turkey shoots", as Adrian II put it. Missiles are overpowered and RTS-like with movement and kill rates very imbalanced. Most of the maps look very similar, with sloping hills and perhaps a distant coastline which is outside the usable area anyway.
I haven't played M2TW, I've no doubt it's an improvement, but it is based on the same thing. The battles have supposedly improve but the campaign map works in much the same way.
Agreed it's less fun, but it is indeed more realistic. Siege warfare was what medieval warfare was all about. That and occasional raids. Battles were rare exceptions.
And when there eventually was a battle, it was mostly fought on pretty even ground as most armies were clever enough to refuse battle rather than fight an enemy with a superior position (like a hill). In the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513, The Earl of Surrey asked his opponent James IV to come down from his secure position and to fight on more even ground as he described James' position as "more like a fortress".
either you have mistaken the tone of my posts, or something I have said has stuck a nerve with you. I dont see any problem at all, I simply desired to engage in a conversation of back and forth. If you deem that as an argument well thats your choice, I think my prior 3 years of posting here will reveal I am far from an argumentitive person, on the contrary I support discussion and diolgue.
If i came off as arguing, well I do appologize.
Thank you for those who responded and gave your feedback I do appreciate it, perhaps our paths will cross again from time to time.
Odin
It seems you have mistaken the tone of my post also, and for that I must apologise sincerely. I am not in any way a hostile poster, so it is a blow to me when the possibility arises that I have been perceived as such. You seem to have taken the word "arguing" out of context. I can see why you may have looking at my post again. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others "Arguing a point" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument) is not quite the same as simply arguing. I was not in any way implying that you were argumentative either, again I am sorry if it came across in that way. :shame:
As to M2TW, I think you should just go for it. We probably are a bit biased here, and at the end of the day the only way to find out is to try it for yourself. :2thumbsup:
Odin, I posted the following mini-review over at the .COM yesterday. I won't claim I went into great depth or anything, but you might find it a little more enlightening than my earlier comments:
I've not had a chance to play Medieval 2 extensively, but my impressions thus far? It's....pretty good. Not great, but still fairly enjoyable. Whereas I rate MTW at least a 9 (out of 10), I'd give M2TW a 7.
Aside from the graphics, the only real improvement (in my experience) Medieval 2 really makes over its predecessor is religion. Overall, I like how the religious aspects -- Crusades, Jihads, Priests/Imams, Papal elections & the College of Cardinals, etc. -- are implemented. The exception is Inquisitors, as they're overpowered. They can convict just about anyone for heresy, no matter how pious the defendant is. I do, however, appreciate that they're now available only to the Pope and not the Catholic factions at large -- there's no more utilizing the admittedly somewhat cheesy tactic from MTW of using a GI or two burn your enemy's royal family to death.
A few other miscellaneous things I enjoy from Medieval 2: Missile units generally seem to be fairly well-balanced now; they're no longer underpowered like in MTW or overpowered like in Rome. Sieges are generally better, and the AI usually seems to defend its cities & castles with a certain degree of competence. (Unfortunately, it's still not very good when assaulting them.) The more transparent diplomacy is nice, although the other factions still seem to be about as silly in their dealings with you -- the diplomatic AI seems to be not so much stupid as it is schizophrenic.
Aside from those things, however, I find Medieval 2 is generally inferior to its older brother. When it comes to the AI, unit balance, "realism" (not that MTW is the best example of this either), atmosphere/immersiveness, general replayability, and of course bugginess, MTW still retains the upper hand. Not that I'm claiming Medieval 2 is exactly poor in these areas -- I concede CA has clearly stepped up their efforts this time around to try and correct for Rome's mistakes. At least for me, however, they still haven't recaptured the true "feel" of Shogun and Medieval (1).
Those gamers who are new to the Total War series (or whose only TW experience is Rome), and those who truly love nice graphics and always chaffed at Shogun and MTW's visuals, will probably love Medieval 2 and be blown away by it. If you've always really enjoyed the immersion factor of Shogun and/or MTW, though, there's a good chance you'll be at least a little disappointed. Medieval 2 *is* a fun game, don't get me wrong; but it still falls short of the original. It implements the majority of gameplay aspects fairly well; but MTW simply does them better for the most part.
So that's my overall opinion on the game. You should certainly take it with as many grains of salt as you're comfortable with, however -- I freely admit I'm generally more of an "old school" sort of guy, and thus obviously have a at least something of an ingrained bias. ~:)
Medieval 2 is enjoyable enough that I don't think you'd regret spending the $40.00 on it, Odin, but I'm not sure whether or not your overall enjoyment of it would equal or surpass that of MTW. I think it really depends mostly on what's important to you in a game. Guys like econ21, katank, & Doug Thompson -- all of whom I consider to be "old school" as well -- seemed to have made a smooth transition to Medieval 2 and enjoy it as much, if not more, than MTW. Other folks like myself remain less than enthralled with it. Ultimately, the mileage varies with the user. :shrug:
Martok's review makes a lot of good points. For example, I agree that M2TWs balancing of missiles is nicely judged and the sieges are far better than the earlier titles. I usually lose siege defences.
You can't judge M2TW based on RTW - if anything, it is even more unfair than judging MTW by STW. For example, the 10 second battles jibe is no longer applicable - move speeds are closer to MTW than RTW and morale levels are pretty beefy. Battlefield terrain in M2TW is beautiful and sometimes very important.
I suspect the tactical AI maybe better than MTW. At least, I am finding VH battles surprisingly challenging without them skewing the stats on higher difficulties as was done in the earlier titles. I think this is because of the better AI.
M2TW avoids some of the really big problems of MTW SP that tend to be forgotten:
(a) the reinforcement tedium of most battles (kill the first wave, then endure an hour or two of seeing off several waves of low morale, leaderless losers);
(b) the broken economic model/endgame (get a sea-wide trade network and you've won the game)
(c) the dire AI army composition on early (peasant armies etc)
For these reasons, I think M2TW probably provides a better SP experience out of the box than MTW on early.
Like RTW, M2TWs strategic AI does still lack the killer instinct that the strategic AI had on the Risk-style STW/MTW maps. And for that reason, it's harder to lose the game. But it is sharpened up considerably over RTW and has given me something of the feel of STW/MTW in that you can't advance into one province without worrying that you are exposing another to AI counter-invasion.
Personally, I find M2TW more "realistic" than MTW. At least, there are more units, they are less generic and lead to more historically varied armies. For example, the English will tend to be archer heavy, complete with nifty stakes. All factions have unique units and while some - e.g. Russia - are pretty ahistorical, most seem to have historical character and flavour.
It's hard to judge the unit balance given the shield and 2H bugs, but I am cautiously optimistic. I rather like the charge dynamics: a good cavalry charge is very powerful, but is tricky to pull off and cavalry are vulnerable if bogged down.
I've got mixed views on the agents, but generals are better developed in M2TW than MTW. They don't give the same unbalancing stats advantage (and neither does experience for that matter), but are more recognisable and more fun to role-play. On balance, I think the M2TW missions are better done the "glorious achievements" of MTW: more of them, more short term rewards and punishments.
Diplomacy is also better in M2TW, but not always transparent - there is a logic to the AI actions (people who know how it works have managed to keep alliances and reputations), but it is tempered by opportunism and a difficulty-related tendency to have worsening relations with the player over the course of the game.
It's still too early for me to be sure about replayability. I've only played half way on two English campaigns - both cut short by a decision to wait for a patch. People might be right that the game has less of a hook than MTW - or maybe it's just diminishing returns to playing what is essentially the same game since STW.
I suspect people's preferences may ultimately boil down to their attitude to the abstract Risk-style map of STW/MTW and the more representational one of RTW/M2TW. For me, I greatly prefer the RTW style one - I am a historical wargamer, not a Chess player. Beyond that, I think M2TW shares many things in common with MTW. It is hard to deny the appeal of the RTW/M2TW graphics. I'm no graphics whore, but I can't identify enough advantages in MTW over M2TW to justify going back to that uglier game. I tried going back to Shogun the other day, but it was really painful to adjust to those choppy little sprites after the drop dead gorgeous models of RTR and M2TW.
Ignoramus
02-23-2007, 03:18
I'm undecided about which is better.
I think that Medieval definitely has more immersion than Medieval 2. The main killer for Medieval 2 is the lack of strategic AI. Never mind that the tactical AI is good, if the strategic AI is bad, then it's all too easy.
In Medieval, I remember how difficult it was to actually win a campaign. In Medieval 2, its easier, because the AI doesn't cope as well with the strategic campaign map.
However, that said, the graphics are quite awe-inspiring in Medieval 2, and for that, the battles tend to feel quite realistic.
In summing up, I would say the Medieval has the better campaign, but Medieval 2 has a slight edge in battles.
I suspect people's preferences may ultimately boil down to their attitude to the abstract Risk-style map of STW/MTW and the more representational one of RTW/M2TW. For me, I greatly prefer the RTW style one - I am a historical wargamer, not a Chess player.
Sorry but I'm not sure how you can somehow relate the MTW/STW Risk style map to chess? Chess is absolutely nothing at all like Risk or the STW/MTW campaign map. The main differences between the basic functionality of both types of TW map are the open borders and movement points system used in RTW onwards. With the STW/MTW style map, army stacks will move one province at a time, with the RTW style map they can wander about on the roads within the provinces, the provinces do still exist but are largely cosmetic, as holding the city is the key to holding the province. Other factions crossing your borders can do so unhindered. In many ways this system is better than the MTW system, in many other ways it is worse. I for one can't see the real benefits of movement points in the current model being fully exploited. The movement of agents is also a major annoyance. Another myth is that the movement times are somehow more realistic as a result of movement points, even though it can take years to march an army from northern Italy into souther Spain. MTW's was indeed no better, but that was the older game, and based on the provincial map and movement. This style of movement is restricted in that it takes a turn to do anything. The biggest problem with MTW was the switching to years from the STW seasons, which was by far the better system. I think CA did it as a quick fix, after realising that the game would be very long drawn out otherwise (which is very true - It would have taken 4 times as long to get through the early era).
I also fail to see the "historical wargamer" part. I cannot work out what makes RTW or M2TW more of a historical wargamer's kind of a game? Animated giants instead of non animate Risk pieces, movement points and open borders? Visual trade routes? Roads? All objects that would not be visual on a map of that scale, thus, as with STW/MTW, abstracted. I also can't see what makes it less abstract and more realistic, apart from the aforementioned movement points system. Both types of map are less than perfect, but the RTW/M2TW map is in no sense better for historical wargamers.
Most historical wargames use something like the RTW/M2TW a movement point system. Risk is not a historical wargame and that style of map is less common in the genre. I made the Chess analogy, because the more limited options of the Risk style map make it easier to programme a challenging AI but IMO (I know you disagree) make it feel less like I am commanding armies on the move. I suspect that the Risk style map is one reason (along with the Civ style buildings and the geishas, STWs equivalent of flaming pigs) STW was not initially recognised as a historical wargame despite its wonderful battlefield model.
I agree the potential of the movement point system is not exploited, but it could be the basis of a pretty decent historical wargame at the strategic level (just as the battles are good historical wargames at the tactical level). There are some nice touches at the moment - mutually supporting armies, ambushes, campaign terrain appearing on the battlefield, the relative position of the armies reflected on the battlefield, better treatment of reinforcements, movement speeds varying by army composition and general traits etc. But it could be improved by a larger "zone of control" or some system of reaction moves to limit the IGO-UGO abstraction. Some modelling of supply, attrition and command n control would also be good.
Most historical wargames use something like the RTW/M2TW a movement point system.
Ahh, that explains it. I don't really have an experience of historical wargames outside TW.
Risk is not a historical wargame and that style of map is less common in the genre. I made the Chess analogy, because the more limited options of the Risk style map make it easier to programme a challenging AI but IMO (I know you disagree) make it feel less like I am commanding armies on the move.
I actually agree with that. The risk map is not really about commanding armies on the move as an entire amry is located in a province and that's it. You can't see your army moving through terrain or progressing towards it's objective.
My own "ascension" to RTW is going ok so far. I still need to take the time to download RTR or EB again (I've formatted and reinstalled since then). The main issue, is that despite the mods available for MTW, one cannot continue playing the same game forever. Moving from STW to MTW was a similar experience.
Deus ret.
02-23-2007, 11:53
Actually the one-year-per-turn-system of MTW makes the game more realistic in the end than most other contenders can claim to. the reason is simple: warfare was mostly a costly and well-considered issue, so drawn-out wars or even conflicts on a large scale were quite uncommon. In that MTW is no more realistic than, say, RTW (which I know), as giant standing armies become a common sight some time into the game
BUT
because movement is rather restricted in MTW, the resulting rate of territorial change is more at ease with historical realities. Historically, borders didn't alter often because of warfare, but much more frequently because of some kind of diplomatic agreement (or dynasty arrangements/...), and if the movement system of MTW makes warfare slower overall: Thumbs up! In RTW (even in RTR), it's possible to steamroll most opposition within 30-40 years....which means 60-80 turns, but 30 years feels just too short a span of time for the creation of a giant, well-structured and lasting empire.
Besides, up to now no-one has mentioned the re-appearing issue. I deem this feature one of the most important aspects of MTW because it helps keep campaigns vital and interesting even at a later stage. In RTW, factions either become superpowers or disappear forever if they are vanquished, in MTW the last word isn't yet spoken upon the extinction of the royal line....
Caerfanan
02-23-2007, 17:23
Well, just pushing a coin!
I haven't played much with the RTW/M2TW style, but just wanted to answer one point about the battles being mostly sieges without real possibility of defending the province itself first.
I think that if you put an army at the right place in your province, it will block any other army's progression. So an army in the south of your province on the road will avoid invasions from the south. I more feel like you have to defend all your roads instead of 1 province, but that you can defend it.
But well, I love MTW:VI and have played hundreds of hours, and I don't have 10 hours yet onr RTW...
Caerfanan
02-23-2007, 17:32
Besides, up to now no-one has mentioned the re-appearing issue. I deem this feature one of the most important aspects of MTW because it helps keep campaigns vital and interesting even at a later stage. In RTW, factions either become superpowers or disappear forever if they are vanquished, in MTW the last word isn't yet spoken upon the extinction of the royal line....
A very good point, indeed.
I think that if you put an army at the right place in your province, it will block any other army's progression. So an army in the south of your province on the road will avoid invasions from the south. I more feel like you have to defend all your roads instead of 1 province, but that you can defend it.
The problem with this is that an army has to be actually in the city to affect loyalty If I could place a few stacks in blocking positions and nothing inside the city itself that would be a lot better. As things stand I would have to support a large army in the city itself and a few more to secure the borders. This makes it much more cost effective to keep one stack in the city and simply allow the siege, then just sally or fight the defense if the AI assaults.
Caerfanan
02-23-2007, 17:41
The problem with this is that an army has to be actually in the city to affect loyalty If I could place a few stacks in blocking positions and nothing inside the city itself that would be a lot better. As things stand I would have to support a large army in the city itself and a few more to secure the borders. This makes it much more cost effective to keep one stack in the city and simply allow the siege, then just sally or fight the defense if the AI assaults.
Uuuuh, OK, I got your point! I'll post some more about this when I've finished a campaign! :sweatdrop:
Fantastic feedback gentlemen, thank you.
I have done some more browsing on the game and I am curious as to opinions on how the Pope is handled in MTW2. I do believe there is a system by which cardinals may be supported for election via mission assignment/completion.
...I am curious as to opinions on how the Pope is handled in MTW2. I do believe there is a system by which cardinals may be supported for election via mission assignment/completion.
There's a short list of 3 Cardinals who can be Pope - they are the most pious. All factions vote for one of them, with votes equal to the number of Cardinals they have in the college of Cardinals. If you back a winner, you will be favoured - if you back a loser, it will be remembered. You can try to induce other factions to vote for your candidate, if you are lucky to have one in the top 3.
I am not sure completing Papal missions helps in this process, although they certainly do raise your standing with the Pope. But what you need is to get pious enough Cardinals to be Pope-material and enough Cardinals to be influential in the vote. Getting other factions to like you is probably key.
It's quite a characterful feature and seeing your standing with the Pope is a good advance over MTW (as is the fact you can be warned not to attack multiple Catholic factions). But ultimately, like a lot of the agent stuff, you have to work quite hard to get the full benefit from it. I tend to focus on cracking skulls instead. The Pope is very susceptible to monetary gifts, so you can keep in his good books without much diplomacy if you are willing to pay.
Caliburn
02-25-2007, 11:21
For my albeit short experience with M2TW, it most definately has improved from Rome. Yet, there are quite a few minus sides when compared to MTWVI. Yes, agent movement can get boring, but at least the AI bundles its troops into stacks these days. And sometimes moving all of those hundreds of Bishops, if you had gone overboard with them, could really be a pain.
Peasant armies are less common in M2TW(while low level militia type ones sometimes sadly are), as upgrading a castle even a bit further gives a wide range of decent troops. It was always sad to go against mounted sergeants with chivalric knights.
But one thing about flashy graphics is that it makes it more difficult to recognize between different nations' agents, not to mention find them among all those tiny models scratching their tiny butts. Hearing "You are not mein Keiser!" for the Nth time when you try to choose your own assassin or spy, who is too damn good at hiding in Schwarzwald.
One of the aspects I enjoyed in MTW was that you could affect lands on the other side of Europe within one turn, i.e. move your armies from East Anglia to Constantinople. These days it takes a lot more work and time to move a fleet accross the open seas. Then again, unit production doesn't rely on the central provinces anymore, as invading a province doesn't really mean devastating the buildings in it. Also, taking the enemy's central provinces doesn't remove his claws completely, as it takes only a couple of provinces and a lot of cash to produce good quality armies within a couple of turns.
All in all, Medieval and Medieval II both have their sides, and most of the negative sides of MIITW come from Rome. I still enjoy MTVVI more because of the clarity. Total war as a concept and Medieval times on the other hand... Never found them to be quite compatible.
There's a short list of 3 Cardinals who can be Pope - they are the most pious. All factions vote for one of them, with votes equal to the number of Cardinals they have in the college of Cardinals. If you back a winner, you will be favoured - if you back a loser, it will be remembered. You can try to induce other factions to vote for your candidate, if you are lucky to have one in the top 3.
I am not sure completing Papal missions helps in this process, although they certainly do raise your standing with the Pope. But what you need is to get pious enough Cardinals to be Pope-material and enough Cardinals to be influential in the vote. Getting other factions to like you is probably key.
It's quite a characterful feature and seeing your standing with the Pope is a good advance over MTW (as is the fact you can be warned not to attack multiple Catholic factions). But ultimately, like a lot of the agent stuff, you have to work quite hard to get the full benefit from it. I tend to focus on cracking skulls instead. The Pope is very susceptible to monetary gifts, so you can keep in his good books without much diplomacy if you are willing to pay.
considering where MTWVI is with the pope to what you described i would call that a pretty signifigant upgrade in an important feature.
(as is the fact you can be warned not to attack multiple Catholic factions)
This was a major drawback to the papal warnings in MTW. You could attack a catholic faction and get warned by the Pope. If you wanted to reset this you need only attack another (small) catholic faction and get another warning for them. The Pope will then "forget" about the first warning, allowing you end a siege. The new system in M2TW seems like a very good way of implimenting the Papacy.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.