View Full Version : MTW2 worth it?
americancaesar
03-05-2007, 18:31
I bet this has been asked before... :yes:
Is MTW2 worth buying? I've heard a lot of mixed reviews, so do the benefits outweigh the stuff I've heard is missing that I liked in the first MTW.
AC
Hoo boy this thread's gonna heat up.
My two cents... Wait until after the 1.2 patch. Right now unless you have a determined dying need to play it, I'd wait. It's going the way of being a good game, but it's definitely got some real teething problems. YMMV, IANAL, IMHO, WTFBBQ, etc etc.
:bow:
SnowlyWhite
03-05-2007, 18:36
short(and hopeful) answer: not yet.
Hollerbach
03-05-2007, 18:47
It's good, but it can (and hopefully will) get better. It is fun to play, but does have gameplay issues that are annoying.
The biggest design flaw is that it has inhereted the relatively flat and uniform tech tree from RTW instead of the deeper and more varied tech tree of MTW. This is pretty fundamental so isn't going to be addressed by patches, but wait till the M2TW mods are out and it could be very different.
So yeah, if you are saving your pennies then some of the new BI mods might be a better bet for the moment, but eventually M2TW will be well worth purchasing.
HoreTore
03-05-2007, 18:55
Well, get some of the fixes here, they fix almost every problem in the game. And still, with the bugs, the game is a lot of fun...
Most things will be fixed in the coming patch too.
Vlad Tzepes
03-05-2007, 18:56
Fun to play, yes. If one is new to TW series, getting MTW2 might be a great experience... or not? :inquisitive:
By the way, any news about patch 1.2? This will certainly make MTW2 worth it... or not? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
Later: sorry didn't notice the other thread... :">
Is it worth it, honestly - YES. Although people have noticed problems and I am too new (Still within my first hundred play hours) I would honestly say its one of the most enjoyable games I have played all year or decade. I honestly believe it has far suppassed MTW and definenly worth the 50 dollar price. I would buy it again and never look back.
Romeus Petrus
03-05-2007, 21:06
short(and hopeful) answer: not yet.
QFT.
I have been very dissappointed so far. I hope v1.2 will make it better.
When I first got it - I hated it cause of all the bugs and nothing seemed to work properly and we had to wait for the unpacker to mod anything and the un-moddability was most frustrating. Now with the mods, M2TW is a lot more playable and it seems from patch list for 1.2 should fix most major glitches and if so, then M2 is a kickbutt game.
I have to say that It depends, i'm finding the game a lot more enjoyable after modding it, but it was still fun regardless. It's defintlly got a lot of potentiol, but only time wil tell if CA/SEGA make use of it.
Now Where has Puzz3D got to I wonder...:laugh4:
I've heard a lot of mixed reviews, so do the benefits outweigh the stuff I've heard is missing that I liked in the first MTW.
Was the missing stuff why you liked MTW? I doubt it. I've not missed anything from MTW. There was some good stuff that went - faction reappearances and civil war - but they were relatively marginal features and not that subtly done. The core features of MTW that I liked is still in M2TW: building up an empire and conquering Europe though intense battles. M2TW is basically MTW revisited with a RTW campaign map and gorgeous graphics. Those are the two big pluses for me. I much prefer the campaign map to the Risk style one; it feels much more like I am commanding an army in the field. The graphics - particularly the scenery - are amazing; it's hard to go back to the pre-RTW stick men (I haven't). But at heart, it's a very similar experience: I find it hard to understand why anyone would like MTW and not M2TW.
What little was lost has been more than outweighed by what we gained: vastly better sieges; more varied and historical units; more factions; more interesting generals; missions; America and Timurids etc. M2TW also avoids some of the big problems of MTW: namely, a broken economic model that almost guarantees you will win (you'll get a seaborn trade network - the AI won't); no repetitive and frankly pointless 1 hour + reinforcement battles; and better AI armies (no peasant armies).
The big problem with M2TW right now, for me (and I'm not alone), is the unit balancing - it's off, particularly with spears, due to the shield bug and 2H axe bug. They are being fixed for the imminent patch and then I suspect we will have unit balancing more to my taste than any other TW game (except mods like RTR and EB).
Hollerbach
03-05-2007, 22:20
What little was lost has been more than outweighed by what we gained: ... more varied and historical units
Hmmm, maybe my memory is not serving me well, but the M2TW unit roster seems quite a bit less varied than MTW. For starters there is the loss of the early, mid, late periods from MTW. We have the pre and post gunpowder era in M2TW but that is all. In addition there seems to be a lot less difference between factions now. It's more like a base roster with a few unique units. MTW had more of a unique roster for each faction, if my memory serves me correctly!
RTW had a flatter tech tree than MTW and less diversity within cultural groups of factions but this was reasonable given the time period. It seems like M2TW has inherrited the RTW model rather than the more varied MTW style rosters.
In particular I really do miss being able to start in the late period for instance. Campaigns can be completed so quickly that I've never seen gunpowder units yet. The alternative is to sit around turtleing for 100 turns just to get the the later era troops but this is less than ideal. I know this can be modded, but it would have been a nice option to have had from the start.
Still correct me if I'm wrong about the MTW/M2TW unit diversity. It's been a while since I played MTW....
Derfasciti
03-05-2007, 22:25
While I'm a little disgruntled about some issues, over all I LOVE this game. Definitely buy it ASAP.
Hmmm, maybe my memory is not serving me well, but the M2TW unit roster seems quite a bit less varied than MTW. For starters there is the loss of the early, mid, late periods from MTW. We have the pre and post gunpowder era in M2TW but that is all. In addition there seems to be a lot less difference between factions now. It's more like a base roster with a few unique units. MTW had more of a unique roster for each faction, if my memory serves me correctly!
Your memory does not serve you well. Apart from a few units like Billemn, longbowmen, hobilars etc, or regional units, all the catholic factions were basically the same. Spearmen, Archers, Crossbowmen, Feudal Sergeants, Feudal Men-At-Arms, Feudal Knights, Halberdiers, Chivalric Sergeants, Chivalric Men-At-Arms etc.
Still correct me if I'm wrong about the MTW/M2TW unit diversity. It's been a while since I played MTW....
I tend to agree with this view, that MTW had more unit variety available to each faction. The castle/city difference really doesn't cover this in my view, in that the base units are almost identical in most respects, one just being a bit more military oriented, the other defense and free upkeep provided you have the slots. Further there's a 1 to 1 correlation for mounted/dismounted units, yes I know some of this was in MTW but the relationship was many to one, not one to one. There's still a variety but it's not nearly as much as what I would have wanted to see.
americancaesar, I thought about this for a bit after reading econ's post. I both strongly agree and disagree with some of what he said, like the new engine being much better in some respects being great, others like the "What little was lost has been more than outweighed by what we gained" I very much disagree with, we lost a lot from MTW and even RTW. I was going to suggest that you should post what game features mean the most to you, and we can give you some input and feedback... but that would probably turn this into a feeding frenzy. As such, I would submit two threads that you should read:
Things we miss about MTW: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74593
Things that we like about M2TW: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=80359
Take a look and then map these to your wishlist, then decide for yourself. The last thing I'll throw out there is do NOT base your decision on the demo. I found the demo didn't do the game justice hardly at all. The battles are very cookie cutter and rigid, and there's nothing to be had in the way of the campaign strategy map which is 1/2 of the game.
Cheers :bow:
Was the missing stuff why you liked MTW? I doubt it. I've not missed anything from MTW. There was some good stuff that went - faction reappearances and civil war - but they were relatively marginal features and not that subtly done. The core features of MTW that I liked is still in M2TW: building up an empire and conquering Europe though intense battles. M2TW is basically MTW revisited with a RTW campaign map and gorgeous graphics. Those are the two big pluses for me. I much prefer the campaign map to the Risk style one; it feels much more like I am commanding an army in the field. The graphics - particularly the scenery - are amazing; it's hard to go back to the pre-RTW stick men (I haven't). But at heart, it's a very similar experience: I find it hard to understand why anyone would like the other over this one.
Personally, I agree. EVERY GAME has things that we would change but to be honest, I am not even a graphics whore (coined by PCGamer, not profanity to describe someone who is all about graphics, not caring about how the game is played.) but it would be very hard to go back. YEs, we all have MINOR complaints but we are all members of a message board to honor and share experiences and questions about the game, not bash it. To tell you the truth, I am not even a noob but I really dont' see all the problems that everyone is complaining about. The game works fine for me and it appears not to be broken but I bet the 1.2 patch will fix things.
Is it worth it... I would say yes. It takes the main ideas that we all love about this type of game and brings it home. I play this game because you have hundreds of turns if you mod right to bring a small patch of land into a mighty empire and during that time you are faced with various conquests or setbacks along the way. I have never enjoyed any movie or game this much and as a waste of time, I have learnt a lot.
YEs, many people who have posted already on this thread are complaining about MINOR things. But to be honest, we all love the game or love the idea behind it or we wouldn't be posting here. IF thats not a good enough answer, then you won't find one posted but should look at yourself to answer it.
Lorenzo_H
03-05-2007, 23:13
Yes its worth it. Thats all you need to know, so buy it.
Barry Fitzgerald
03-06-2007, 00:09
Yes it is..its a fun game. I have been frustrated with bugs and the like..but I guess they will fix it all after some time.
Hang in there...I shelved the game xmas time..so I will be happy to get into it again with patch 1.2 if it does address many issues.
Chaos Cornelius lucius
03-06-2007, 00:44
Is it worth it?, for me definitly yes. The campaign map is a lot better than MTW/VI, the graphics are way better, battles are faster paced without the 4 hr marathons that you used to sometimes end up with MTW, and sieges are a hell of a lot more fun in this game. I always used to auto resolve or just sit out sieges in MTW, in this game assaulting a 3 walled fortress can be a very intresting challenge. The tech tree as I see it is pretty much similar to the old MTW one, with the cities/castles adding an extra bit of strategic interest to the game (ie: converting cities to castles so you have a troop building centre near your front line, or looking at taking a province to provide one in an area you want to expand in). The guilds add a bit of extra intrest too, though you will have to read elsewhere on the ORG to find out the best ways of getting and using them. The unit roster is a lot more varied than MTW, with each faction having a few basic units that are universal, eg. militia spears, peasant archers etc, and the rest been more or less unigue to the various factions.
The AI is a lot better in some respects, and just as dumb in others, although I believe a lot of these are been addressed in the 1.2 patch.
I played MTW/VI a lot and enjoyed it immensely, tried playing RTW and could'nt get too like it very much. My first couple of battles on MTW2, made me come off the pc with a big smile and my face after a really enjoyable time.
In short if you liked MTW1, I think you will like MTW2 also. There are some problems/bugs with it, but nothing that should cause you not to buy it. To be honest I only found out about half the bugs from reading the org, either I had not noticed them or they had not affected the game for me.
I tend to agree with this view, that MTW had more unit variety available to each faction.
The total number of units available to each faction was about equal. What M2TW did was create more units that were specific to each faction and so create more variety between factions.
Furthermore, the "unique units" were not arbitrary adornments, but generally were historical troop types that made various armies feel different in combat.
For example, compare England and the HRE (I've listed what you can recruit in any provinces under SP MTW - not VI):
3^English MTW|German MTW|English M2TW|German M2TW
7^Peasants|Peasants|Peasants|Peasants
7^Urban Militia|Urban Militia|Town militia|Town militia
7^Militia Sergeants|Militia Sergeants||
7^|Halbardiers||Halberd militia
7^Billmen||Bill militia|
7^||Billmen|
7^||Heavy bill militia|
7^||Heavy billmen|
7^Spearmen|Spearmen|Levy/militia spearmen|Spear militia
7^Feudal Sergeants|Feudal Sergeants||Sergeant spearmen
7^Chivalric Sergeants|Chivalric Sergeants||Armoured spearmen
7^|Gothic Seargents||
7^|Pikemen||Pike militia
7^|||Landsknecht pikemen
7^Feudal Men-at-Arms|Feudal Men-at-Arms|Dismtd Feudal knights|Dismtd Feudal knights
7^Chivalric Men-at-Arms|Chivalric Men-at-Arms|Armoured swordsmen|
7^||Dismtd English knights|
7^|||Dismtd Imperial knights
7^|||Dismtd Gothic knights
7^|||Zweihander
7^|||Forlorn Hope
7^Archers|Archers|Peasant/militia archers|Peasant archers
7^Crossbows|Crossbows||Peasant/militia xbow
7^Pavise Crossbows|Pavise Crossbows||Pavisse crossbowmen
7^Arbalester|Arbalester||
7^Pavise Arbalests|Pavise Arbalests||
7^Longbows||Longbowmen|
7^||Yeomen archers|
7^||Retinue longbowmen|
7^||Sherwood foresters|
7^Handguns|Handguns||Handgunners
7^Arquebusiers|Arquebusiers||Arquebusiers
7^Hobilars||Hobilars|
7^||Merchant cavalry|Merchant cavalry
7^Mounted Sergeants|Mounted Sergeants||Mounted sergeants
7^|Mounted Crossbow||Mounted crossbowmen
7^|||Reiters
7^||Mailed knights|Mailed knights
7^Feudal Knights|Feudal Knights|Feudal knights|Feudal knights
7^Chivalric Knights|Chivalric Knights|English knights|Imperial knights
7^|Gothic Knights||Gothic knights
7^||Demi lancer|
7^Royal Knights (Early)|Royal Knights (Early)|Early gen. bodyguard|Early gen. bodyguard
7^Royal Knights (High)|Royal Knights (High)|Late gen. bodyguard|Late gen. bodyguard
7^Royal Knights (Late)|Royal Knights (Late)||
7^|||
7^total 24|total 26|total 23|total 28
7^|||
7^non-German 3|non-English 5|non-German 12|non-English 17
7^total MTW units 29||total M2TW units 40|
It is obvious from this table, that the English and German unit roster is much more varied in M2TW from MTW. 21 of the units in MTW were common between the two factions. In M2TW, it was only 11.
Moreover, it has real implications for gameplay. The English will tend to be more archer heavy, while the Germans will rely on other unit types. This not only makes for varied gameplay, it also makes for a more historical feel to the battles.
RTW also had this great virtue - historically varied armies. This got missed by many who fixated on the Egyptians and pigs/dogs etc.
pike master
03-06-2007, 01:02
wait until its on the discount shelf
The total number of units available to each faction was about equal. What M2TW did was create more units that were specific to each faction and so create more variety between factions.
That's a pretty nifty chart there, I like it. So it looks that it's pretty much an even bit between the two games for Eng. and HRE. My opinion still hasn't changed though, I still say MTW "feels" like it has more unit variety. Some points I'll offer in support of my view is that if you look at the chart and compare MTW Eng. vs M2TW Eng, you'll see no less than 4 versions of the same thing that's available once in MTW, Billmen. One is more than enough, the others aren't necessary IMO. There are also more real variations in the infantry archer units in MTW vs M2TW as I see it. M2TW basically has increasingly powerful variations that build on the basic Archer unit, and a single unit of crossbows. MTW however gives you several flavors of archer AND crossbows that arguably have more variation and purpose than M2TW's base archer units, such as the shielded Pavise crossbowman vs unshielded. Sure you could say I'm nitpicking, but I'm just trying to support my opinion.
Furthermore, the "unique units" were not arbitrary adornments, but generally were historical troop types that made various armies feel different in combat.
Sherwood Foresters are historical? :dizzy2: Don't get me wrong I'm not one of those historical purist types, I like the fantasy units just as well as the historical ones... But you see what I mean right?
It is obvious from this table, that the English and German unit roster is much more varied in M2TW from MTW. 21 of the units in MTW were common between the two factions. In M2TW, it was only 11.
Moreover, it has real implications for gameplay. The English will tend to be more archer heavy, while the Germans will rely on other unit types. This not only makes for varied gameplay, it also makes for a more historical feel to the battles.
Lack of commonality doesn't imply the presence of variation, you have to look at the whole picture. While I do really enjoy having a (truly) large variety of units to work with, I think MTW did a bit better job in terms of commonality, in that it makes it easier to gauge what you're going up against when you go to battle with someone else. You know your Mounted Sergeants are going to be the exact same as theirs, peasants, etc, so you can plan appropriately and the learning curve is just a bit better. In short, having a broad base of common troop types available to the certain cultural subgroups, and a few faction specific troops to round out the mix is optimal IMO. You can still have varied gameplay with a solid common troop base if the game is well done and balanced out, this applies to both SP and MP. How you play the game and the battles depends as much on your own personal style just as much as the troop types available to you. I don't want to belabor this point because we're just going to end up having our own opinions, so let's just have a gentleman's agreement to disagree and respect the other's views. Suffice to say I don't think M2TW's lineup is inferior... I just prefer MTW's given the choice.
RTW also had this great virtue - historically varied armies. This got missed by many who fixated on the Egyptians and pigs/dogs etc.
No disagreement from me here. I thought RTW's lineups were great, if anything I think a few factions got the short end of the stick with too few different unit types. Fantasy units don't bug me at all, in fact I tend to like them for the added flavor they throw into the mix.
:bow:
... you'll see no less than 4 versions of the same thing that's available once in MTW, Billmen. One is more than enough, the others aren't necessary IMO.
Until they fix the 2H bug, I can't really comment on billmen as I avoid them like the plague. But I think what CA were doing with the 4x bills & 4xlongbow is inducing the English player to rely on them. Giving them a tech tree encourages that, as does stripping away the decent spears and crossbow/firearm units for the English. I think it's a clever way of inducing historically themed armies. Some of the upgrades are significant - esp. heavy armour on the billmen and retinue longbowmen who can fight.
There are also more real variations in the infantry archer units in MTW vs M2TW as I see it. M2TW basically has increasingly powerful variations that build on the basic Archer unit, and a single unit of crossbows.
I think if you dig into the stats, you'll find more variation in M2TW. MTW just had bows, crossbows, longbows and arbalests. Remember the MTW description about Trebizonds and Genovese being better archers? They lied. In M2TW, the different longbowmen differ in firepower. Other archers - eg composite bows - differ as well. The arbalests are gone (thank goodness! they were an era too early and really distorted high period armies), but better crossbows are more effective and effectively represent what MTW called arbalests (the graphics even show more weapons with more metal parts). The HRE don't get them, but I think Milan does.
You can still have varied gameplay with a solid common troop base if the game is well done and balanced out, this applies to both SP and MP.
Gameplay may be varied - just as chess matches may be varied - but my original point was that M2TW has a more varied and historical unit roster. I like medieval English armies to look like medieval English armies; ditto HRE etc. But in MTW, I suspect high period Catholic players will tend to field similar armies regardless of faction - arbalests, chiv spears & swords, chiv knights. In M2TW, they won't. For example, in M2TW, neither the HRE or England get good crossbows, and England lacks good spears. Such design decisions which shape whole army composition are what determine whether a game has historical flavour or is generic. Individual dodgy units like Sherwood Foresters, like the Roman pigs, are distractions that really don't matter unless you or the AI are induced to take a lot of them (how many times did people fight pigs in RTW? and foresters were in MTW/VI, IIRC). M2TW scores in terms of generating varied and historically themed armies by faction.
Quickening
03-06-2007, 02:26
Yeah it's worth it. The major bugs should apparently be fixed with the coming patch and in any case, once you're in a game enjoying yourself, you don't think about them. Well, I don't. Im sure it annoys the hell out of a lot of people.
That aside; when this game reaches it's full potential and is as was intended, it will be a classic in my opinion.
Lack of commonality doesn't imply the presence of variation, you have to look at the whole picture.
Actually, provided the sets in question are not empty, it does.
Commonality
2 a: possession of common features or attributes : commonness b: a common feature or attribute
Variation
1 a: the act or process of varying : the state or fact of being varied b: an instance of varying c: the extent to which or the range in which a thing varies
Vary
1 a: to make a partial change in : make different in some attribute or characteristic b: to make differences between items in : diversify
2: deviate, depart
Granted the sets in question are not without some commonality, but to the extent that they do not have commonality, they have variation. This logically follows because commonality indicates similarity, while variation indicates difference, deviation. As "same" and "different" are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (they cannot occur at the same time, and also account for all possibilities - 2 things must be the same, or different, and are never anything else, nor both), all items that are not the same, or "common," must be considered different, or showing "variation." Thus in so far as the units are different, they constitute variation.
I'd go on to talk about exactly how the units vary in each case, but the previous discussion has largely done this already, and I'm out of time for the moment.
Until they fix the 2H bug, I can't really comment on billmen as I avoid them like the plague. But I think what CA were doing with the 4x bills & 4xlongbow is inducing the English player to rely on them. Giving them a tech tree encourages that, as does stripping away the decent spears and crossbow/firearm units for the English. I think it's a clever way of inducing historically themed armies. Some of the upgrades are significant - esp. heavy armour on the billmen and retinue longbowmen who can fight.
OK, I'm with you so far, but doesn't this run contrary to your unit variation position so far? My view on that is that you've essentially got 2 units. The other 3 versions of the unit are simply going to be more powerful, with maybe a special ability like the stakes. The stakes offer a real option for tactical variety, and the higher tier archer troops can give an honest go at melee... but given their cost and the casualties that you're going to suffer do you really want to risk committing them and wasting them like that? I still just see in actuality 2 different units, that come in 4 flavors each. Going with the archery types for now, MTW gave you more options than you have as the English. You have your basic run of the mill archers, you have one of the english 'special' units the Longbowmen, and you have crossbowmen, and pavise crossbowmen and their arbalest versions. The longbowmen are arguably the same as my above argument, just being upgraded archers that hit harder at longer range. The two crossbow types do offer some distinct advantages and tactical options, the base crossbow hits real hard, long range, but fires slow. The pavise is more expensive and gives you the ability to move/keep them in range of other ranged units with less casualties, with the same power, range, and fire rate.
The other concept that drew me to the TW series was the ability for you to pick a faction and turn it into whatever you want. Say for example in MTW I wanted to work mainly with mounted ranged units, like the mounted crossbow, and use that as the backbone of my forces I could do it. Was it historically accurate for the english? Not even close. But I could do it if I wanted to. Putting the player in a position where they are pretty much forced to rely on certain unit types isn't something I like or would want. Giving the player a wide variety and the CHOICE to proceed as they see fit is what I like to see. That variety and choice is still here in M2TW, I just don't see as much of it as I did in MTW for the above reasons.
I think if you dig into the stats, you'll find more variation in M2TW. MTW just had bows, crossbows, longbows and arbalests. Remember the MTW description about Trebizonds and Genovese being better archers? They lied. In M2TW, the different longbowmen differ in firepower. Other archers - eg composite bows - differ as well. The arbalests are gone (thank goodness! they were an era too early and really distorted high period armies), but better crossbows are more effective and effectively represent what MTW called arbalests (the graphics even show more weapons with more metal parts). The HRE don't get them, but I think Milan does.
I never would have known that about the Trebizonds and Genovese unless you would have told me just now. I'll still refer to my positive above about differing firepower abilities between what I see as the exact same units. I can also make up for the differences in morale, power, defense, and discipline between the high and low end with proper experience and unit upgrades too, and in some cases arguably more cost-effectively so. Whatever the case may be, I'd still like to see the arbalests and the common unit roster back, and with it more choice and options to the player.
Gameplay may be varied - just as chess matches may be varied - but my original point was that M2TW has a more varied and historical unit roster.
I still think it can be successfully debated either way.
I like medieval English armies to look like medieval English armies; ditto HRE etc.
So do I, but I also like the ability to pull from the common pool available to me and compose my armies as I choose and use tactics as I want, without being forced into a certain routine or standard army build.
But in MTW, I suspect high period Catholic players will tend to field similar armies regardless of faction - arbalests, chiv spears & swords, chiv knights. In M2TW, they won't. For example, in M2TW, neither the HRE or England get good crossbows, and England lacks good spears. Such design decisions which shape whole army composition are what determine whether a game has historical flavour or is generic.
All true, but didn't we both agree that historical accuracy isn't a requirement to make the game fun? Everything about the TW games so far have been very historical in my view, there's isn't really anything I can think of that comes near it in terms of it's individual style of play. Perhaps what you meant is having a generic or common set of units available to the players based on culture? I still prefer that solution in conjunction with some faction specific 'special' units to round out the mix... again it boils down to the fact that I want the choice and ability to wage war with the unit types and tactics that match my style. Forcing me to use Billmen and Longbowmen as the English "just because they are english units" doesn't sit well with me. I know the horse archer comment was a bit off, but it's still something I'd really like to be able to do given the choice.
Individual dodgy units like Sherwood Foresters, like the Roman pigs, are distractions that really don't matter unless you or the AI are induced to take a lot of them (how many times did people fight pigs in RTW? and foresters were in MTW/VI, IIRC). M2TW scores in terms of generating varied and historically themed armies by faction.
The bickering over ahistorical units was pretty pointless, CA was clear up front that these games were historical approximations, not simulations. That's what EB and MA are for anyway, and I'm to understand they do a great job at what they're intended to do for the historically minded bunch.
M2TW does indeed have varied historically based army compositions available to the players, but as you pointed out the game does tend to way to push people in certain directions based on the factions they choose. My personal preference is I don't like or want that, I want a wide range of unit types to choose from that I know I meet their equals on the battlefield down the road, and I from this variety I can tailor my particular army compositions to the tactics I choose at the time. Sure some factions are going to be better at certain things than others, like the English Longbowmen, or the Mongol Horse Archers, but just because that's what they have as their special units doesn't mean I should be obliged or forced to use them.
Hope this helps with my logic here. I do want to end by stating that I don't want this to be misconstrued by others as one of those "MTW > M2TW or M2TW > MTW" arguments, I think this is just some good give and take on contrasting the different aspects of the original game and the sequel and personal preferences. Ultimately it's up to the individual and their history/experience (or lack thereof) with the TW series and to how well they'll receive M2TW.
Cheers :bow:
Actually, provided the sets in question are not empty, it does.
Granted the sets in question are not without some commonality, but to the extent that they do not have commonality, they have variation. This logically follows because commonality indicates similarity, while variation indicates difference, deviation. As "same" and "different" are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (they cannot occur at the same time, and also account for all possibilities - 2 things must be the same, or different, and are never anything else, nor both), all items that are not the same, or "common," must be considered different, or showing "variation." Thus in so far as the units are different, they constitute variation.
I'd go on to talk about exactly how the units vary in each case, but the previous discussion has largely done this already, and I'm out of time for the moment.
Thanks mathboy. :grin: My logic failings aside you completely blew what I was trying to get at out of proportion and misconstrued my intent. Please re-read all of my posts in their entirety to understand what my message is.
The other concept that drew me to the TW series was the ability for you to pick a faction and turn it into whatever you want. Say for example in MTW I wanted to work mainly with mounted ranged units, like the mounted crossbow, and use that as the backbone of my forces I could do it. Was it historically accurate for the english? Not even close. But I could do it if I wanted to. Putting the player in a position where they are pretty much forced to rely on certain unit types isn't something I like or would want. Giving the player a wide variety and the CHOICE to proceed as they see fit is what I like to see. That variety and choice is still here in M2TW, I just don't see as much of it as I did in MTW for the above reasons.
...
Whatever the case may be, I'd still like to see the arbalests and the common unit roster back, and with it more choice and options to the player.
2 relevant points:
1. The game is attempting to be at least somewhat historical, so you shouldn't expect to have access to units that are completely ahistorical for your faction. The game could of course give them to you, but those players who know better (not me) and enjoy some history being in the game (me) would consider it a regression and probably be upset at this.
2. The unit differences are probably biggest among a very short list of things that separate the factions in this game at all from one another. If you make the factions too alike, then there is very little (if any) reason to play an English campaign as opposed to a Spanish campaign or an Egyptian campaign. If you can do anything with any faction, then factions are simply cookies cut from the same mold, and you could just as easily have Egypt located where England is: it will play exactly the same as England does. The more substantial (compared to MTW) differences between factions lends a great deal more replay value to the game, as each faction in M2TW provides a different experience than the last simply due to what units it has. Thus you have 2 stages of unit exploration: that of exploring the various units of the faction you are playing, and that of exploring the various factions at your disposal. MTW only sufficiently delivers half of that experience: once you've played around with the units of any given faction, the other factions are similar enough that there is little new for you to discover by switching factions. You may find a unit or 2, but you won't find a significantly different battle plan, which is what M2TW factions currently deliver, through their diversity.
again it boils down to the fact that I want the choice and ability to wage war with the unit types and tactics that match my style. Forcing me to use Billmen and Longbowmen as the English "just because they are english units" doesn't sit well with me.
You have the freedom to wage war with units and tactics that match your style - what you've missed is that that freedom now comes partly from what faction you choose, as opposed to entirely from what units you select to build. There is bound to be a faction in M2TW that mirrors or at least very closely approximates what you want at your disposal when you play the game. Let's say that for you that faction is HRE. The only difference, now, is that each faction you face is not exactly like the one that embodies your particular strategy set. It might instead be the faction whose units match how I play the game strategically, or how Carl or econ21 do, for instance. So instead of playing against a bunch of countries that the AI will build nearly identical armies for (b/c of vastly similar unit pools), you play against countries that have a little bit more identity, which means you'll encounter naturally different army compositions, and be presented with different tactical situations because of it, depending what faction you are facing. So not only do you end up with factions that have better identities and flavor, but those characteristics also come through more in battles, which has the potential to be far more interesting than playing against factions that all have largely the same available units.
Granted the AI does not fully take advantage of its differences yet, but what it does shows a lot of diversity in how battles go depending on what faction it is that you're fighting. If AI army recruitment improves in future patches, the variety of combat experiences should fully blossom, and could be truly remarkable.
But that's not even the best part! When you've played out your first faction, you can move to others and see what you think of the units they offer, and the tactics they lend themselves to - you never know, having to adapt a little to a new faction may grow on you, and at the least it will probably be more interesting and challenging than playing another game with a nearly-identical faction would be.
Last one then bedtime for Whacker.
1. The game is attempting to be at least somewhat historical, so you shouldn't expect to have access to units that are completely ahistorical for your faction. The game could of course give them to you, but those players who know better (not me) and enjoy some history being in the game (me) would consider it a regression and probably be upset at this.
Entirely true, but CA has repeatedly stated that the TW games are not meant to be historical simulations, they are defined (by CA no less) as "historical strategy action". If they were meant to be really historical, don't you think we'd have ended up with a final product that much more closely resembles RTR, or EB, or MTR/MA? CA decided up front this wasn't the direction they wanted to go, hence why we got what we did for each of the games.
2. The unit differences are probably biggest among a very short list of things that separate the factions in this game at all from one another. If you make the factions too alike, then there is very little (if any) reason to play an English campaign as opposed to a Spanish campaign or an Egyptian campaign. If you can do anything with any faction, then factions are simply cookies cut from the same mold, and you could just as easily have Egypt located where England is: it will play exactly the same as England does. The more substantial (compared to MTW) differences between factions lends a great deal more replay value to the game, as each faction in M2TW provides a different experience than the last simply due to what units it has. Thus you have 2 stages of unit exploration: that of exploring the various units of the faction you are playing, and that of exploring the various factions at your disposal. MTW only sufficiently delivers half of that experience: once you've played around with the units of any given faction, the other factions are similar enough that there is little new for you to discover by switching factions. You may find a unit or 2, but you won't find a significantly different battle plan, which is what M2TW factions currently deliver, through their diversity.
I gotta disagree here with most all of what's been stated. First, if I take your meaning, when you stated that there is "very little reason to play english as opposed to... etc" because of unit diversity, you've completely ignored the majority of the game IMO. Things like religious affiliation, starting position on the map (big one), cultural and faction predispostions, starting relationships, not to mention little things like the music and pre-battle speeches. The unit lineup is a big piece but overall it is a *much smaller piece in a larger puzzle*. (One thing I'll throw in here. When I mean a common unit lineup, I mean common to each cultural and geographical subgroup, such as "western european", "middle eastern", etc. I realize that there can be big differences historically but what's done such as in MTW did a pretty durn good job, which is my point) Second, having a common unit lineup both ensures that you have a broad range of freedom to act out the campaign as you see fit using tactics you prefer, and it means that you can relatively easily adapt your gained skills and knowledge when you go to play another faction and try to master them, again not just based on units but position, religion, etc. I guess the bottom line is I want the freedom to choose as I want what I have in my armies and I how I use them. Going back to my English Horse Archer army suggestion... Is an English HA historical? Sure, I promise you that at some point in England's history during a conflict, some guy rode around on his horse shooting at people with his bow. I can also promise you this happened multiple times. Does this mean that England was full of HA's? Not at all. Were the ones who did this the equivalant of say for example the Mongols? Don't make me laugh. All that said, having an english HA (or mounted crossbow) unit available to me so that I can use them as I see fit is what I want and what I'm getting at. It's all again down to choice. Commonality in a lineup does not mean it's going to be boring or less replayable IMO.
You have the freedom to wage war with units and tactics that match your style - what you've missed is that that freedom now comes partly from what faction you choose, as opposed to entirely from what units you select to build. There is bound to be a faction in M2TW that mirrors or at least very closely approximates what you want at your disposal when you play the game. Let's say that for you that faction is HRE. The only difference, now, is that each faction you face is not exactly like the one that embodies your particular strategy set. It might instead be the faction whose units match how I play the game strategically, or how Carl or econ21 do, for instance. So instead of playing against a bunch of countries that the AI will build nearly identical armies for (b/c of vastly similar unit pools), you play against countries that have a little bit more identity, which means you'll encounter naturally different army compositions, and be presented with different tactical situations because of it, depending what faction you are facing. So not only do you end up with factions that have better identities and flavor, but those characteristics also come through more in battles, which has the potential to be far more interesting than playing against factions that all have largely the same available units.
This is again exactly what I was getting at in my post with econ. I don't want the game to arbitrarily limit me to certain tactics because certain unit types aren't available to me!!! Is an English HA unit a fantasy unit? Used on the battlefield like one would as a Mongol unit..? Definitely I say. Is it far-flung that something like this was attempted or did happen at some point in history? Not at all. Chalk it up as another fantasy unit fine, but I still want it. Or mounted crossbows. It's all about the game providing for the choice and freedom to do as you want and rewrite history as you want. If I want to turn the HRE into a mounted ranged monstronsity that would make the Mongols and Timurids quake in their boots, I want that ability. Do I sound like a broken record yet? :grin:
Granted the AI does not fully take advantage of its differences yet, but what it does shows a lot of diversity in how battles go depending on what faction it is that you're fighting. If AI army recruitment improves in future patches, the variety of combat experiences should fully blossom, and could be truly remarkable.
This point I have to concede. With improved AI recruitment being able to experienced more varied armies on the battlefield would be a plus. I know this is annoying... but I still feel like MTW did a better job of this than M2TW in terms of opponent diversity, even with common unit lineups. Sure the peasant armies were widespread at the start, but that quickly goes away at least in my experiences. I'll definitely be giving M2TW a fresh start when the v1.2 patch is out, hopefully this will be a positive change to be taken note of.
But that's not even the best part! When you've played out your first faction, you can move to others and see what you think of the units they offer, and the tactics they lend themselves to - you never know, having to adapt a little to a new faction may grow on you, and at the least it will probably be more interesting and challenging than playing another game with a nearly-identical faction would be.
Again this is all motherhood and apple pie, I'm with you here. The way that I differ is that I think this experience should come mainly from the other game aspects that I mentioned, in conjunction with a healthy sprinkling of faction specific special units to spice things up a bit.
*Now* it's bedtime. Have a good evening folks.
:bow:
Skipping the discussion and coming to the point - buy it.
The only people who don't like m2tw are those who have either got inflated nogalistic memories of earlier games and those who otherwise let their expectations get too high.
Say for example in MTW I wanted to work mainly with mounted ranged units, like the mounted crossbow, and use that as the backbone of my forces I could do it. Was it historically accurate for the english? Not even close. But I could do it if I wanted to.
No you couldn't - England does not get mounted crossbows or horse archers in MTW. If you want to go that route in either game, you'd have to head to the Holy Land to pick up some Turcopoles as mercs.
Sure some factions are going to be better at certain things than others, like the English Longbowmen, or the Mongol Horse Archers, but just because that's what they have as their special units doesn't mean I should be obliged or forced to use them.
OK, let's agree to disagree. I suspect I have more of a tilt towards historical realism than you. England fielded 60+% longbows in its iconic Hundred Years Battles. The Mongols probably had an even bigger percentage of horse archers. If the game encourages or even obliges that it's quite a big plus for me.
I do want to end by stating that I don't want this to be misconstrued by others as one of those "MTW > M2TW or M2TW > MTW" arguments,...
Well, this is in the context of an OP worried about what they will lose from MTW. I would just like to say if they want to play a longbow-based English army, they will gain - longbows have stakes, a tech tree and don't suffer from the problem of depleting their arrows within a minute or so that plagued them in MTW (I confess my English MTW armies fielded arbalests, not longbows, for that reason). And if they want to play a horse archer army with an appropriate faction, they will also gain - no longer outranged by basic foot archers, with Parthian shot, better skirmish AI and Cantabrian circle. And if they want to play a HRE army, they will gain several unique units and lose nothing AFAIK. I'm just kicking against the common perception that M2TW is a degraded game with upgraded graphics - I'm not saying that is what you are saying, but that seems to be a common perception of those MTW vets who are leery of the new title.
R'as al Ghul
03-06-2007, 11:04
The only people who don't like m2tw are those who have either got inflated nogalistic memories of earlier games and those who otherwise let their expectations get too high.
The heated discussion in the Mp forum has been closed and I don't want to revive it but I can't let this go by. How is it an "inflated nostalgic memory" when one realises that tactical features of MTW1 are either not included(1) in M2 or are toned down to irrelevance(2)? We only demand that those features are put back in or made relevant again. Also, I wouldn't think that my expectations are too high when I expect features of earlier titles to be included in the newest title. The newest title of a game series should always include the features of prior titles and aim at perfecting them.
Apart from that I actually like the game to some extend but am annoyed by those missed out features and the mass of little errors.
:bow:
R'as
(1) example: individual line of sight for archers
(2) example: effect of heat on fatigue
Some features were removed; but imo that's not a big issue.
The only things that i miss from MTW are civil wars and reemergences; in every other way the game has improved.
MP is a different area that i don't want to get into, but specific features have been taken out, hopefully for a reason.
To suggest that every game has to not only improve on the last but do so using the exact same ideas is ludicrous imo
Suraknar
03-06-2007, 11:27
Well..
My first reaction was "WOW"...
It makes a very genuine effort to address economical gameplay, it also adds Strategic and tactical decision making in the form of a choice between settlements, Towns and castles.
It brings back some visual feeling of Shogun with various Videos based on missions, such as the Assassin videos, I watch them and Laugh at every time (I had greatly missed the Ninja/Geisha Videos of STW).
As I went on playing it and of cource readinng many threads in these forums, I discovered some bugs, yet, this is somewhat normal with any game of our era. So they dont worry me too much.
Besides till they are fixed by patches there is all sorts of fixes for em by the community of wonderfull moders.
I cant stress enough the economical gameplay, many buildings receive many various bonuses now, as well as we have merchants as Strat map persona that can provide a suplement of income to the regular buildings/road/port trade.
Some nice features such as free upkeep go long way in being able to maintain larger armies thruout an empire.
The only negative thing I noticed as a first impressions was the darker colors, compared to RTW it is lots darker maybe in the artist's view of this being a game about the "Dark Ages"... but it uses a more dynamic land engine which changes as you devellop your settlements, and one can come to get used to the darker tone (Althought I am planning to change some colors in the graphics of the map).
Also, I noticed some regions are practically devout of provinces, there seems to be a silplification in the eastern part compared to RTW, which causes at times some odd behaviour (AI will get stuck in some places) etc.
I am hoping this will be addresed in subsequent patches, and as for the provinces, I got a Modded Map that I am going to start using from now on.
Also the units in the start map move very very slowly, this got to me after 40 turns or so and I toggled it to fast pace (with spacebar) however doing that removes from the overal enjoyment.
So I am hoping they will fix Strat map movement as well.
Final verdict, YES it is a better game, YES it is worth it, but needs polishing still so dont expect a completelly finished product here. As long as you accept this with a bit of patience you should have fun.
Imho.
R'as al Ghul
03-06-2007, 11:37
Some features were removed; but imo that's not a big issue.
The only things that i miss from MTW are civil wars and reemergences; in every other way the game has improved.
I've the feeling that you're mostly concerned with the campmap. I was talking about the battle engine. Of course, it's entirely subjective if it's a big issue or not but you can hardly call left out features an improvement. How is the fact that heavily armoured catholic troops do not tire in the desert faster than anywhere else an improvement? It's one tactical nuance less to care and renders the climate irrelevant. This is not only an MP relevant feature.
To suggest that every game has to not only improve on the last but do so using the exact same ideas is ludicrous imo
Ludicrous? Really. I disagree. A new car model improves the old model on exactly the same ideas and if only the design is improved they at least don't put a 10 year old motor into it.
I for one would be happy if the new title kept the standard. For all I care they could've invented a whole new system if it would feature the most important tactical elements.
For the sake of peace I'll leave it at that, but I'll say that I don't look down on anybody enjoying the game or not missing features. Everybody is entitled to his opinion and there's no winner in matters of taste.
:bow:
That's true.
Sorry if i caused any offense, and we'll agree to disagree :yes:
:bow:
R'as al Ghul
03-06-2007, 11:45
Sorry if i caused any offense,
Nah, I'm heavily armoured and can take the heat. :laugh4:
and we'll agree to disagree :yes:
:bow:
Yes, till the patch comes out. :wink:
:bow:
americancaesar
03-06-2007, 12:04
Well, thanks for the discussion guys. I'm now firmly getting MTW2 and I can't wait for the next patch and the mods in the works that Ive seen.
Btw, I have a big historical realism tilt (having a degree in that and all:book: ), so its good to hear that even the AI will center its armies around more historical, less common units, like the English with their longbowmen. Hell, the English still had longbowmen as a major arm of their forces well into the early evolution of the gunpowder age (see Herny VIII armies in the wars with France or the forces that Good Queen Bess prepared for defending against the Armada army).
AC
Erik Bloodaxe
03-06-2007, 17:59
Hello people! I've been reading on this forum for quite a long time, and I have really enjoyed it! :book:
Anyway, my answer is simple, YES.
pike master
03-06-2007, 18:06
if CA would give some participation and cooperation with the community it help one say to buy it. but the way it is i feel like i spent 50 dollars and am getting about as worse customer service of any product i have ever gotten.
no customer service i can contact except sega. CA will have practically nothing to do about assisting anyone except to come on here and rave like one did the other day about if we are doing such a poor job then why are we making a killing on sales.
and sega has little knowledge of the snafus caused by the developers. thats why they are having to hold their hand now and watch over there shoulder. if i had to do it all over again i wouldnt have bought the game and i would have waited til they got a decent patch and a better server.
Yes, it is worth it. I bought this game the day it came out, and been enjoying it ever since.
Once 1.2 is released it'll be that much better.
Nebuchadnezzar
03-07-2007, 00:49
CA will have practically nothing to do about assisting anyone except to come on here and rave like one did the other day about if we are doing such a poor job then why are we making a killing on sales.
Ha! these days they measure success by the degree of killing they make and not by the quality of customer service or products.
Skipping the discussion and coming to the point - buy it.
The only people who don't like m2tw are those who have either got inflated nogalistic memories of earlier games and those who otherwise let their expectations get too high.
Nuff Said
I'm still wondering where Puzz3D's got to, he can normally smell out these discussions like a shark after blood:smash:.
But i'd echo Sapi here, the good points far outweight the bad, yes it has faults, but underneath it's a very good game.
The Teacher
03-08-2007, 22:54
buy it!
much more positives than negatives the eye candy graphics in the battles for one, some of the bugs will be ironed out in time, as in life nothing is perfect!
Probably a good time to buy it. Just as long as you don't get to attached to any long campaign before around the 23rd it should be great. You'll have the time to get used to how things work and play some historical battles, etc.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.