Lack of diversity in MT2TW

[Hoplite7]

Does anyone else miss the lack of diversity between the factions we saw in RTW?

The factions all seem to blend in. The Italian factions have little difference at all. In Rome each battle was so unique because every faction was different. You would have to worry about phalanxes, elephants, horse-archers, chariots, hordes of barbarians, heavy Roman infantry and weapony, ect.

But the same cannot be said for MT2TW. There are infantry factions and calvary factions. That's really it. No crazy/interesting units or tactics, just more of the same really. Militia spearmen, crossbow men, and calvary. Again and again.

Makes the game much less interesting to me. The Middle-East factions are so lacking in depth that I get bored quickly, while in RTW I couldn't stop playing the Selucids or Carthaginians.

Opinions? Is it just the result of history that all armies should sort of blend in with each other?

[Razor1952]

I'd never thought about it till now, but I guess I kinda agree, particularly early on with mailed knights taking on militias and vice-versa, but this is a personal view only.

However there is a very strong modding community , so you can either use one of the mods or indeed add your own units which you would like.

Basically I think the developers should be commended for keeping most of the fans happy most of the time with issues like this , and making it so you can change it to what you would like if you don't(like it).

Here's an idea, how about adding a fantasy unit like those Female Samartian horse archers from RTW to the rebels, bribable of course so you could get them into your armies. Or as mercenaries, a phalanx or two lost in a time warp turn up in Scotland in 1250 AD.! But then again probably not to most peoples taste I think.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I'd never thought about it till now, but I guess I kinda agree, particularly early on with mailed knights taking on militias and vice-versa, but this is a personal view only.

However there is a very strong modding community , so you can either use one of the mods or indeed add your own units which you would like.

Basically I think the developers should be commended for keeping most of the fans happy most of the time with issues like this , and making it so you can change it to what you would like if you don't(like it).

Here's an idea, how about adding a fantasy unit like those Female Samartian horse archers from RTW to the rebels, bribable of course so you could get them into your armies. Or as mercenaries, a phalanx or two lost in a time warp turn up in Scotland in 1250 AD.! But then again probably not to most peoples taste I think.

At this point in time it just isn't possible to add new units to MTW2. You can however change the texture of the existing units and/or change their stats and then add them to other faction recruitment pools.

It is also not possible to use RTW units in MTW2

But I agree with the OP. Every faction gets more or less the same units except for a few unique late era units.

[Budwise]

I am not confirming nor denying this post ideas' I feel that its kinda more realistic this way but so far, I have only played as Scots, England and Venice. To be honest and fair to CA which is a company I admire, I think Venice and Milan are from the same area, the same type of people and share the same language even that by default in history, their stuff through trade and similarites in culture will be ALIKE.

I haven't really seen many other examples but to be fair, I think its better this way. Watching Braveheart I did not see a Scotish Heavy Horse nor an archer although I am sure they had the technology, so their infantry heavy armies make sence to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't play this game all day every day due to having a life and a pain in the butt girlfriend, I have not time. Work sucks when its honest and sometimes honestly requires two jobs.

[econ21]

I believe there were fewer distinct army types in the Medieval period than in the Ancient period. At least the Western factions would tend to field a fairly balanced force of knights mounted and dismounted; lower quality spears; and missiles.

That said, I think M2TW has a lot of diversity. I've mainly played England;
what I've experienced is:

France and HRE - "balanced category".
Spain - "balanced" but with jinettes
England - longbow heavy
Scotland - pike heavy
Milan - pavise crossbow heavy
Danes - heavy infantry heavy
Egypt - horse archer heavy

The differences are not as extreme as say Parthians vs Greeks, but enough to add flavour.

[Lorenzo_H]

Its like this:

Western European nations: (Spain, England, France, HRE, Denmark fall under this catagory)

Stong Heavy Cavalry - the cavalry is based mostly around melee cavalry; armoured knights.
Some archers and Crossbowmen.
Heavy Swordsmen.

Southern European factions: (Spain, Portugal, Sicily)

Have Eastern influence, while keeping majority of normal European characteristics. Examples are Jinettes (which are a completely un-western unit) and Muslim Archers.

Italian factions (Papal States, Venice, Milan, Sicily)

Similar to Western European. Heavy Cavalry, Heavy infantry.
Also have the best Militia, and missile units are generally better than West (apart from England).

Northern European factions (Denmark, HRE, Russia, England)

Variation on Western. Have Axemen and two handers instead of Swordsmen *generally* (England probably need a catagory of their own). HRE also more unique. Have some light melee cavalry, and some heavy melee cavalry.

Eastern European (Poland, Russia, Hungary, Byzantines)

Favour lighter melee cavalry over Heavy melee cavalry, example; Hussars. Have fast missile cavalry, generally archers (Cossack Cavalry etc). Still incorporate some Heavy infantry - though not always as availible as for, say, the Polish* (Dismounted Polish Nobles).
*edited sorry.

Muslim factions (Moors, Turks, Egypt, Mongols, Timurids)

Unlike the Western Europeans, favour Missile Cavalry over heavy shock cavalry (Numerous Horse archers, Moor Camel Gunners). Still possess some heavy melee cavalry, but much less availible (Mamluks). Jinette style javelin cavalry are also to be found (Granadine Jinettes, Desert Cavalry). Infantry is mostly ranged and light, with some exceptions (Jannisary Heavy infantry, Dis Christian Guard etc). Late game technology exceptional (Jannisary Musketeers, Camel Gunners). Watch out for Timurid Elephants.

Each faction will have their own variations from these themes, the most blatant example being England, who strongly favour archers. Every faction has a suitable counter to any threat they might find.

No faction is "Better" than any other. Each can become supremely powerful and has capable units. No two factions are identical, and IMO no two are even slightly similar enough to complain. The two most similar are probably Portugal and Spain, and even they have enough to distinguish themselves.

[Ethelred Unread]

Agreed.

I suppose it's possible to play the western factions all the same way, I just prefer to concentrate on what they would have had historically.

Easy example England & France - you can get pretty similar armies for both of these if you wanted to - a mix of bows, heavy inf and heavy cav, but I play as mainly Longbowmen and Heavy inf as the english & mainly knights and some inf as the french (not forgetting those merc xbows).

So OP, I think it's up to how you want to play it tbh.

[Callahan9119]

i think its pretty good, i mean everyone was pretty much doing the same thing, with minor exeptions, everyone had guys with ringmail, swords and shields...everyone had spears, heavy and light cav, rich guys had plate etc etc

but you could split hairs forever

its really a no win situation for ca, if they add obscure units to add variety they get slammed as unhistoric, if they tone it down, they get slammed for a lack of diversity. i think one has to be his own arbiter on this, as you will find little consensus on the subject. other than a few things i am content with the roster

maybe scots should get guns and egypt camels

[Furious Mental]

Personally I　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ＭＴＷ　２　ｄｏｅｓ　ａ　ｇｏｏｄ　ｊｏｂ.　Ａｎｄ　medieval armies were probably more similar than those in pre-Roman Empire classical Europe. I would rather CA avoid simply making stuff up in order to make the factions seem unnecessarily distinct, which is how the Ptolemaic Empire became the New Kingdom in RTW. Unfortunately I don't think MTW 2 is entirely free of this sort of thing; I reckon that the Scottish knight-pikemen (I'm pretty sure Scottish pikemen did not wear full suits of 14th century plate armour) are a consequence of CA feeling they need to make a faction distinct in order to justify putting it in the game. It's too bad because really no faction needs totally made up stuff to be interesting, including Scotland.

Also I have to say I miss some of the unit types from MTW, e.g. Futuwwas and Nizaris (bow armed skirmishers with awful defence but good in the attack), Abyssinian guardsmen (no amour if I remember correctly, but a big 'ol axe to tear the enemy a new one), Gothic sergeants (like a dismounted knight, but with a spear). Incidentally were there actually men in gothic armour lugging around enormous kite shields and spears (i.e. historically)?

[Suraknar]

Personally I agree with you Hoplite7, that in M2TW there seems to be a lack of diversity, however I have to agree with everyone else and CA, because it is Historical the way it is.

This is a later period, where most cultures already have had much contact and warfare with eachother, what worked and what did not work had already passed the evaluation perriod, and lessons had been learned in terms of warfare from the previous era.

So in a way what you feel is normal here, you went from the Ancient Period to the Dark Ages Medieval period. The only question to find out is which one you prefer better, which is personal to each player and style.

Yet eventually as moding devellops for M2TW more variety can be added.

[Orda Khan]

Yet eventually as moding devellops for M2TW more variety can be added.
True, but oddly enough if you look at the various Mod discussions, it seems that people want more of the same. They actually want more of the carbon copy western factions and scorn the addition of variety through the introduction of more eastern factions.
There you go, it's a matter of personal taste. Personally, after coming across the armies of Venice, Sicily, Denmark, Spain it makes me wonder why anyone would find them appealing but that is just my own opinion

.........Orda

[Caelus]

Well I do agree that the unit and cultural diversity is greater in RTW than it is in M2TW.

However to me the overall tactical and strategic experience in M2TW has been much more varied and satisfying for me in M2TW than it was in RTW.

This might just be me, but I could almost always win every battle in almost the exact same way in RTW, whereas all things being equal M2TW requires more subtlety and tactical variation. The drawback (among others) being that in M2TW the computer tends to field much weaker armies compositionally than it did in RTW. This means you can usually win just due to superior forces (although I have mods that mostly fix this).

In RTW even Rome (an "infantry faction") could roll over all opposition with large cavalry forces. Even though this is somewhat still true in M2TW, factors such as the new charge system moderate this. It now requires skill to pull off a good charge, which it didn't before in RTW. Battles in RTW were even faster and more rushed than they are now.

Maybe I just didn't at all utilize the potential of RTW, but to me there is more actual variation in tactics in M2TW than in RTW.

[Callahan9119]

the world was fairly integrated at this time, as far as it could be.

the lack of unit variety similar to rome is understandable during this time period, you could add every romantic and storied person or warriors that you wish...but i think they have got it right...as far as you can go without the slippery slope of a lack of historical accuracy, even now they dangle on the precipice of being histoically inaccurate