View Full Version : Rant - Medieval II: Total Disappointment
Mouzafphaerre
09-25-2007, 13:56
.
There is nothing new in this game for the players of Rome, and nothing worthy of old Medieval remains either.
The pointless mission system alienates, diplomacy is comedy -which is no news for a TotalWar title but hits worse after being acquainted with EU III- and Papacy is out of place. All you can do is a boring cycle of recruit - besiege - sack - repeat step 1. Battles, if you can have one except sieges or rebel chases, are a joke compared to the original MTW.
Compared to the original title, the relation to history is merely eye candy: scenery and -often inaccurate- naming. Factions, relations, names... everything is as bad as in those pseudo historic TV series (Rome, Tudors etc.) M2TW is merely another arcade game with an unfitting makeup of history stretched upon it.
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
All factions are the same after a point. Replayability value is below zero. There is nothing to roleplay, no feel of developing a faction, no goals even if you mod out the stupid take Jerusalem and hold nnn regions nonsense.
I want my good old MTW back. CA must do better than this with Empire. We all know they can.
.
Welcome to the post Rome TW world - i hope you have brought your pavise with you to take cover from the various projectiles that you'll taste in a while - heh.
I want my good old MTW back.
http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Total-War-Gold-Edition/dp/B000EGZJ06/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-6907681-2440429?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1190725110&sr=8-4
We all know they can.
They can - its just that they probably don't want :laugh4:
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
Well, wrong. You need to put an unit near tower to make some shooting from it and agressor cannot use towers.
Mouzafphaerre
09-25-2007, 14:25
Well, wrong. You need to put an unit near tower to make some shooting from it and agressor cannot use towers.
.
That's some improvement over Rome but still unrealistic and annoying. Half a unit of peasants making a tower bolt fire arrows. Peh!
.
lancelot
09-25-2007, 14:41
.
There is nothing new in this game for the players of Rome, and nothing worthy of old Medieval remains either.
The pointless mission system alienates, diplomacy is comedy -which is no news for a TotalWar title but hits worse after being acquainted with EU III- and Papacy is out of place. All you can do is a boring cycle of recruit - besiege - sack - repeat step 1. Battles, if you can have one except sieges or rebel chases, are a joke compared to the original MTW.
Compared to the original title, the relation to history is merely eye candy: scenery and -often inaccurate- naming. Factions, relations, names... everything is as bad as in those pseudo historic TV series (Rome, Tudors etc.) M2TW is merely another arcade game with an unfitting makeup of history stretched upon it.
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
All factions are the same after a point. Replayability value is below zero. There is nothing to roleplay, no feel of developing a faction, no goals even if you mod out the stupid take Jerusalem and hold nnn regions nonsense.
I want my good old MTW back. CA must do better than this with Empire. We all know they can.
.
Well, I agree in part- the feel of the game for me has changed- perhaps that is me- I dont know but I think something is wrong...perhaps my expectations are getting too high.
Diplomacy is still indeed high comedy, missions I can for the most part live with although I miss the Glorious Achievements mode. That feature was a work of genius compared to the rather formulaic conquer X provinces plus Jerusalem or whatever that is in place now. I need more out of a game than conquer X provinces! :help: I did not realise that differing factions goals was such a bad thing!! lol.
Its the little things that bug me too- eg- why limit faction choices until you have finished the game once...what pray tell was wrong with the system that worked so admirably in the first 2 CA games? ie- play who you damn well want!!!
I am also dissapointed in CA in general- particularly with their patch policy. After asking around the forum I was left with the distinct impression that RTW still had significant bugs after 5 odd patches, yet CA have simply moved on to the next title...Im extremely worried that the same will happen with MTW2...the recent announcement of ETW has done little to calm my concerns in this regard. Plus we have the whole secure-rom fiasco...CA seems to have changed and I cant say I like it.
ReiseReise
09-25-2007, 14:58
My response to most of the diplomacy complainers: What exactly are you expecting from a game titled TOTAL WAR. I greatly enjoyed EU2, however I have not played EU3, but nonetheless, totally different goals. In EU you can win totally by diplomacy. In TW games it is not possible. WAR baby, WAR!!!!.
My biggest gripe with M2TW is that RTW was a better game. Yes, M2TW has much better graphics, but RTW wins in all other respects, specifically gameplay, unit cohesion, unit variety, and countless minor things that add up to a whole lot (like the ability to designate your heirs or to view any city on the battle map).
With that being said, I wouldn't call M2TW a *total* disappointment. As for comparing it to MTW, it's apples and oranges, two completely different games. Personally, overall I prefer the RTW engine to the STW engine.
IvarrWolfsong
09-25-2007, 17:30
I loved RomeTW and love M2TW, but it is pretty obvious that M2TW is more about graphics than game play and variety.
Now if they could make R2TW with the play style and variety of rtw and the graphics of m2tw ... that would make me soil my britches.
Mouzafphaerre
09-25-2007, 17:54
.
Well, I agree in part- the feel of the game for me has changed- perhaps that is me- I dont know but I think something is wrong...perhaps my expectations are getting too high.
Diplomacy is still indeed high comedy, missions I can for the most part live with although I miss the Glorious Achievements mode. That feature was a work of genius compared to the rather formulaic conquer X provinces plus Jerusalem or whatever that is in place now. I need more out of a game than conquer X provinces! :help:
Yes, yes, yes! :smash: Glorious achievements was much of what made MTW so great and it's a mystery to me why they would dump such a great feature for the present stupid, over-simplified one. :no:
.
I think you have a point Mouza,what keeps me playing mostly is watching my units fight and seeing how I can improve them with better armour etc. to make them look even nicer.
I'm easy to satisfy I guess. :laugh4:
But then I know I could have even more fun. :whip:
lancelot
09-25-2007, 18:26
My response to most of the diplomacy complainers: What exactly are you expecting from a game titled TOTAL WAR. I greatly enjoyed EU2, however I have not played EU3, but nonetheless, totally different goals. In EU you can win totally by diplomacy. In TW games it is not possible. WAR baby, WAR!!!!.
Ok... :dizzy2:
The obvious response to this 'wisdom' is obviously- so why include a diplomacy option to begin with then?
The term Total War actually means to mobilise all your assets into winning a conflict (and is hidiously out of place in a medieval setting but I digress)...which obviously includes diplomacy. Total War does not mean 'all we do is fight and nothing else'...
I think even the simplest fool can appreciate that the focus of the game is obviously war, this however has nothing to do with the fact that a shoddy diplomacy system is sub-par in a 4th generation CA game.
TW diplomacy is based on the Sengoku Jidai principle of temporary teamings in order to take a common opponent(s) out; over the years that was applied in situations that it applied zilch, namely in Medieval Europe and the classical world during the Rise and decline of the Roman Empire.
TW diplomacy in the older games was more consistent - the AI was not going to attack you in the same turn that he made an alliance with you - and he would consider survival.
The "superior" new engine gave us an AI that exhibited the above only to find out (more as the confession of a common secret) 2 years later that the military AI and the diplomatic AI in the RTW/M2 engine don't really "talk" to each other since they had been design by different people.
WAR baby, WAR!!!! mentality however took over and all that now seems more normal that normal. Alternative goals or playing a dynamic back and forth situation on the campaign are aspects of SP that have been ignored as they are harder to achieve (design wise) and need playbalance in all probability.
GA mode was abandoned simply because it was more work (prepare and test more than one campaign set up/scenrio) i remember reading in the .com about 2 years ago.
I guess watching the armor upgrades, faces and animations should satisfy even the most demanding strategy fans - heh.
Zenicetus
09-25-2007, 18:54
There is nothing new in this game for the players of Rome, and nothing worthy of old Medieval remains either.
Well, it does add agents like merchants and princesses that we didn't have in Rome, although they're not as well-developed as they could be. Pathfinding inside settlements isn't perfect but it's better than RTW, and there has been at least a little improvement in battlefield AI. However I agree that aside from those small changes, it's mostly RTW with different unit graphics.
One thing I was very disappointed in, when I first saw the game, was the lack of anything new in the way of player immersion. At least in RTW when playing one of the Roman factions, you could role-play a little by choosing heirs, and the whole "unite Rome" thing added to the feeling of actually running that empire. I thought they'd go further down that route in M2TW, but they didn't. If anything it's even less immersive. I feel like I'm running each faction by remote control, and they all seem alike after a while.
diplomacy is comedy -which is no news for a TotalWar title but hits worse after being acquainted with EU III-
Have you tried playing with a strategy setting of Medium difficulty? Diplomacy works much better at that setting, because relations aren't constantly normalizing downwards with the other factions. Playing at VH does give you the "total war" experience where everyone is out to get you, but alliances and manipulation of other factions through diplomacy works much better, and feels more realistic, at the M setting. It actually makes the game harder (IMO) because factions don't attack before they're ready. They have time to build up larger armies.
All factions are the same after a point. Replayability value is below zero.
Well, I think there's at least some replayability due to the different units and tactics between Western and Eastern armies. I had to learn a different set of tactics for armies made up mostly of horse archers. It was fun playing my first full campaign as the Turks, after running a few campaigns with knight-heavy England and France.
There is nothing to roleplay, no feel of developing a faction, no goals even if you mod out the stupid take Jerusalem and hold nnn regions nonsense.
I want my good old MTW back. CA must do better than this with Empire. We all know they can.
Yeah, that gets back to what I was talking about with immersion. I think CA dropped the ball there. One problem is that everyone wants their favorite faction in these games, often based on nationalistic pride. We have people over in the Empire sub-forum making arguments to include very minor countries in Empire as playable factions. Presumably that would include having big ocean-crossing navies and naval experience that these countries never had, historically.
It can be fun to play different factions, but I'd rather see the TW games have fewer "main" playable factions, maybe four or five at most, with more background, more role-playing and immersion. Unfortunately we already know there will be about 10 initial player factions in Empire, from a total of about 50 factions in the game. So it doesn't look like they're going in that direction. :thumbsdown:
Bob the Insane
09-25-2007, 19:18
.Yes, yes, yes! :smash: Glorious achievements was much of what made MTW so great and it's a mystery to me why they would dump such a great feature for the present stupid, over-simplified one. :no:
.
While I also miss it, you are aware that it was broken and never really fixed?
I feel some of the OP's pain, but I am also aware that the new TW is a much more complex game than the old one and as such it a great challenge to create. I am not being an apologist, in many ways none of the 2nd Gen TW games have ever really felt finished (RTW:BI was pretty cool). Always so many little bugs, but i do appreaciate how complex the whole thing is. And overall, I have fun when i play...
I feel some of the OP's pain, but I am also aware that the new TW is a much more complex game than the old one and as such it a great challenge to create. I am not being an apologist, in many ways none of the 2nd Gen TW games have ever really felt finished (RTW:BI was pretty cool). Always so many little bugs, but i do appreaciate how complex the whole thing is. And overall, I have fun when i play...
Sorry, I have to disagree completely here. The "depth" to M2TW is just like the "depth" to Oblivion, it's extremely superficial to nonexistant. Most "features" feel like they were added on just to add lines to the marketing spiel, and don't really serve any purpose. The diplomacy IS for all intents and purposes non-existant, and should have been much deeper. Glorious Achievements, I miss those too, but not as much as others. And the pervading fact that CA keeps paying lip service to the modding community, yet there's very little beyond textures and what's in some poorly documented text files that's changeable. Also, it seems that for every new little tidbit that's added to the game, something else gets taken away. The view cities option, assassinating your own characters, non-interlocking castle walls, larger unit sizes, missile tower mechanics, etc etc. People would argue those are "little" things, but all of these "little" things add up to make the game.
I'm just sick and tired of the current trend in the industry to dumb down a game so that it'll appeal to more folks. I don't want a dumbed down game, I don't want something that's meant to be played "casually". I want complexity and something that makes me think. Perhaps I'm of a dying breed of gamers.
/shrug
unit cohesion
Don't even get me started on that. That one thing singlehandedly breaks about every mechanic and sense of control you can hope to have on the battlefield (now that the shields are supposed to be fixed). If it wasn't for that, I think the game is moddable enough that it's possible bring it to a state at which it could be really enjoyable.
Cousin Zoidfarb
09-25-2007, 23:10
i'm disappointed too.
vanilla game is dull.
if the modders can add factions why can't the developers just make a game with a lot of factions.
the animations are nice but the skins are unrealistic. medieval units generally did not have uniforms yet every peasant is decked out with their factions colours.
the faction banners are ahistorical as well.
if amateurs can make a mod that makes the game more historical so should CA.
i hope CA uses these comments constructively
lancelot
09-25-2007, 23:13
GA mode was abandoned simply because it was more work (prepare and test more than one campaign set up/scenrio) i remember reading in the .com about 2 years ago.
I didnt know that-thank you for posting this- Id love it if someone could actually find a link to this. This is a pretty clear example of how CA has lost its way if it abandons a mode of gameplay because it is 'more work' than a simple (and BORING!) conquer x provinces formula.
While I also miss it, you are aware that it was broken and never really fixed?
I played GA mode almost exclusively- I dont recall anything majorly wrong with it- what was the problem?
Slug For A Butt
09-26-2007, 01:47
Build it cheap and knock it out fast. Seems to be the way CA are working these days, they are working on the next title before they have finished working on the last. Don't worry about the bugs and lack of depth, better graphics and an overall simplifying of the tactical side (so a child could understand it... :inquisitive: ) are the way to go. After all, they have an eye on the less critical customer that probably has as much purchasing power as me.
Sadly, I have bought my last full price TW game. But that's OK, there are two graphics hungry kids to replace me. As a company, who would you target for sales?
The "depth" to M2TW is just like the "depth" to Oblivion, it's extremely superficial to nonexistant.
As someone who has also played both games I can attest to this statement.
SEGA/CA ought to take a look at Stardock or even Blizzard to see how one can make a truly excellent game and still make a profit.
I didnt know that-thank you for posting this- Id love it if someone could actually find a link to this. This is a pretty clear example of how CA has lost its way if it abandons a mode of gameplay because it is 'more work' than a simple (and BORING!) conquer x provinces formula.
There is no link to this; the .com forums shed into the abyss the posts that pass the 20 page limit (relevant forum & graveyard) or at least were doing for sure in the pre-yuku days.
You can take my word for it though - it was mentioned frequently by regular patrons, admins & mods and in one occasion by a CA member since many people were asking for GA back when M2 was announced.
Bob the Insane
09-26-2007, 12:17
I played GA mode almost exclusively- I dont recall anything majorly wrong with it- what was the problem?
Sorry may be broken is the wrong term. The AI did not follow them at all and never would so you where competing with no one but yourself...
I myself used them exclusively too and they certainly added to the game for me. I only found out about the issues later. Goes to show, sometimes ignorance is bliss...
lancelot
09-26-2007, 14:23
Sorry may be broken is the wrong term. The AI did not follow them at all and never would so you where competing with no one but yourself...
Well yes, I suppose thinking back on it, it does seem highly unlikely that the Ai could be made to actively chase the requirements for GA points. Nevertheless, I still remember in some cases that the AI factions could do well (even better than me) by default.
And despite that, even for the sole player alone, it was still more fun to chase the GA requirements than simply conquer x provinces.
More to the point as well, MTW2's requirements for province control are quite ludicrious- can anyone really imagine the English controlling 45 provinces!? :laugh4:
I agree. I've returned to MTW2 after a long break to see what 1.2 has done for the game. It's better, but... it's still such a mixed bag. There are some great things in there, but so much has been taken out or changed for no good reason.
I'm still playing it, of course, but always with the nagging feeling that things aren't quite how I want them to be.
Hmm, maybe I should try EB?
Yeah I miss the glorious achievements a lot, too. That's why I'm attempting to bring them back (or something similar at least) :smash:
Unfortunately I'm not even sure CA is on the wrong way if all you consider are sales. You can even see it with mods: Those mods that show a lot of skins, models and some map screenshots will get much more public awareness than mods which mainly concentrate on improving the gameplay through often less obvious ways (a very few examples excepted).
It's sad but true, graphics sell games. Better than actually making a good game in a lot of cases, and especially true for multiplayer.
In fact I'm wondering whether having a game that you have to pay a monthly fee for would fix that situation for us. I mean, people may still buy it because of the "omg! graphics!" factor but if it's not worth it in the long run, they'll stop to pay their monthly fee. I definitely would do that with M2TW, and I would have done it with RTW after a few months, too.
madalchemist
09-26-2007, 16:08
I must say I was full of enthusiasm when MTW2 came out, I bought it on the release date as soon as the shop opened; having enjoyed MTW and RTW I hoped it would have been a mix of the best parts of both those games.
Unfortunately it was released half-made, with 2 patches (the only ones many fans told they were payed for) who solved very few, with the company not planning to release more patch but instead working for the expansion (with Securom issues!).
"Also, it seems that for every new little tidbit that's added to the game, something else gets taken away". That's absolutely true :(! We have those complaining for the lack of features from MTW and those complaining for the lack of RTW's ones, often disappointing both.
Helped by this forum, I started to mod my game a little bit to better suit my own style of gaming, a thing I could not do 100% because of the heavy hardcode and the few support the modders had; and in the end, no mod I tried gave me what I wanted, not because the modders worked bad, but because of some game mechanics that could not be changed.
Since this is a rant post, I'll feel free to write mine: MTW2 was a sort of RTW mod with plenty of eye candy for the casual gamer and terrible AI, Diplomacy system, short playability and lots of bugs for the old TW gamer.
I did not buy Kingdoms because of the Securom issues, but also for lack of interest in a game that is not what I wanted and will never be, since its company completely abandoned it in favor of new projects.
I think that CA had to support more the modders, if they wanted to see someday an enjoyable game; but maybe they don't want to steal interest from their next game by letting this one be completed, since we already payed it.
I played 3 monthes ago my last campaign after having tinkered once more upon my mod and said goodbye to the game and the TW series.
Unfortunately I'm not even sure CA is on the wrong way if all you consider are sales.
You're right there. And good luck to them - they're a company, and they have to make money to pay their employees, who themselves have to make money to buy food and beer, and so on. You can't argue with the business sense of what they're doing (although Europa Universalis seems to have a market, and it's not exactly catering to the lowest common denominator).
I just wish I wasn't in a minority interest group. I saw the same thing back when I had lots of spare time to play MMORPGs. WoW is shiny and pretty and attracts millions of players. More interesting games like EvE Online have a much smaller player base, despite having much more depth. But the money that Blizzard rakes in with WoW enables them to polish the game until it really shines at what it does.
And as for the monthly subscription idea, I'm not sure how far I'd go along with that. But I'd willingly pay three or four times the price of the game if a lot of the items on the stickied wish list were fixed - because it would increase the long-term playability of the game hugely.
You can't argue with the business sense of what they're doing
You definitely (with reason and in acceptable manner) can:
1. I am a fan of TW games and they mean enjoyment to me - not flow - cash curves, pie charts and sales figures. That's the publisher's and developer's interest, not a fans' interest. Also, at least for those who bother to post here and elsewhere, TW is more than another game, it is one of their (if not the most) favorite game.
Just for that i am expecting TW releases to be at least up to the standard CA has set up for itself in the past - let alone the time each and every fan takes to promote TW games with their contributions and presence in community forums, with the making of modifications and with advertising in family and friends. I believe i earned at least the right to offer my opinion about their releases being good or bad.
2. There are alternative ways of doing business than going for expansion - the series you mention keeps the mark of quality in their games even though it streamlines them to compete in the current market. CA made an 180 degree turn with RTW giving priority on visuals more than anything else, and sacrificed lots of replayability and quality in the process.
CA has expanded considerably its business with CA Oz and by making a deal with a major publisher. It may be that Sega is more understanding than Activision as a publisher from what i heard, however its also partly because CA's goals are paralleled with those of a publisher as well.
In the end i doubt that CA takes offence or gets discouraged from "complains" and most likely considers all complains "natural", i am sure - its part of having a fanbase anyway. In the end of the day they would be complains no matter what they do.
To their credit, improvements/solutions to criticisms upon individual elements in their games have found a way through to subsequent releases; its however the overall concept that they are making games nowdays that i disagree and dislike. The way they seem to work around and the priorities they set, seem to gravitate towards appearances too much IMO.
Czar Alexsandr
09-27-2007, 04:16
As bad as diplomacy is now, it's a whole lot better than it was in MTW1. Options are nice I think.
Also if you want to have something over than siege battles... play as Russia! Your giant tracks of land will virtually insure you have a few opportunities to have a proper field battle. Or sit back and wait for the all cavalry reinforcements that still won't be there for a year or two. :laugh4: Russia's got some interesting problems to deal with. Logistics is a big one. But serriously, Russia is a hard faction. (Then again... they are the most powerful faction in the game... shh it's a secret.)
Nice to see you Mouz !
I completely understand where you're coming from. You have to look at M2 as fun, and more light hearted than M1, EU3, Vicky, HOI2:DD, in order to enjoy it.
Mouzafphaerre
09-27-2007, 20:26
.
Nice to see you again, too, Sinan. :bow:
Unfortunately I can make no more fun out of M2TW. RTW and BI have more to offer than them -if I disregard MTW completely and compare them with nothing else- which is a shame.
I haven't lost faith completely in CA but hey, this is a rant thread, not a calm game review. ~;)
.
SpencerH
09-28-2007, 00:20
I agree. I've returned to MTW2 after a long break to see what 1.2 has done for the game. It's better, but... it's still such a mixed bag. There are some great things in there, but so much has been taken out or changed for no good reason.
I'm still playing it, of course, but always with the nagging feeling that things aren't quite how I want them to be.
Hmm, maybe I should try EB?
Give "lands to conquer" a try, its better than 1.2. Unfortunately for me I find it to be still fatally flawed by the poor (hardcoded) game design.
[COLOR="Wheat"] All you can do is a boring cycle of recruit - besiege - sack - repeat step 1.
Then don't sack. It makes the game twice as difficult. Try not immediately storming the settlement, but starving it out. That also makes things harder - slows down you rushing the AI.
Battles, if you can have one except sieges or rebel chases, are a joke compared to the original MTW.
The battles are much more challenging than the RTW ones IF you can get a fair fight. The problem is that in vanilla M2TW, the player almost invariably fights the AI with the odds in the player's favour. This is partly because the player builds/rushes better, but also because of the weak strategic AI means the AI comes in penny packets.
If you let the AI build up, pump it up with 10k or so per turn, you will get bigger battles that are challenging. Here's an example:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1686303&postcount=152
I suspect Kingdoms is much better in this regard - I haven't played it much, but I think the AI is more "good to go" at the beginning and produces more competitive forces.
Compared to the original title, the relation to history is merely eye candy: scenery and -often inaccurate- naming. Factions, relations, names... everything is as bad as in those pseudo historic TV series (Rome, Tudors etc.) M2TW is merely another arcade game with an unfitting makeup of history stretched upon it.
I'm no historian, but I disagree here. M2TW has many more realistic and faction specific units than the bland generic stuff of MTW and fewer ahistorical ones.
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
Disagree again. Sieges have got better with each Total War. Those in MTW were an embarassment. RTWs started to get good. In M2TW, they are about as good as field battles.
All factions are the same after a point. Replayability value is below zero. There is nothing to roleplay, no feel of developing a faction, no goals even if you mod out the stupid take Jerusalem and hold nnn regions nonsense.
You may have a point here. I'm not very attracted to the SP game at the moment. Maybe I've just played too much Total War? However, succession and related games are fun. We've been having a blast over in the Throne Room player a HRE game for the last eight months. Quite a lot of roleplaying goes on:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82780
Compared to the original STW/MTW, the "role-playing" aspects of generals makes RTW/M2TW much better for this kind of thing.
Slightly late to join this time econ21 :beam:
Then don't sack. It makes the game twice as difficult. Try not immediately storming the settlement, but starving it out. That also makes things harder - slows down you rushing the AI.
Game design should have made sure that rushing comes at a risk, political risk, king influence risk or other when doing too many massacres especially in occasions that it would be frowned upon (sacking christian cities by christians say etc).
Its up to good game design to include rushing as one of the strategic options rather than the option that will always work. Rushing should some at a price, especially if not done right or if overpursued - in RTW/M2 there is no penalty - the rusher is always awarded.
The battles are much more challenging than the RTW ones IF you can get a fair fight. The problem is that in vanilla M2TW, the player almost invariably fights the AI with the odds in the player's favour. This is partly because the player builds/rushes better, but also because of the weak strategic AI means the AI comes in penny packets.
Similraly as the previous one, up to good game design - let me guess - too much work to balance a trully challenging campaign game? not making the game in the measure of the AI?
If you let the AI build up...
It means that the game isn't designed with what the AI can or can't do in mind - a flaw in all TW games, but all the more so eversince RTW, that the various features as the pseudo-3D map comlpetely disregard AI capabilities and routines.
Its up to the players and the modders to spend a few... years, in order to patch things in that direction - just what i always wanted.
M2TW has many more realistic and faction specific units than the bland generic stuff of MTW and fewer ahistorical ones.
This is a matter of personal taste and not a matter of gameplay - actually if you closely notice the rosters of M2 are very close to those of the MedMod in conception and execution, that were pretty historical and well researched.
Sieges have got better with each Total War. Those in MTW were an embarassment. RTWs started to get good. In M2TW, they are about as good as field battles.
Of little comfort, since they are about as good as the field battles that are now much worse than what they used to be. Sieges remain a chore, although they have indeed been improved. The fact that CA is making out altogether with them in ETW, must mean something i guess.
You may have a point here. I'm not very attracted to the SP game at the moment.
i am sure that many more may have played too much TW around here - however the insistance on *edit due to missing word out* avoiding true campaign depth and goals has started rub off even on fans like yourself that have accepted the new games. It has nothing to do with playing too much IMO - its just bad game design.
Compared to the original STW/MTW, the "role-playing" aspects of generals makes RTW/M2TW much better for this kind of thing.
So much, that it has become a "passatempo" card game within the game - with little actual impact on gameplay and good only for AAR's and story telling that i enjoy, but i can enjoy just as well with the limited traits of MTW.
STW had the minimum personality traits and was actually including historical characters only in a preset order, so the progression everytime was the same - its a different cattle of fish and limited as the first release on that department.
Noir
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
This is silly. The wall/gates that fire upon you are nothing more than fixed defenses that automatically come with your walls when you build them. Both Roman and medieval fortifications often had artillery like that. I don't understand what the complaint is.
I don't understand what the complaint is.
This has nothing to do with the historicity of the fact IMO
The complaint for me, is that it doesn't work since the AI can't handle it - it gets masscred just walking around the walls. It was half acceptable in MTW, that sieges were much more abstract and the player was in charge only of main pushes in breaches and action at the gates.
In RTW sieges were all won pursuing the same "way" and since the AI had little garrisons in towns, you had to add garissons yourself with a cheat everytime you were assaulting a 36,000 people metropolis that was guarded by a single militia unit (!) to make it feel half believable and give some substance to the game (the AI was not really guarding its important cities).
The town centre is even more silly - just draw units out with a junk unit and then charge them - if you were making the mistake to assault two general bodyguards and a spear in the centre they would massacre your forces most of the time no matter what in hard and above.
Actually tower fire was moddable in RTW, and it could be removed altogether, i tended to play like that and it was much better.
Noir
Orda Khan
09-28-2007, 16:06
M2TW units are pretty, that's about it. I gave up on TW a long time ago, CA went the wrong direction and the announcement of Empires did nothing but confirm my departure
....Orda
M2TW units are pretty, that's about it.
Even that is half baked - skins lack true historical flavor and colour; its a joy to scroll through the various skin mods in TW centre and see say Muslim units that are closer to what theymight have been than the cookie cutter saracen style or Byzantine units having Orthodox saints in their shields and without that horrific purple.
Noir, the thing that still annoys me to no end is how much empty lip service CA paid to modding. If we had access to mechanics like they do with the Valve, id, and Epic games, quite a bit of this would probably be moot. Don't like unit cohesion? Change it yourself, or someone else undoubtedly will. Don't like tower mechanics? Again change it. Strat map mechanics? Code up some entity, then attach scripts to it that you can configure.
Too bad that none of the above is possible. While I do admire and applaud the efforts of both the Org and TWcenter to improve the modding community and "bring it up to par with the likes of Valve, id, Epic, etc", it will never happen, and you can quote me on this. Those games are infinitely more moddable, have full SDK's released by the publishers and thorough, open documentation available (including official wikis), and have communities lead by the developers through official channels. What do we have? A few sparse wikis, some forums with random unorganized posts, and a few dedicated and talented folks trying to crack file formats that CA will offer a few hints here and there as opposed to just telling us how they work, and guesswork with little to no consistent or concise documentation on what the settings and ranges in most of the files we have access to really do.
Why do I keep harping on modding? Because it's one of if not the major selling points of games these days. With few exceptions like Starcraft, games become popular because one can change how it behaves and looks. Look at the Quake series, Valve's games, Epic's games, Battlefield series, etc. They are all fully supported by the devs and publishers, and full featured SDKs are developed. Don't like the base game? Change it to how you want. Lots of bugs in the game? Hell, we can help fix them. No one ever knows the game better than the gamers, period. Not the devs, not the testers, us. So who better to help. My guess is for the next game CA will maybe make a few more things accessible, maybe some model file formats known, hell maybe even a bit better scripting, but that'll be it. Maybe they'll prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
Henry707
09-28-2007, 16:33
Everyone seems to love the "I hate the game" posts - always gets so many responses.
In my humble opinion, it aint that bad - blimey, I love the forum & all the useful information here - I don't have anyone else to talk about the weakness of French archers or how to manage the Pope with!
But, it does get a bit boring with the constant game bashing. I know everyone has their opinion but there is always some irony with folks with over 1000 posts on the site saying they are bored with any of the TW games.....hey add up the hours you spend playing it - not too bad eh?
Henry
And the people who come in and whine about criticism gets real old too. If you don't agree or don't like this, great, but don't :daisy: up others threads on it. You're free to not read them and look elsewhere, there's dozens of "I love this gaem!!11" threads to particpate in. There's far more to the Org than just the TW games, you may want to check out the Arena, Gameroom, Front/Backrooms, Monastary, etc. These and the many great people I've met here are the reason I personally stick around, not because of CA and their declining games.
Originally posted by Henry707
But, it does get a bit boring with the constant game bashing. I know everyone has their opinion but there is always some irony with folks with over 1000 posts on the site saying they are bored with any of the TW games.....hey add up the hours you spend playing it - not too bad eh?
You have a point and yet - I don't consider what i write "bashing" at all - i love TW and i still play the older games as regularly as i can - i just wish that the newer games were half as captivating, atmospheric, immersive and well balanced and requested as much skill, effort and ingenuity to play as the older ones.
You have a point and yet - I don't consider what i write "bashing" at all - i love TW and i still play the older games as regularly as i can - i just wish that the newer games were half as captivating, atmospheric, immersive and well balanced and requested as much skill, effort and ingenuity to play as the older ones.
Yup. I still play RTW alot, even though I actually prefer the Medieval setting to the Classical one. BI somewhat nudges Rome into that direction (there is something intrinsically cool about marching my purple legions of christian Romans against the Sassanid menace). Anyhow, while graphics and battle speeches in M2TW are absolutely brilliant, the gameplay is by all means sub par. Once the Shogun mod for RTW is out, I fully expect shelving M2TW for a long time to come.
Let's hope that Empire fares better. I will most certainly be careful and do lots of research prior to buying the Empire game. That is of course, provided that it doesn't get bundled with rootkits.
Mouzafphaerre
09-28-2007, 18:04
.
Actually tower fire was moddable in RTW, and it could be removed altogether, i tended to play like that and it was much better.
How?! Pray tell! :jumping: I wasted days to figure it out but failed. ~:pissed:
.
Mouzafphaerre
09-28-2007, 18:14
.
Welcome to the ORG Henry 707 :bow:
The original poster (me ~D) is a long time player, admirer and -albeit in small scales- modder of TW games, since Medieval. What we have been doing is absolutely not game bashing. It can't be; we are the loyal hardcore consumer base of these games.
If you disagree with our points, you are welcome to counter them with yours such as econ and other patrons have done. But please don't accuse us of game bashing. There's a thin line between ranting about and bashing. ~;)
.
Slightly late to join this time econ21
Sorry, too busy enjoying M2TW over in the Throne Room to spend much time in the Citadel lately.
Shameless plug: any M2TW players want to join our HRE PBM, please sign up:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92070
Game design should have made sure that rushing comes at a risk, political risk, king influence risk or other when doing too many massacres especially in occasions that it would be frowned upon (sacking christian cities by christians say etc).
I think there are diplomatic penalties to sacking and exterminations. In our HRE PBM our reputation is abysmal and I think it is because players have indulged in this sort of stuff too much. I agree it does not constrain rushing, but that's because the diplomatic side is still rather weak. But the diplomatic model in M2TW is more sophisticated than that in earlier games and I think it's a step in the right direction.
Its up to good game design to include rushing as one of the strategic options rather than the option that will always work. Rushing should some at a price, especially if not done right or if overpursued - in RTW/M2 there is no penalty - the rusher is always awarded.
Weren't STW and MTW like this too? I remember the Hojo horde if you tarried too long in the west and the pitiful French peasant armies in the early Medieval period. I think the efficacy of rushing is the price of TW games tending to start with minimal infrastructure and so lots of building possibilties. The expansions tend to set up the factions with more buildings and bigger armies, so becoming more challenging.
It means that the game isn't designed with what the AI can or can't do in mind - a flaw in all TW games, but all the more so eversince RTW, that the various features as the pseudo-3D map comlpetely disregard AI capabilities and routines.
I agree that getting the strategic AI to cope with the new style maps is still an issue for CA. Personally, it would be my top priority for the next TW game. But M2TW has made some improvements over RTW in that regard. On occasion, it will do startlingly clever things reminiscent of the flashes of brilliance the Civ4 AI can sometimes show. Here was an example I encountered the other day:
From the write-up: me (HRE) vs AI (French):
...Our armies are engaged in a desperate duel of parry and strike with the French. Although Paris was besieged by only a handful of regiments, they were too powerful for the militia garrison to be able to sally against with any degree of success. Moreover, the siege was but a ruse to trap SHA1. Two powerful French armies were hidden together in the woods just outside Paris, ready to ambush an unwary SHA1 rushing to relieve Paris from Calais. Fortunately, our spies detected the trap. However, the two would-be ambushers still blocked the road for SHA1 and combined were too powerful to tackle head on. Paris, therefore, could expect no relief from SHA1.
https://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8125/1302ruq8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Yikes!!!! Clever computer - that’s one hell of an ambush.
... actually if you closely notice the rosters of M2 are very close to those of the MedMod in conception and execution, that were pretty historical and well researched.
So M2TW out of the box is close in the realism of its units to one of the best MTW mods? That's a definite improvement over RTW then, as it does not compare so well to EB or RTR.
Of little comfort, since they are about as good as the field battles that are now much worse than what they used to be. Sieges remain a chore, although they have indeed been improved. The fact that CA is making out altogether with them in ETW, must mean something i guess.
Well, I will be very glad to be rid of sieges in ETW as like you, I find them a chore. But, like naval warfare in ETW, sieges in MTW or RTW are probably too important to gloss over. I think part of my aversion to sieges may be that usually the defenders are too pitiful to be worried about. RTW was the worst in that regard. But on occasion they are too formiddable and make the assault too painful. I find defensive sieges rather nail-biting - I usually lose or have fun scraping a win. I am probably too economical with my garrisons though.
I am sure that many more may have played too much TW around here - however the insistance on *edit due to missing word out* avoiding true campaign depth and goals has started rub off even on fans like yourself that have accepted the new games. It has nothing to do with playing too much IMO - its just bad game design.
Disagree - I think there is a TW fatigue amongst some of us old timers. I even loaded up the latest version of EB and could not get much into it. I mean, how many times can a man conquer Italy for the Romans? For that reason, I am looking forward to ETW - horse, cannon and musket tactics will make a nice change. Where I disagree with the old school critics of RTW/M2TW is that I think the newer generation games still have most of the virtues of STW/MTW. But that also risks making them seem like the same old, same old.
Having complained of that fatigue, I do feel I should load up Kingdoms and check it out. Strangely the thing that deters me is the feeling that it may be too challenging or just too much like hard work. The nice thing about PBMing is that you reduce the risk of burn-out, as the more scarce chances to play make you appreciate them more when you have them.
Well, your post is admittedly a rant and as such it sees things in a bit darker tone than they are. There are many valid points, but there are overstatements as well.
.
The pointless mission system alienates, diplomacy is comedy -which is no news for a TotalWar title but hits worse after being acquainted with EU III- and Papacy is out of place.
A good comedy can be a life saver. :clown:
This is not EU III we all know. Diplomacy can work if you are famailiar with how the "system" works and can be useful.
All you can do is a boring cycle of recruit - besiege - sack - repeat step 1. Battles, if you can have one except sieges or rebel chases, are a joke compared to the original MTW.
Then break the cycle, it is your choice. Do not sack, fight your enemies on the open as a true knight should.
Compared to the original title, the relation to history is merely eye candy: scenery and -often inaccurate- naming. Factions, relations, names... everything is as bad as in those pseudo historic TV series (Rome, Tudors etc.) M2TW is merely another arcade game with an unfitting makeup of history stretched upon it.
History played always the role of "eye candy" in TW series, but IMO there is nothing wrong with that. Also, calling MTW2 an "arcade game" is a far stretched conclusion, arcade games have no morale syste, no limited ammo, no terrain, etc. MTW2 is not an arcade game.
The feel of reality in siege battles were destroyed in Rome with the magic automatic riffle/cannon/lasergun walls and gates. No surprise, they're still right there.
Sieges were never realistic in any sense,we all know this. Cannon towers has nothing to do with that. Sieges can be enjoyable though as attackers ofc, an sally forth as a true knight shall if you do not want a "cheap victory" gained by your evil cannon towers (how did they get there on the first place? ~;p )
All factions are the same after a point. Replayability value is below zero. There is nothing to roleplay, no feel of developing a faction, no goals even if you mod out the stupid take Jerusalem and hold nnn regions nonsense.
I feel that this is an other overstatement as I have exactly the opposite experience. It is true that the early units of christian factions are very similar, as all of them has mailed knights, cheap spears and peasant archers but they have very different high and late era capabilities (as opposed to MTW where indeed each christian faction had the very same MAAs and knights). So if one resist the temptation to bumrush the AI with cheap units and develops a high/late era game you can (and will) have very different experiences even within christian factions. Some has access to rock solid heavy infantry (like VHI, DIK, DNK), some has access to the standard pike-musket line up, some has none and still has to rely on cavalry and HAs even in late game (like Hungary). But even in early game there are differences, like jinettes, longbows, hungarian nobles, etc. Not to mention that eastern factions all play out differently, like russians with dvor, turks with their HAs, Byz and Egypt with lack of late era units, not to mention cossack and janissary musketeers or cammel gunners for the Moors.
Also, I am sure that you are aware of the fact that the geographic locations of each faction gives them unique opportunities, I really dont want to go into the obvious details, but it also means high replayability as you have different options say with the Hungarians as with the English.
Also, last but not least role playing is really up to you. If you really want to role play than there is no one to prevent you. It is true that the game might not be heavily loaded with role playing options, but you can if you want.
I do not doubt that you feel that MTW2 "has nothing new for you" but it is still an enjoyable game.
Mouzafphaerre
09-28-2007, 18:39
.
Nice to see you Cheetah! :jumping:
.
I found the precise instructions in a thread here at the .org - kept a link but it didn't survive a major system failure i recently had (reinstall windows etc).
It was most likely either in the how to mod section or the EB forums.
The key was that you were setting the firing angle at 100 degrees in the relevant .txt (projectiles? IIRC) file column.
The angle is impossible and towers don't fire at all as a result. The rate of fire is also moddable and various mods present in the moding section here and the TW center did just that.
Noir
Originally posted by econ21
I agree it does not constrain rushing, but that's because the diplomatic side is still rather weak. But the diplomatic model in M2TW is more sophisticated than that in earlier games and I think it's a step in the right direction.
More sophisticated but without impact on gameplay: thanks but no thanks.
Weren't STW and MTW like this too? I remember the Hojo horde if you tarried too long in the west and the pitiful French peasant armies in the early Medieval period. I think the efficacy of rushing is the price of TW games tending to start with minimal infrastructure and so lots of building possibilties. The expansions tend to set up the factions with more buildings and bigger armies, so becoming more challenging.
They were, but because CA wanted them to be so: rebelliousness average default for the vast majority of provinces was 0 and it was too easy to jump around from one side of the map to the other due to connectivity being absurdly high without any real consequences.
The game design it self and the AI could handle rushes and it was way more adept at organising itself and keeping up territorial robustness, possibly due to the simpler relationships between how provinces were connecting with each other.
the Hojo horde was the result of uneven distribution of wealth around the map, southern Japan had many and poor provinces (more garrisons and conquest time and more upkeep) and northern had few and rich (less garissons and conquest time for less upkeep).
Disagree - I think there is a TW fatigue amongst some of us old timers. I even loaded up the latest version of EB and could not get much into it. I mean, how many times can a man conquer Italy for the Romans? For that reason, I am looking forward to ETW - horse, cannon and musket tactics will make a nice change.
This kind of gameplay has been present indirectly ever since STW - its nothing new and it has lots of chances to go wrong because the TW AI as we know it is clueless how to use missiles and hybrids and artillery effectively against a human player. I wish all the best to CA, but frankly i'll be very surprised if they pull it off nicely.
I agree that getting the strategic AI to cope with the new style maps is still an issue for CA. Personally, it would be my top priority for the next TW game. But M2TW has made some improvements over RTW in that regard.
As RTW had quite some downgrading from MTW in that regard.
So M2TW out of the box is close in the realism of its units to one of the best MTW mods? That's a definite improvement over RTW then, as it does not compare so well to EB or RTR.
No doubt, however the period is visited for the second time and there was the example of various mods and all the previous experience - its not very surprising.
Where I disagree with the old school critics of RTW/M2TW is that I think the newer generation games still have most of the virtues of STW/MTW. But that also risks making them seem like the same old, same old.
In my opinion the newer games have only the chores of the older ones and not their qualities and that may bring fatigue out.
Mouzafphaerre
09-28-2007, 20:14
.
I found the precise instructions in a thread here at the .org - kept a link but it didn't survive a major system failure i recently had (reinstall windows etc).
My sympathies. I know how it feels. :wall:
The key was that you were setting the firing angle at 100 degrees in the relevant .txt (projectiles? IIRC) file column.
The angle is impossible and towers don't fire at all as a result.
Makes sense! :2thumbsup: Thanks! :clown:
The rate of fire is also moddable and various mods present in the moding section here and the TW center did just that.
Nay. :no: It just makes them fire once and never again. The angle seems to be the answer. :yes:
Thanks mate! :bow:
.
Togakure
09-28-2007, 20:50
...I'm just sick and tired of the current trend in the industry to dumb down a game so that it'll appeal to more folks. I don't want a dumbed down game, I don't want something that's meant to be played "casually". I want complexity and something that makes me think. Perhaps I'm of a dying breed of gamers. ...
Ditto
For me its about the lack of atmosphere and the predictablity or medieval 2 which kills it. I miss the political element that was inherent in the original Medieval and Rome Total War even perhaps even Shogun. It just feels lacking in Medieval 2...papal elections dont even make up for it really because even when you get a pope who came from your faction you dont really have any influence in how they go about their business. Why bother with it really when its just easier to go on the warpath yourself.
And the predictablity of the tactics and behaviour of particular factions e.g. Milan going on their predictable killing sprees. It really kills the replayablity that was inherent in earlier total war titles. Plus theres the midgame hangover where once you destroy all your immediate threats it just becomes a boring game of collecting provinces with no real rival empire unlike rome for instance :shame: .
Oh and lets not forget we're playing the same map for the 3rd time in a row. I know its fantastic and all they've returned to the medieval period with a new engine but even so it feels like we're going over literally familar terrain with a simplified version of gameplay.
Plus the usual rants, e.g. why go to war with me with your one ship blocking my port for the 8th time in a row!?? :wall: There are just so many issues which should have been sorted out long before the release
And the predictablity of the tactics and behaviour of particular factions e.g. Milan going on their predictable killing sprees. It really kills the replayablity that was inherent in earlier total war titles. Plus theres the midgame hangover where once you destroy all your immediate threats it just becomes a boring game of collecting provinces with no real rival empire unlike rome for instance :shame: .
I'm a big fan but I do miss the "mid-late challenge" in M2TW. In Rome you had the early rush but then even once you were strong enough to defeat any 1 faction you then had to deal with 2 (if you were a roman) or the combined might of Rome. That worked really well. It was missing in BI but the horde function and the excellent beginning set up (playing WE rome is the only time I have ever thought I might lose a game) meant there was great early challenge then huns for mid.
Now once you conquer your immediate surorundings and are the single biggest there's nothing that can stop you. No mass alliance comes crashing upon you. The mogols and timurids are that challenge but if you're not eastern you are so powerful by the time you meet them they're not a serious threat (even without the annoying passive hordes you sometimes get).
Some people complain about the AI ganging up on you when you're winning. On the contrary I would love a "grande alliance" event where the 3 largest factions all ally and attack you as a threat to all europe/east. Preferably with a big screen shot/event thing so it doesn't just look random.
Again, i'm mr +ve but the diplomatic and war AI not talking ot each other is a bit of a flaw. It means you don't have a joined up game, and will be a huge improvement when it's fixed.
Having said all that I've played it pretty solidly since June and am about to start my 4th kingdoms campaign. I jsut bought Civ 4 but can't quite get kingdoms out of my head enough to play it.
lancelot
09-29-2007, 13:27
To continue the rant but in a slightly different direction- am I the only one who thinks it is a dark day when the production company begins to advertise unofficial mods for the game when you launch the game?
I could just be looking at the from the most pessimistic of angles but this just screams to me- 'we dont have the time or inclination to bring the full range of options to our supporters ourselves'
Other companies to this to a certain extent- Paradox used some modders research for HOI2- but at least they acknowledged the work in an official patch/update/expansion (I forget which it was exactly)
Not sure about that: Civ 4 makes a big deal about making it easy for modders and all the wonderful things they can bring to the game - and you can hardly accuse them of slacking on the old game design in the hope someone else would do it.
Personally I see that as a thank you and recognition of the all the hard work modders do.
Just another case, I guess, of CA listening to the fans: then getting slated for it.
Not sure about that: Civ 4 makes a big deal about making it easy for modders and all the wonderful things they can bring to the game - and you can hardly accuse them of slacking on the old game design in the hope someone else would do it.
Personally I see that as a thank you and recognition of the all the hard work modders do.
Just another case, I guess, of CA listening to the fans: then getting slated for it.
Yeah I agree, it's meant as a nod to the modders and isn't a sign of anything else really.
They basically say "see, there's some great stuff other people do with out engine - check it out"
Everyone, of course is entitled to their own opinion; however, for me the title of this thread is eminently apropot. This game has done one thing for me. It made me go back and reinstall MTW 1, which was a vastly more interesting game to play.
Fookison
09-30-2007, 03:07
Sorry, I have to disagree completely here. The "depth" to M2TW is just like the "depth" to Oblivion, it's extremely superficial to nonexistant. Most "features" feel like they were added on just to add lines to the marketing spiel, and don't really serve any purpose. The diplomacy IS for all intents and purposes non-existant, and should have been much deeper. Glorious Achievements, I miss those too, but not as much as others. And the pervading fact that CA keeps paying lip service to the modding community, yet there's very little beyond textures and what's in some poorly documented text files that's changeable. Also, it seems that for every new little tidbit that's added to the game, something else gets taken away. The view cities option, assassinating your own characters, non-interlocking castle walls, larger unit sizes, missile tower mechanics, etc etc. People would argue those are "little" things, but all of these "little" things add up to make the game.
I'm just sick and tired of the current trend in the industry to dumb down a game so that it'll appeal to more folks. I don't want a dumbed down game, I don't want something that's meant to be played "casually". I want complexity and something that makes me think. Perhaps I'm of a dying breed of gamers.
/shrug
Perhaps you may wish to try out some of the Paradox games. There are some good challenges in HOI2 DD & EU3 NA. Or try your hand at Victoria. This company caters to the micro management deprived....
Perhaps you may wish to try out some of the Paradox games. There are some good challenges in HOI2 DD & EU3 NA. Or try your hand at Victoria. This company caters to the micro management deprived....
If you're serious then aye, I've heard good things about EU3 from others as well. However, micromanagement a good game or a deep game does not make.
Fookison
09-30-2007, 04:59
If you're serious then aye, I've heard good things about EU3 from others as well. However, micromanagement a good game or a deep game does not make.
You asked for a challenge and a serious game to indulge your interest. I have found each of the Paradox titles to do just that. They are very interesting, challenging and each time I play, I get a fresh new outcome. The concepts are very intriguing and the gameplay is excellent!!! Currently I am involved in a Crusader Kings game as Kiev (in the middle of the melting pot of 1066 ad) The games are downloadable from Gamersgate. Let me know what you think!!
Bootsiuv
10-02-2007, 05:03
EB2. That is all.
I was waiting for someone to say that. That alone is the entire reason I'm going to buy kingdoms.
As far as vanilla M2:TW goes, I played 50 turns of a Venetian campaign, and half of that of a Hungary campaign (after unlocking all of the factions). Probably won't touch it for another year, until some worthy full conversion mods come out. If it's any consolation, those will look spectacular, sound great, and actually have gameplay and content (hopefully).
Anyways, as soon as a playable version of EB2 is out, I'll be at the store, buying kingdoms. Hopefully it will even come down in price in the meantime, since I really have no desire to play anything vanilla anymore.
Perhaps, like another poster said, my expectations are getting too high.:shame:
lancelot
10-02-2007, 11:20
I thought Id share a recent Sicily game experience to show the complete whackyness of the game.
So, I get a few turns in the game, and take what is now Sardinia. Then the Moors land a small army and attack. Ok- got no problem with that- gotta fight someone.
Then Milan jumps on my Corsican holdings. Ok- I can live with that too.
A few turns later- Portugal!?! lands a large army to contest Corsica too. Now forgive me fellow patrons but this just seems a bit stupid to me. Why attack a very far away faction when you have the Moors and Spainish on your doorstep??? This is bad strategy in my book.
Just my 2 Florins.
The AI has a thing for Corsica and Sardinia, best to stay away from them if you don't want to be at war with half of the map. Then again, it's a way to start wars if you want them to happen...
SpencerH
10-02-2007, 11:50
I had Portugal attack Dublin both times in the two campaigns I started as the british (before calling it quits on this version). In the first campaign they were initially friendly but stationed an army beside Dublin for twenty or so turns (bit of an intention giveaway there). In the second case we had no diplomatic standing so the portugese king just landed and attacked. These bizarre incidents didnt wreck the game for me but they are indicative of the lack of ambiance in M2TW.
I had Portugal attack Dublin both times in the two campaigns I started as the british (before calling it quits on this version).
I've just started playing again to see what 1.2 has done for the game. I'm a little rusty, and was embarrassed to see the Portuguese taking Caernarfon from me at the end of the 11th century.
Still, I got my revenge. The Portuguese line died out when I killed their King and heir in a closely fought battle just outside Dublin.
I know the Portuguese were a seafaring nation, but in 1090? That doesn't seem right to me.
"Patch 1.2 - The Portuguese go crazy!" :inquisitive:
Iavorios
10-02-2007, 13:08
I always take Sardinia and Corsica, turn them to towns and give them both to the Pope. Even on VH this means only one thing- always unleased Portugal and Sicily, Milan and maybe Spain are in war with the Pope. O, and the Mors afcourse. And this means crusades and free hunting. After i conquer South- West Europe and North Africa i capture Sardinia back, give Corsica to the pope and kick him out of Italy (i really like Rome). So the AI really does have something with these islands. I mean, why would anyone attack the Pope and risk a crusade against himself? I love this game, but this is very stupid.
Zenicetus
10-02-2007, 21:30
I've just started playing again to see what 1.2 has done for the game. I'm a little rusty, and was embarrassed to see the Portuguese taking Caernarfon from me at the end of the 11th century.
Still, I got my revenge. The Portuguese line died out when I killed their King and heir in a closely fought battle just outside Dublin.
I know the Portuguese were a seafaring nation, but in 1090? That doesn't seem right to me.
Maybe when the AI decides when and where to go to war, it considers the map to be something like a big set of tiles, one faction per tile, and it ignores bodies of water since those don't count as territory that can be captured. If that's the case, then Ireland is just one "square" away, on the other side of France. Depending on how the virtual map is compressed in the programming, it might even be considered a province on Portugal's border. It's the distance that makes it seem like an odd choice to a human player, but maybe distance isn't a part of the algorithm for deciding when and where to attack.
The AI might also be "forced" to go there if the nearest province in the British Isles has a weaker military and smaller settlements than immediate neighbors like Spain, France, and the Moors. Aside from whatever must-have provinces are programmed as goals, I think the strategic AI is mainly looking at military weakness when choosing invasion targets (which should then be modified by whatever the diplomatic situation is, although that doesn't always happen due to the two competing military and diplomatic AI modules).
phonicsmonkey
10-03-2007, 06:25
Look, just because Portgual didn't historically invade Ireland didn't mean they weren't thinking about it...after all that's some great vinho verde country just outta dublin there...
Julius_Nepos
10-05-2007, 23:06
I started my Total War experience with the original MTW and I guess this was something like 5 years ago. I played the game as I'd play EU3 now, I auto resolved all the battles (as I never figured out combat until RTW), and I basically played the game as a purely strategic contest. I fondly remember my campaigns as Aragon and Sicily, playing for Glorious Achievements, outlasting my enemies, not having to worry every waking moment about being attacked or destroyed. Sure there were wars and belligerent neighbors, but who in their right mind would pursue a pacific, maritime policy of expansion in RTW or M2TW when sandwiched between two major powers like Spain and France? Such campaigns are simply not possible anymore.
I can say that most of my complaints about RTW/M2TW are based upon nonsensical systems, bug fixes that make the original problem worse, and a lack of appreciation for the finer points of politics and diplomacy. Like others before me have said Total War does not, in anyway mean that fighting is the only option, or that the sword is the only means of achieving victory.
This is not the place of course for a full and complete rant on my part against all the various problems that can be found in RTW, BI, M2TW and Kingdoms but I'll point out a few things here just to illustrate my point a bit better. Again like a few others have posted I too have played Oblivion and in some ways the same type of complaint I have with that game can be mirrored in the complaints I have about recent installments of the Total War series. The simple reality is sales matter. More revenue means more flexibility, more options for the company and the developers, better salaries, perhaps even a better work environment. In short "dumbing down" a game, thereby making it accessible to "casual" gamers makes sense for reasons WAY beyond simple profit. While sales would certainly remain brisk even for a niche market like the one Total War/Bethesda used to cater to, there can be no comparison to niche prestige and world wide acclaim. Honestly, if some of us have to be thrown under the bus in the process, why should that be a problem? The Pros surely outweigh the cons.
For my part I was neither impressed, nor appalled or saddened by M2TW. My general feeling was one of indifference, as the game was essentially what I expected, nothing more or less. In my assessment it's CA's stubborn refusal to deal with the details, the little things, that irk me the most. Even now players can not issue transgression warnings against the AI, nor can we demand armies on our lands remove themselves if they lack permission to be where they are. My question is, Why? Would it REALLY be that hard to add this in? Furthermore, CA's "method" of dealing with medieval family trees is flawed in almost every way. Not only is the selection process nonsensical, but we're given no control over who ends up being King and Soverign. People were disinherited in the middle ages you know, rebellions often started that way, and who decided that it was somehow better to send the Crown to an adopted 59 year old dunderhead simply because the Kings son wasn't of age yet. Anyone who thinks that a son born in the purple would not assert his right to reign against an outsider is certainly more deluded than CA is on this point.
Couple this with the now-legendary Suicidal AI that made its debut in RTW, the oft-ridiculous Distance to Capital Penalties, non-curable Squalor (We all Remember the Squalor Rebellion of 1168 in Bavaria) and an AI that's ready to attack for no other reason than you now share a border and things get out of hand very quickly. Total War is now a series with two personalities: A fun and engaging mode involving field combat and a broken and hopelessly simplified campaign map experience that in my mind adds little, if any value to my enjoyment anymore. These days I tend to dabble in EU3 for strategy and Total War for battles. It is of course a sad state of affairs that no happy middle ground has been reached here. I would say to hold out hope for ETW, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I imagine the battles will be epic, and the campaign pointless. I truly hope I'm wrong.
Fookison
10-07-2007, 08:36
I agree with you JN!
EU3 is satisfying my campaign map/strategy urge and M2TW/Kingdoms is providing a fun atmosphere on the battle map. Too bad we couldn't morph the two together. Maybe the next installment of TW will be more on track..... You know there are times when I wish I didn't sell my original MTW game at the garage sale last year......
Julius_Nepos
10-07-2007, 18:19
I still have MTW and Viking Invasion here somewhere, usually good for a bit of a nostalgic excursion though I used to have the game heavily and personally modded and I'm really in no mood to go through and re-edit all those text files by hand again heh.
I think the Total War series could benefit from a new mind set, personally. Rather than making the top design concern increasing difficulty, why not focus on things that actually make the game better. Yes I understand the endless complaints about things being too easy, but in a way it is this blind devotion to making things more challenging that is, in my mind, causing the quality of the campaign to suffer.
Of course, I've never understood the concept, so often read on forums similar to these, that full historical accuracy is "boring" so perhaps I'm not the best one to offer advice. But still, like the complaints I often read about on the Oblivion forums, there is a limit to how much good can come out of making a game harder in an arbitrary fashion. At some point CA is going to have to actually focus on features, detail and realism rather than just ensuring an AI Faction will never stop attacking, even if they've already lost 500,000 men in useless sieges and attacks. Would it REALLY be so bad if the AI had a sense of self preservation and played to WIN rather than to just attack the player in the most futile way possible?
Divinus Arma
10-07-2007, 19:45
M2TW is a tragedy. Nothing but eye candy. The gameplay is utterly hollow.
I played the original MTW for months on end, and did the same with RTW. There is no replayability to M2TW. It's worthless. I am hoping the expansion (downloading now) will liven it up at least a little, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I think it is safe to say that SEGA is to blame for watering down CA and the TW series.
And I have been such a loyal fan. I don't even play anything else but TW games.
I think if Empire dissapoints, I'll just stick to EB and the older TW titles.
Mouzafphaerre
10-07-2007, 22:27
M2TW is a tragedy. Nothing but eye candy. The gameplay is utterly hollow.
I played the original MTW for months on end, and did the same with RTW. There is no replayability to M2TW. It's worthless. I am hoping the expansion (downloading now) will liven it up at least a little, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I think it is safe to say that SEGA is to blame for watering down CA and the TW series.
And I have been such a loyal fan. I don't even play anything else but TW games.
I think if Empire dissapoints, I'll just stick to EB and the older TW titles.
.
Do try EU Divinus. It feels pretty much like the original MTW in some aspects, not in being real time of course.
.
I think it is safe to say that SEGA is to blame for watering down CA and the TW series.
Why blame SEGA? They only made M2TW and Kingdoms, and I don't think those two games are watered down from RTW. Quite the reverse - they are more historically accurate, more challenging, have better AI, better sieges, better diplomacy, better balance of combat arms etc.
I think what happened is that with RTW, we lost some of the challenge from the AI when switching to 3D in the battles and to a free-form campaign map. The battles are about back up to scratch in M2TW; the campaign AI is the thing that needs most work. (Example - in our HRE PBM in the Throne Room, I've left Vilnius unoccupied for about 6 turns. Many hostile AI armies have just walked past it. Talk about dollars on the sidewalk...)
Boyar Son
10-08-2007, 01:41
in the Expansion the AI improved alot, not to mention alot more features (scenerio battles!)
this game PWNS
Seabourch
10-09-2007, 10:09
Well diplomacy back then was a joke. You didn't know when your ally would backstab you. It was quite accurate, actually further splitting the italian peninsula into more factions. Missions are a bit annoying but in the past nobles would try to sway the king into making various decisions.
The_Baron
10-14-2007, 12:51
Well said, Mouzafphaerre.
I am - first and foremost - a MTW/RTW gamer. These are games with character. If a game does not have distinction, then it quite frankly isn't worth my time. The Britannia Campaign has given me brief respite, but I suspect that within the next week I'll be back on my Mercians game. Medieval II: Total War shows what games are becoming - monotonous. If the game had been better thought out better, with meaningful missions, goals and factions, it would've been ace.
Let us hope that Empires: Total War brings back the flame, eh? :balloon2:
-Max
TevashSzat
10-14-2007, 13:00
Personally, I don't think M2TW is necessarily worse than RTW, but simply that it hasn't improved enough to achieve the same level of excitement as RTW did when it came out.
M2TW has a much better setting than RTW, but the campaign map AI is still beyond belief. :dizzy2:
Mouzafphaerre
10-15-2007, 17:51
Personally, I don't think M2TW is necessarily worse than RTW, but simply that it hasn't improved enough to achieve the same level of excitement as RTW did when it came out.
.
That's a fair point. :yes:
.
I was so happy to see this thread.
I have tried to play this game with different strategies, different factions etc but it's just not fun. I am not bothered by diplomacy etc, I am bothered by what I am going to call the get screwed formula.
It seems like the moment you are going to actually going to get ahead etc you can't, the game simply auto adjusts. These adjustments are supposed to make the game difficult, they really just make it cheap and underhanded.
You have seen them...
You will be excommunicated if... (you don't let the game screw you)
surprise, 10 inquisitors/heretics appear.
Poof! an enemy stack appears.
A storm kills your navy just before you get blockaded
cities experience "unrest"
One of my personal favs...
you have a 50% (1 in 2) chance to... kill an assassin/convert a heretic and even though you have 5 or 6 of your own to make the attempt, none of them succeed.
True story! I was playing France and after a grueling/annoying time I was about to get ahead in spain, a Jihad was called on Leon and 4 mongol super stacks came. Surprise, they attacked me right after. (literally came across the entire game board to screw me righttttttt.)
Oh and I suppose it would be nice if I could tell which units were mine on the battle map, love how both empires always have the same color. It would also be nice if any of my units actually did what I was telling them to without 10 requests. And then there are the battles, i send in a unit of cavalry to attack the flank of my enemy and on 4 of 60 actually engage. LOL
RTW was totally superior, you could actually play, you could plan, you could by being smart and having good units, win impossible battles. It's obvious that when CA was bought by SEGA everything went down hill. You can still make loads of money and produce a good game, it just takes effort.
DisruptorX
10-28-2007, 07:59
MTW 2 is awesome in nearly every regard. My only complaint is the lack of many pitched battles, and the rather poor in game AI. The enemies do not create enough large armies to fight fun battles with.
It is truly a pity that such historically correct features from the previous medieval game, such as generals being able to kill 200+ men single handedly were removed, though. Obviously a result of dumbing down, no doubt.
As for Rome, this picture sums it up perfectly:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/DisruptorX/RTWpwned2.jpg
A complete disaster.
I'd call the AI something worse than 'rather poor'. Here's two examples:
https://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0003zt2.jpg
https://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2661/0067aifz3.jpg
The AI lost the battle in the second screenshot because the time run out, even though their spy had opened the gates. Most of the battle consisted of the ballista trying to fire over this wall, for whatever reason, that it was not able to.
Henry707
10-29-2007, 09:26
Morning All,
Something I really miss from the MTW was the re-emerging factions - do you remember that??? Just when you thought you'd crushed the French or English they would come back at the worst possible moment with a couple of stacks, a bad attitude & arrows with your name on.
I was disappointed with Kingdoms but with the LTC mod - MTW2 manages to keep me off the streets...
Henri
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.