Link
Good ones of the Teutonic Knights and the timurids (might be Golden Horde) too.
Printable View
Link
Good ones of the Teutonic Knights and the timurids (might be Golden Horde) too.
Good find, BKB, :2thumbsup:. I've added it to Ludens's screenshot sticky - hope you both don't mind.
The division of provinces on the campaign map reminds me a lot of MTW. As do the units we've seen so far. Indeed from what has been revealed so far, I'm expecting M2TW to be a mix of MTWs "content" and RTWs "engine". I guess the two main areas where - based on what we know - I'm expecting significant improvements are sieges and diplomacy.
The firts map (Byzantium) is 100% the same as in R TW. Is this good news? We shall see but first impression - NO. It seems that on Western Balkan Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are one province:inquisitive: , as was in R TW, and Dalmatia is the second one (not shore for that). And Hungary own those province!:dizzy2:
Those knights in charge have defenitely Teutonic coat of arms in shields and faction has the same coat of arms which used Germans in M TW. So, Germans.
On the last two screenshots I think those are Mongols (Golden Horde according to coat of arms).
Yes, appears to be Germans (I like the subdued colors that they appear to be using for the HRE), English, and the Golden Horde. Can't figure out who the other faction is.
Regions are RTW, but then I bet the interface is from alpha. A lot of the interface looks like it hasn't been changed from RTW, including they still have the UI Roman Brutti shield to represent one of the factions. I wouldn't read to much into what hasn't changed and instead look at what has. Hopefully the rest will be changed before release. :sweatdrop:
--Edit--
Yep, my bad. As TB666 pointed out, I'm mixing two screenshots. Saw another site that had the first screenshot posted but it seemed a little higher quality. I was able to better see the mini map there also. Territories have definately changed from RTW.
THe MAP....
It is incredible, but it is even WORSE than in MTW1 - eastern europe is completely f****, again 1-province Poland and Hungary, some sort of weird Yugoslavia instead of Croatia and Serbia and my favourite VOLHYNIA which is a complete nonsence merging Podlasie, Polesia and Ruthenia in one loooong province - its like merging Glasgow with London and anything between.
Congratulations CA you made it again ! How many years have passed from the release of MTW1 ?:furious3:
eehhmm I take it you mean thisQuote:
Originally Posted by magnum
http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/original/rome_med.jpg
They are comparing the UI from Rome to MTW2 where the UI above is from Rome and below from MTW2.:laugh4:
There are no years.
I have to say, the camp map looks much better than rtw's. I think it looks "crisper" or something, definitely more varied.
And to the guys complaining about the minimap and the number/size of provinces. I'm really sorry your nation or great-grand parents' dutchessy isn't portrayed as a separate province. Obviously CA haven't changed their vision since MTW about grouping some eastern europe's regions to provide a more steppe-like character with a lesser concentration of bigger cities, historically accurate or not. And quite frankly, i don't care. It's CA's decision, get over it, as long as it plays ok, i don't care, it's hardly a game-breaker gameplay wise.
On the other hand: in the 3rd pic there's still guys piercing the soldier in front of them, clipping issues remain in their promotial screenies. Again: you won't notice that when zoomed out as you should be when playing anyway, i just think it's a shame since they're putting so much emphasis on graphics.
After these screens i'm still a bit worried by the lack of elevations in the open battlefields, still too few places to exploit height differences in the centers of the battlefields imho (although there's definitely improvement over RTW) . It looks though that they're really bringing impassable terrain back with a vengeance: more prominent and they seems to be cutting up the battle maps a little bit more than STW's cliffs, which is a good thing imho as long as they provide an ai able to cope with the possible pathfinding issues.
Those pictures are very nice. I like that new map. :)
I think the campaign map looks even better now. Seems more grassy. Looks like they split Scotland into two provinces. I wish Eastern Europe had more provinces, too.
ah bummer its still the same mode of RTW, which means slow movement of chars over looooong tracts of land.
But the borders do look a more well defined and set.
Units look awesome as usual.
And a sig no less. Post of the day for me. Hilarious my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Anyone notice those green arrows? Land bridges are back by the looks of things. That should make crusading through Byzantium a bit easier, what with no fleet required. It also opens up a whole bunch of other tactics and strategies for defending/invading Constantinople. I wonder if the English Channel also has a land bridge? Maybe one accross the Straits of Gibraltar as well?
It looks like naval invasions are occurring as well - Scotland seems to have invaded Holland. Unless Holland rebelled and became Scottish...
As for the lack of years - maybe that '10' is the amount of Florins, and the turns/years are not visible on the main screen, but through an information scroll or something. Just a thought.
Looking at the M2TW minimap compared to the RTW one it appear that while the M2TW map extends slightly north to encompass scotland and norway, the RTW map does cover slightly more eastern territory.
So far though, the game is looking good, but for me it appears to be, on the whole, a somewhat revamped RTW with an MTW theme though without the "feel" and atmosphere. I wonder if the differences between this game and RTW will be as significant as the those between STW and MTW.
I just found them here in a higher resolution and the first thing I noticed was that some unit textures look like they are of a lower resolution than in Rome, I hope that´s not the highest you can get in the final version. I know, just eye-candy, but I like detailed textures. The campaign map on the other hand looks very nice and detailed to me, I like it. And the UI gives me some warm Medieval feelings and that´s very good already.~;)
I bolded what is important for Balkan peninsula. Yes, Yugoslavia in medieval.:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
Not to mention that Byzantium coat of arms look like modern Serbian or...
I am not going to argue with people which province is in and which is out, but one thing that I cannot accept is when CA makes history. Did you see that Bucharest was on the map? That city didn't even exist before the 15th century. If Bucharest is on the map, where is Bulgaria? Where is Turnovo, which was far more important (called 3rd Rome by many scholars). Disgusting!:wall:
Omg the map is so wrong. Is it so hard to go to www.euratlas.com and take a look how Europe looked back then. That's just lazyness and potboiler.
Well we did refine our sign (Serb) from byzantium one. Tough how mush was that wersion used I don't know. I only know that one of the emperors used it and it soppoused to mean something like 'Under this sign he will win' meaning he will win under the cross. If I'm wrong please correct me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
But provinces!
It seems to me CA is only looking at modern day maps which don't have much in comon with medieval ones.
I can understand a bit why they don't make many provinces in steppes. But on balkans? It's a load of mountains ivided by rivers and canyons. It's not that easy to roll over it.
Provinces and settlements should be easily to mod, so I'm not overly worried about that.
BalkanTourist: that was the first thing when I saw that screenshot too. Just ridiculous. CA must have really dropped the ball on this one, or this is just a map early in development.
Judging by the high concentration of cities in Western Europe, it's clear CA want the main Christian factions to have enough settlements to duke it out with one another before going on to crusade and take on the Muslims and other factions. I assume also the eastern provences are considerably richer than the western ones. CA are always going to put gameplay before historical accuracy on the map. If they have an idea of how the campaign is going to play, something has to be sacrificed. Plus they know people will just complain no matter what and mod the game anyway. They lay the foundations, the modders can provide the icing and the rest of the trimmings.
I just wanted to say the same about Bucharest. Wasn't the Wallachian capital Targovište?Quote:
Originally Posted by BalkanTourist
Turnovo (Bulgarian capital) was never the 3rd Rome. It is Moscow!
Moscow is refered as the Fourth Rome. The Second Bulgarian Empire had an extensive culture which in those days was almost entirely related to religion and Christianity. After the fall of Turnovo, all prominent scholars, members of the clergy, artists immigrated to the emerging new super power - Moscow. The Russian states from the creation of Kievan Rus on, were primarily and mostly influenced by Bulgaria. True, Byzantium was the center of Orthodox culture, but because Bulgaria was the first and most developed Slavic Orthodox state it was a lot closer and easier for the Russians to borow form Bulgaria's culture. The Russian's requested a lot of books and priest from Bulgaria.
After Bulgaria and Byzantium were no more, Moscow took over. So Moscow is the 4th Rome.
And one more thing - during the reign of King Ivan Asen II, he was crowned emperor of Bulgarians and Rumelians (Byzantines) and Turnovo was on par with Constantinople especially after the sacking of it in 1204.
Oh my GOD!
This is so f***ing STUPID!
EVERYONE knows Nicaea should REALLY be .15 centimeters to the right!
OMFG! LOOK AT HOW TALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ON THE CAMPAIGN MAP! PEOPLE ARE NOT REALLY THAT TALL! WHAT THE HELL?
You've got to be kidding me - where's Ugamoganyolaganagadanica? My home village isn't in MTW2? Those IDIOTS - don't they know that Ugamoganyolaganagadanica was site of the great Battle of the Chicken Farmers in 1249? DUH! And no Dirkadirkastan? Where the cheese puff was invented? Morons!
LOOK! LOOK! COLORED LINES AND GREEN ARROWS TO REPRESENT BORDERS AND LAND BRIDGES? DEAR GOD! Doesn't CA know ANYTHING - borders aren't REALLY colored lines! And besides, they're all inaccurate - they forgot that the Hagaflugenkampfen-Nagancahfaic border goes to the WEST of Billy's Pond, not to the NORTHWEST!
How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?
WTF CA?!!11! BURN IN TEH HELL!11!1111!!!!11!1ONEONEONE
It seems to me the sky looks very different (better) than Rome: Total War, more detailed, thats a nice feature. Plus, there seems to be no rebels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
Feel better now?
Anyways, I personally love the map. It has only a few provinces in eastern europe, but that never stopped those nations from doing well in MTW. Hungry or Poland take eachother out then form a relativly powerful superpower. Im sure Byzantium has no worries about having enough funds so they should be a very powerful nation as well. They did Yugoslavia as a province because they gave Venice the coast. I figure Ca didn't know what to do with ther remaning land. Its obviously not the most accurate map, but from my perspective it looks fun. Plus last time we saw a camp map screen it had even fewer provinces, so I think CA is still in the process of fleshing the map. We must remember, Ca hasn't shown any screens themselves so I don't think the map is at a level they are comfortable with yet. There is still hope for eastern europe:2thumbsup:
Ok, ok, folks, please calm down! We know Turnovo is replaced by Bulgaria. We know Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia are all lumped together. But please stay seated! The Total War modding community will be taking a look at these errors and will likely have them fixed very shortly after release.
I don't actually care about the initial accuracy as long as it is possible to mod. Sure, CA don't make the game all that accurate in the first place, but you really do have to give them a pat on the back for all the non-modding fixable areas (except the AI, but I have high hopes for M2TW's AI considering the complaints they received with regards to RTW). Thanks to CA, we can take the almost-finished game they have made and turn it into something really special. Remember CA's glorious service here, folks.
EDIT: An example of this is the beautiful campaign map texture they have given us. For a modding team to create something like this would take quite a while.
Awesome.
Edit: After reading the thread:
I think they make it the best way, believe me not all players would like to play RTR as a base campaign. And they won't in M2: TW, so a simplified one for all, then if the community finds it urging for more complexity, they can make a mod to furfill that. Another GJ CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
Impressive irony, you must be proud !
Still the historical accuracy is one thing which I am concerned with, the other is the BALANCE - 1 province Hungary is a joke with the state one of more powerful in Europe for much time, 1-province Poland and the bloody Volhynia makes little sence if we see 2 province Scotland and some mess in Asia Minor - especially if the campaign ends in 1530 or so.
And how the Teutonic Order could be a danger to anyone with 2 provinces at their disposal ( Prussia and Livonia) ?
Overall eastern europe is some strange puzzle thing I can't really say much good about.:inquisitive:
I share these particular sentiments. I could care less how provinces and cities are named. What I'm concerned with is simply the number and size of them from a strategic view. I simply feel that the larger a faction is (that is, the more territory/land/area they possess), the more provinces they should own. If, for instance, the Hungarian faction's holdings cover twice as much land as the Scottish holdings, then the Hungarians should possess about twice as many provinces. I'm more interested in geographical divisions than political/feudal borders, and here's my rationalization:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
Let's pretend in a purely hypothetical version of MTW, the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) and the Kingdom of Hungary (who start adjacent to the HRE) control equal amounts of land, but that Hungary's land is divided into 2 provinces while the HRE's equally sized territory is divided into 5. If they go to war against each other, which faction has the advantage, assuming neither side has inherently superior troops? It would seem pretty clear to me that the HRE would be at a strong advantage simply due to having more "provinces", even though the two factions are equal in actual land and population.
Two reasons for this. 1) The HRE will (theoreticly) have more economic power and more production capability, due to having more cities which have been upgraded and specialized. 2) They can afford to lose provinces, while Hungary cannot. Hungary would be drasticly more damaged by losing one province than the HRE would. If Hungary were truly a smaller faction, that's understandable. But if both factions have as much land and population as the other, this is ridiculous.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but that's my principle theory on campaign map design: "provinces" should be roughly equal in size, and should not be oddly shaped (like Dalmatia in RTW, for instance). The only exceptions I would make would be for very densely populated regions.