Gamespot preview of "near finished" (?) version of MTW 2

Just a heads up. Doesn't really say much. Has a fair number of screenshots and a couple of movies in accompaniment though. Hopefully other less stingy websites will have high res versions freely available for download.

- Has screenshots of a wooden castle, something new (for me at least). It would appear that wooden walls now have battlements, unlike those in RTW.
- From the screenshots: when upgrading a city, instead of building a new governor's building, you build a new wall.
- Ironic screenshot of building completion notice lauding the awe inspiring work of your serfs, masons and architect for constructing... land clearance.
- Screenshot of king's death notice implies that yes your faction leader when you start as England will be "King William the Conqueror". This will please history nerds but since I am an even bigger history nerd I can self-righteously complain that the game gives him an agnomen not actually used at the time. In fact I just did. Ha!
- Makes reference to "subverting" a general by marrying a princess to him. So it does sound like a marriage might be something like a bribe.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen009.jpg

Is that...fog! Perhaps not up to STW standards yet, but still, nice to see it's back.

I loved the fog in STW, in some cases it was so thick that you could totally out manoeuver and flank the enemy army.

Something I've meant to ask: fog in STW, did it actually hide units on the minimap as well? Otherwise, presumably you could just see where the red arrows on the map were moving...

Ah. I loved the fog in STW. It allowed me to win one of my greatest victories ever. My relatively small force was attacking a much larger enemy force. THe fog allowed me to sneak men around and behind their lines without their having any idea. I ended up pulling off a textbook envelopement that can only be compared to the battle of Canea.

I loved the weather in STW in general. It played such a huge role in the battle.

Quote:

---

Something I've meant to ask: fog in STW, did it actually hide units on the minimap as well?

---

yes. Also, units that are hidden behind hills do not show up on the minimap. But since they are still visible in the battle with a high camera viewpoint that's kinda pointless.

I wish TW had real LOS, that would make it much more challenging and interesting, even against less then perfect AI. Not to mension more realistic, satellites and helicopters are a rather recent invention.

If you want that kind of LOS you can always zoom your view right into your general's unit and move it from there. I think I'll pass on torturing myself like that personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shifty157

Ah. I loved the fog in STW. It allowed me to win one of my greatest victories ever. My relatively small force was attacking a much larger enemy force. THe fog allowed me to sneak men around and behind their lines without their having any idea. I ended up pulling off a textbook envelopement that can only be compared to the battle of Canea.

I loved the weather in STW in general. It played such a huge role in the battle.

---

Those were the happy days :2thumbsup: The weather in STW was excellent, I really miss it in the later TW-games. Autumn and Winter battles were often terrible if you were on offence; thick fog made it almost impossible to locate the enemy. And the battlefields seemed to be a lot bigger then as well.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...%20total%20war

Looks like 'king's purse' gives you income now...What does that mean? :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoetje

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...%20total%20war

Looks like 'king's purse' gives you income now...What does that mean? :help:

---

That is interesting indeed.
Maybe the kings generate a income based on their skills.

Kings were very rich and they owned vast estates which they often rented out to tenant farmers and the like. My guess is that its the King's personal income. Itll probably grow as your faction grows and probably a number of other traits/attributes of his affect it too. A very interesting addition.

Is it just me or does it seem like they are making it a bit easier to earn money in this game? Possible to support bigger armies?

Or maybe units and such just cost more... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen009.jpg

Is that...fog! Perhaps not up to STW standards yet, but still, nice to see it's back.

---

There was a very early screenshot that showed fog, thicker than this if my memory serves.

And yes, the fog is STW was awesome. That wonderful feeling of groping around desperately trying to locate the enemy.... :2thumbsup:

I hope that economy will work correct because in RTW and BI is not good. In both larger settlement = larger minus income. I tested when I did nothing and settlements just go into minus. Where is logic? Larger settlement means larger tax base and higher production. The whole point was extermination of settlements after some periods and this is very annoying. :furious3:

DukeofSerbia, the logic is that a portion of your army's upkeep is deducted from a settlement's income proportionally to its size. So in RTW, when a settlement increases in size, it makes more money, but also pays a larger portion of the upkeep of your army, resulting in a negative income being displayed on the strategy map. This system is not good because it means the city income displayed on the strategic map gives you no actual useful information. It does not mean the economy in RTW is broken (though honestly, it is - massive squalor forcing you to exterminate your larger settlements periodically, as you mentioned - but this does not have anything to do with the four middle paragraphs of your post).

Wow, that screenshot alone might be push over to buy M2TW...

The wooden battlements are awesome, someone must make the equivlent for RTW...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricEel

DukeofSerbia, the logic is that a portion of your army's upkeep is deducted from a settlement's income proportionally to its size. So in RTW, when a settlement increases in size, it makes more money, but also pays a larger portion of the upkeep of your army, resulting in a negative income being displayed on the strategy map. This system is not good because it means the city income displayed on the strategic map gives you no actual useful information. It does not mean the economy in RTW is broken (though honestly, it is - massive squalor forcing you to exterminate your larger settlements periodically, as you mentioned - but this does not have anything to do with the four middle paragraphs of your post).

---

No, it not good. I do nothing, just click next turn and settlements start to go negative. It has nothing with real economy.:wall:

I thought the explanation of castles vs cities was more intuitive than I've heard before. Previously, it had been stressed that cities were good for the economy and late troops, whereas castles were good for troops. What gamespot emphasises is that cities are good for the economy, but castles are good for defence. So you want castles on the borders and to develop your hinterland. That's pretty much what you had to do in MTW and STW - if you lost a border province, most of the buildings you had invested so much in were destroyed. But it does seem to make more sense to me than the earlier "guns vs butter" distinction.

Individual cities may go into minus income as they grow because they pay a greater percentage of your faction's expenses, which past a certain point is generally greater than the money that city makes. However your faction does not go into debt overall simply because its cities grow- if large cities are apparently loosing money smaller cities will be making a ton of it. If your faction does loose money it is because you are mismanaging your economy not because the game itself is broken.

Well thats how it was in RTW. Your huge cities would be way in the red while your little border villages would be bringing in thousands of denari in profits.

Picture 35 shows one thing I thought belonged into the realm of pure, high fantasy. Take a peek - and don't be too shocked to see War Elephants carrying cannon. I really thought this was so much bogus when I first heard about it...



EDIT: Such a waste of my 100th post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epistolary Richard

Something I've meant to ask: fog in STW, did it actually hide units on the minimap as well? Otherwise, presumably you could just see where the red arrows on the map were moving...

---

As far as I remember also medieval had fog .... and yes did hide units also on the radar .... I remember incredible online battles in northern snow covered maps ...... Or was it a snowstorm ? ....:juggle2:

Is it just me or does it seem that diplomacy hasn't been approved that much?

I would've liked to have seen things like loaning troops and better trade deals.

Still looks good though and the demo plays on my pc :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empirate

Picture 35 shows one thing I thought belonged into the realm of pure, high fantasy. Take a peek - and don't be too shocked to see War Elephants carrying cannon. I really thought this was so much bogus when I first heard about it...

---

History has a way of surprising people doesn't it.
The things they tried to get the upper hand in battles is always amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia

I hope that economy will work correct because in RTW and BI is not good. In both larger settlement = larger minus income. I tested when I did nothing and settlements just go into minus. Where is logic? Larger settlement means larger tax base and higher production. The whole point was extermination of settlements after some periods and this is very annoying. :furious3:

---

lol not this question again..people dont seem to understand this point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Just a heads up. Doesn't really say much. Has a fair number of screenshots and a couple of movies in accompaniment though. Hopefully other less stingy websites will have high res versions freely available for download.

- Has screenshots of a wooden castle, something new (for me at least). It would appear that wooden walls now have battlements, unlike those in RTW.
- From the screenshots: when upgrading a city, instead of building a new governor's building, you build a new wall.
- Ironic screenshot of building completion notice lauding the awe inspiring work of your serfs, masons and architect for constructing... land clearance.
- Screenshot of king's death notice implies that yes your faction leader when you start as England will be "King William the Conqueror". This will please history nerds but since I am an even bigger history nerd I can self-righteously complain that the game gives him an agnomen not actually used at the time. In fact I just did. Ha!
- Makes reference to "subverting" a general by marrying a princess to him. So it does sound like a marriage might be something like a bribe.

---

Indeed the wofen battlements soudns good to me as many woodern forts did have them and wall fighting is alwyas great to watch!

LOL at the land clearance! that was amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen009.jpg

Is that...fog! Perhaps not up to STW standards yet, but still, nice to see it's back.

---

Pah. Those stoopid huge banners really suck.

I think the banners look OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan.o6

I think the banners look OK.

---

Immersion busters. I just hope you can turn 'em off...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Immersion busters. I just hope you can turn 'em off...

---

Don't worry Screwtype, you probably can.

:balloon2: