MTW 2 Review from an EB / RTR player perspective

Id like to give some insight about this game to those that attribute time to realism mods / historical mods, who have yet to purchase it.

Performance - First off, if you are accustomed to playing with huge unit sizes, you're comp will need an overhaul, specifically when fighting in huge cities / castles. Ive an x1300 radeon, 2 gigs ram, 2.6 proc and it chuggs sometimes when 2 factions have a huge city map filled with armies. nerfing the graphics helps a little, but not a dramatic impact with big settlement battles.

Graphics - Damn! if you can run the sytem fluently with high graphics options, you're going to have your socks knocked off, especially when viewing alot of the mid - high tier knights. Even with the graphics turned all the way down, i can say that the graphics still compare with alot of the reskinned units that modders have done to the RTW units. the battlescape graphics have been revamped tremendously. Not just the terrain, but the sky as well. Lighting is awesome. Fought a battle in the ingame evening time and as i was setting up units I scrolled my mouse around and ingame sun just exploded on my screen in great beauty. actually had to squint.

AI - Still stupid. You can hold the medditerranean islands / UK and practically not have to worry about invasion. I took cyprus from the Byzantines and was immediatly counterattacked by them, but thats about it for island action in 100 turns of play. On landscape battles, the AI still has a tendancy to let me shoot at their armies without counterattacking, so long as they have 1 or more soldiers left in a ranged unit. occasionally they'll stand still regardless of lack of ranged units to counter. Settlement siege AI has been somewhat improved however. The chance that the AI breaks off a siege is now minimal. that was an issue with RTW. More often than not the AI attacks on the second turn of siege. ive yet to have an AI attempt to starve me out.

Pathfinding - heres a tip: give huge AI sieging armies more than one path to your walls. I made the mistake of destroying every tower / ram and leaving the comp with 1 units of ladders and everything went to hell. System performance is not an issue there. there also seems to occasionally be unit response issues moving on walls. id say the system took a small step down on that from the RTW engine. RTW rubber band is still in effect, meaning that if just a few of your soldiers in a unit are separated from the majority of the body, then you cannot issue an effective charge on an enemy unit. Pathfinding seems to be partially better moving through settlements though.

Battle Engine - The kill rate seems to be somewhere between RTW vanilla and EB. There are no uber formations i. e. Phalanx. Pike formation is nowhere near as difficult to break as phalanx formation. The whole battle combo animation works fluently and is aesthetically pleasing. It helps with the believability with soldier to soldier combat. One thing worth noting is that when a soldier on the front has seen alot of action, the blood pileup will begin to reflect on their armor. When upgrading units weapon / armor via settlement buildings, those upgrades will reflect visually on the units on the battlefield!

Unit Balance - There really arent any super soldiers in the nature of spartan / gaesetae, and lack of phalanx really helps in that regard. Heavy cavalry will rape non spear infantry head to head if they get a good charge in with the exception of heavy infantry which arent wiped completely, but the unit will be in bad condition. Low tier spearman can beat most heavy cavalry once the charge is stopped, Just make sure that you dont let heavy cavalry charge you from the rear :) . Horse archers are still annoying as they should be. Once you get past the peasant level units, there seems to be a tighter knit of unit balance. Peasants are just kill fodder, while even militia can be effective if used properly.


Campaign Play - Identical to RTW with the addition of agents. in addition you have the choice of developing your settlements into either cities or castles. The papacy functions much like the senate in RTW. In addition you have other councils that assign tasks for you to keep you busy.

Cities / Castles - cities bring better income through its ability to access more trade developing structures and higher population to tax, but arent given the access to military units that castles are. Given however that cities will get access to some potent militia units, they arent the crack troops that are required from a castle if you are intending on breaking down an enemies heavily fortified citadel (unless you are patient to starve them). Castles have access to some trade structures, but its limited. Castles really shine in their ability to recruit quality units and their ability to take the brunt of foreign invasion on your border regions as the higher tier castles get multiple layers of walls that the enemy has to gauntlet through. FYI the tax level in castles cannot be changed, it is a default normal level, however this should not concern you as castles get a substantial happiness bonus if revolt is your concern.

New Agents:

Priests - Essential for converting population to your faith in regions in which they are present. Religion is a major factor in the game for if a region begins to fall away from your factions religion, it can become rebellious or even revolt, throwing you out of the city. Priests are also used to condemn heretics, which need to be contained or else you can have some serious issues with region pop loyalty. Lastly, priests can get promoted to cardinals, giving you a viable option at having great relations with the pope, as your factions cardinals have a chance to become pope.

Princess - Works much like a diplomat except in addition you can throw her body onto a foreign general to improve relations with that factions or onto one of your generals to improve loyalty.

Merchants - Supposedly you can put them on foreign trade resources i.e. furs, timber etc to increase income to your empire, and even vie with foreign merchants over those resources. Really havent spent much time toying with those.

Character Attributes:

Piety - shows how devout a general / priest is seen. For generals it effects the happiness of settlement they are governing and chance to survive an inquisition (Faction leaders can fall victim too!).

Chivalry / Dread - Shows how honorable / dishonorable a mans actions are in rule and war. Letting prisoners go, setting low tax rates in settlements, bravery in battles developes chivalry whereas doing the opposite, i.e. high taxes ransom / execute devoples dread. Chivarly is advantageous as it inspires moral in troops and happiness in governed settlements, whereas dread inspires a morale penalty in enemy troops (pair a high dread general with a heavy cavalry army and you have dynamite). Dread effects a settlement as well, not sure if its positive or negative effect yet.

Loyalty - Keep that in check certainly with the generals you give big armies to, as you dont want to lose that full stack of crack troops to a general that rebels.



Historical Accuracy - Not RTW inaccurate, but plenty of space for a realism mod to work in. the Baskin Robbins effect is still active (i.e. bright colored units to easily distinguish factions), but its toned down somewhat. CA can get away with it with the european factions for the most part as alot of nations did historically flaire their heraldry on their armies, but on a few units it might be too much for the historian in you, and it seems to get carried away with some of the islamic nations. Mercs are at least acceptable now as CA dropped the green and went with a brown that suits the occasion.
There are a few off the wall units i.e. "Sherwood Archers", but its not as bad as some of the fantasy units in RTW.

The New World - Havent been there yet but, from glancing at the map that came with my limited edition, it looks lacking. Only 6 regions there and geographically inaccurate and disproportioned.

theres some things I havent discussed such as crusades, jihads, and guild building events. Going to leave that for you to find out on your own.

Also, dont try to wipe out the pope. the papacy cannot be destroyed, ever.

Overall its a damn good game. certainly aesthetically pleasing and the campaign depth has been improved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdwardL

Princess - Works much like a diplomat except in addition you can throw her body onto a foreign general to improve relations with that factions or onto one of your generals to improve loyalty.

---

hahaha.

thanks for the review. its a bit dissapointing they didnt improve the campaign/battle AI but i cant say i'm suprised. some of the new features sound really awesome though.

Well it just came out... so CA still has a bunch of Patches make :book:

Good Review :thumbsup:

EdwardL, did you play on VH/VH? Because in MTW2, the higher the difficulty, the better the AI (No stupid stat boosts or anything like that. It actually improves the AI.) There is a few AI bugs needing sorted out but there you go.

Concerning the AI invasion thing:

I only play on m/h with the HRE....invading Hungary at that point in time....and guess who knocked on my backdoor? The Moors & a full stacked army led by their heir landing on my [pretty much unprotected] Italian shores. Thank god I had an army in Souther France [which was about to invade Spain] to defend Rome.....

I think the AI on the map ain´t that bad.

Interesting review, although I disagree that the AI is not much improved over RTW.

The campaign AI, in particular, seems smarter. I have played quite a few games of "cat and mouse" with AI stacks. They now seem better at avoiding stronger stacks of mine and trying to work around them. On a couple of occasions, they've also played "double team", moving together to make themselves too strong to attack and even attacking together (unlike in RTW when they would attack sequentially, not simultaneously).

The AI also builds bigger fleets and stacks them more. I had a fleet of 10 ships wiped out by the Danes (ouch).

The first few battles were a shock to the system. I had got used to winning with 10:1 losses as Romans in RTR: PE. But that's rare in M2TW. I think the combat formula has changed - units that look uber in stats (e.g. armored swordsmen) still take significant losses in battle with lesser ones. I don't think it is the VH difficulty skewing things - it is not supposed to - although may be it is.

The AI in battle is ok - the two main limitations are the passive behaviour under my archery (CA has said this is a bug); and the AIs tendency to run its archers too far forward from their supports, making them easy prey for cavalry. Otherwise, the AI tends to keep a decent formation and does not do suicide generals.

Sieges are much improved over RTW, IMO. And the AI seems better at both attacking and defending.

Whatever the reason, I am finding my first M2TW campaign (England on VH/VH) at turn 90, still tighter and more challenging than any TW game before except STW. And also more challenging than playing Romans in RTR and EB. The feeling it gives me is that it is like playing on the old risk maps of STW/MTW. You are always worried that pushing in one direction will leave you exposed in another.

My review of the AI was more or less directed at some of the old RTW habit the AI carried, such as its inability to invade Islands and its tendancy to lift sieges for no reason. I really didnt go on to discredit or credit the campaign AI in other regards.

Actually played it on Hard / Hard as HRE to seek a challenge as i knew i would be surrounded by enemies but not be completely swamped by financial restraints. However, having an empire in the middle of Europe, that stretched from Oslo down to Naples, and from Vienna to Antwerp, The AI was not able to take advantage of its position. Take in mind i was surrounded and at war with 7 catholic nations on my borders. The AI was unable to go past my border province castles and lay waste to my soft city-low garrisoned militia settlements. Poland, Venice, and Hungary just kept throwing men away against Fortress Vienna. Venetians would occasionally go for.. Venice, which i kept at city status. but no luck there. France, England, and Milanese "which i migrated to the west" took little opportunity to go for the reich's soft core either. Milanese at first kept going after Genoa and Milan, but then stopped after some time. France later picked that pattern up which by then i had those cities well garrisoned and fortified. the AI just kept banging on the same 3-4 settlements which i fortified. There were no hints of a Hannibalesque AI to be found. Frankfurt, Staufen, Innsbruck, Nurenburg all lightly defended high value cities ripe for the taking. Even Antwerp which was on the border with France seen no action. It was garrisoned on and off with 1-2 generals and 1 militia unit. The only time the AI managed to shock me was when i was initially expanding into southern Italy with my emperors SS division, the Venetians launched a 3 prong assault on Venice, Bologna, and Florence in one turn with 1 stack to each city. Lost all cept Venice which came down to the wire. I moved my southern army back up and easily recapped. The AI went kinda brain dead after that. Now if Poland went for Oslo, Stockholm, or Arhus Via ships, or Venetians went for Naples, Crete, or Palmero I would have been stunned. Otherwise it was the RTW camp AI with a couple new tricks up its sleeve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Whatever the reason, I am finding my first M2TW campaign (England on VH/VH) at turn 90, still tighter and more challenging than any TW game before except STW. And also more challenging than playing Romans in RTR and EB. The feeling it gives me is that it is like playing on the old risk maps of STW/MTW. You are always worried that pushing in one direction will leave you exposed in another.

---

well, im quiet agree for the Campaign Map, i think is the strong point of m2tw, with all that agents, merchant, princhess etc, but i still like more EB CM.

M2tw is very funny in your first campaign, but after you have finished it, you rather want to retry with another faction.

Regarding the Battles, they are boring, and all Easy. And you forget the nice graphics after 5 minutes of playing. (I'm very very poor sensible to the "cool!!!" factor) and they haven't impressed me, when you become used to the new graphics, you can appreciate even better the EB graphics, and even the RTR graphics, or IberianTW graphics.

so here my personal minivotes (from 1 to 5) for some popular mods (and i say personal, all what i wrote was a personal opinion, very much opinable):

Campaign Map how it is fun, intriguing etc.
M2TW +++
___EB ++++
__RTR +

Cool factor (it may depend, for someone can be the first 5 minutes of play, for others the first hour or even the first day you play, for other people could be it stay for all the time you play, for some people this factor is very important, for others it is useless) example: "wow! look at that building! i must call my friend to show him what i have on my monitor!", "look at that unit, it is very improbable they went to war dressed at that manner, but they are soo cool!"
M2TW +++++
___EB +
__RTR +++

Battles
i dont know, pheraphs im a strange man, but i found them boring. In EB/RTR/ITW at last they have so much different units and you have some tactical choices according to your unit roaster. Despites the great graphics, in M2TW all the units seem the same...
M2TW +
___EB ++
__RTR ++

Replay factor (in the short and medium period)
It is your compulsive wish to play it again...
M2TW ++
___EB +++
__RTR +++

Replay factor PLUS (in the very long period)
It is not a replay compulsive wish, but it is somethink that come from times to times, when you want to reload the mod just to see some units in action, to read a unit description you never had read before, just to see that unit you loved so much if it looks still good as the first time you saw it, ... etc... it's somethink more internal than the above replay factor.
M2TW +
___EB +++++
__RTR +++

all this is not to say i dont like it.
I like it almost the same as i like vanilla RTW.
It is a game, while EB is a more specialized think. Waiting even more for 0.8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

The first few battles were a shock to the system. I had got used to winning with 10:1 losses as Romans in RTR: PE. But that's rare in M2TW. I think the combat formula has changed - units that look uber in stats (e.g. armored swordsmen) still take significant losses in battle with lesser ones. I don't think it is the VH difficulty skewing things - it is not supposed to - although may be it is.

---

why wouldent it?. assuming that they have not changed the difficulty levels from RTW, the enemy gets +7 to attack and morale on every unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdwardL

Unit Balance - There really arent any super soldiers in the nature of spartan / gaesetae, and lack of phalanx really helps in that regard. Heavy cavalry will rape non spear infantry head to head if they get a good charge in with the exception of heavy infantry which arent wiped completely, but the unit will be in bad condition. Low tier spearman can beat most heavy cavalry once the charge is stopped, Just make sure that you dont let heavy cavalry charge you from the rear :) . Horse archers are still annoying as they should be. Once you get past the peasant level units, there seems to be a tighter knit of unit balance. Peasants are just kill fodder, while even militia can be effective if used properly.

---

Ok this is what i tried...

Making a custom battle on the edelweiss map and using several infantry units (not at the same time) against janissary pikeman or whatever they're called.
Always started with terrain advantage and charging downhill against the janissaries and i always lost. Used max morale and upgrades when available and the ones that got closer to beating the janissaries were....the Jaguar warriors :inquisitive:
Maybe i should try some more units but...so far...those janissaries seem pretty incredible...german dismounted knights spend more time tauting than fighting for instance... lol

Now those Jaguar warriors seem tough...i havent engaged with them on the campaign yet cause i made an alliance with them while i was conquering the other native rebel settlements...i guess i will have to take them out with arrows and cannon ...or maybe some heavy cav he he he.

Still i urge you guys to try that one on one thing with the janissary pikemen or spearmen of later period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obelics

Cool factor (it may depend, for someone can be the first 5 minutes of play, for others the first hour or even the first day you play, for other people could be it stay for all the time you play, for some people this factor is very important, for others it is useless)
M2TW +++++
___EB +
__RTR +++

---

EB is not cool? You HERITIC, the inquisitors of the Papal States will get you for that evil and un-orthodox comment!

Anyway, slightly more seriously: EB is one of those things that is, in theory, a load of generic rubbish that is practically pointless. However in practice it is one of the best things that ever happened to the TW community. So in theory it is rubbish, but in practice it is cooler than anything else that can be bought or downloaded for free. So it deserves at least three +'s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avlvs Libvrnivs Britannicvs Maximvs

EB is not cool? You HERITIC, the inquisitors of the Papal States will get you for that evil and un-orthodox comment!

Anyway, slightly more seriously: EB is one of those things that is, in theory, a load of generic rubbish that is practically pointless. However in practice it is one of the best things that ever happened to the TW community. So in theory it is rubbish, but in practice it is cooler than anything else that can be bought or downloaded for free. So it deserves at least three +'s.

---

please forgive me, it was not intended a specific hight-end cool factor, for example the first time I loaded the EB mod me too had a great "WOW!", but here i intend a "generic" low-end cool factor, intended for a wild range of people who have a "video-game" approach, so for example shine graphics, hi-res skins, eye candy or whatever you call it, etc. etc.

my only + to EB is intended as a compliment...:laugh4:
and as you can see i gave a +++++, to "replay PLUS" factor, that is a sort of deep addiction factor... me for example after have finished a france campaign with m2tw, returned to EB, and at the view of my mixed greek army composed even of samnite heavy infantry and spearmen and torakitai (my preferred infantry), and xistophoroy cavalry (it was an army trained in center italy) had a strong virtual emotion, it was so better for me...fresh air, "cool!" how someone could say, but im strange, and what is cool for me could be not cool for others.

salut!

PS it's me now that im not agree why "rubish" in theory? In theory it is an extreme Utopistical project, and if you too are a bit an "utopistical/idealistical" soul, you can understand it even better...
anyway i understood your joke, so this was just to explain my point.

Yes, it is ideal, but before I played EB I hated the idea. This was due to CA saying how historical accuracy can destroy gameplay and how rubbish and incomplete mod skins would be. When I started playing EB I loved it and found it much more entertaining than RTW vanilla, however. Henceforth I thought it was terrible at first, but I thought it was brilliant after I had played it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dram

why wouldent it?. assuming that they have not changed the difficulty levels from RTW, the enemy gets +7 to attack and morale on every unit.

---

Read Palamedes blog on difficulty levels. He says there are no such stat hikes and so far, I believe him.