Army variety - who's wrong: EB or M2TW?

After playing M2TW since release and stopping with EB (to build energy) I've noticed that M2TW units are extremely repetitive with notable exceptions.

I'm simplifying over here, but to me it feels like every army is the same. You have heavily armored infantry and cavalry for almost every faction who just change the color of their clothes. This is extremely dull. Yes, Byzantium has its own unique lamellar equipment and the Muslim factions differentiate their skins and equipment from the rest as does the Timurids and Mongols. But it's all a big spear militia slugfest at the beggining and later on a massive plate armor gallore, untill gunpowder comes in and adds a bit more variety.

Yes, there are exceptions such as the English longbowmen and whatever else but EB in the ancient time period is much more varied than I previously thought or recognized. Now I see how fun it was building armies with the Getai, now that's a faction with a full range of different and varied units to choose from. I used to think EB was a boring phalanx-fest but not anymore. Even though the successors are full of phalanxes we have alot more unique units in EB. Carthage, Rome, Baktria, Egypt, Nomads, Barbarians. There's shared equipment, tactics and units, true, but to a much lesser extent than what you find in M2.

This is by no means a negative critic on M2. I've had alot of fun with it so far, the game is great and the units look fantastic although Obelics/Artarse would cry with the extremely low quality faces on some of the units. I also note CA's effort to give different weapons to equal units of different factions in an attempt to break the tedium.

I just wonder: was there as much variety in the armies of the Ancient world as we see in EB or is M2 lacking in greater details although the exceptions to the spear+men-at-arms zerg stacks do exist? In case the second is a negative, then is Medieval warfare this boring indeed? It's nothing compared to a Roman legion marching against an army of Gauls and their naked fanatics. Granted, it's a great and fun game however dull the armies of the time period appear to be.

In EB every faction has its own armor skin, weapons, shields. In M2 it's the same stuff with different colors.

I think that CA just give the basic units - so as to keep the balance of the game as a relatively simple equation. The comparison with RTW would be better - there CA give a basic array of nations and units - It is then down to the modders to add the flare of addition nations and armies if enough people desire it - case in point EB, where people wanted a more in depth and historically and intellectually stimulating game - I am very much looking forward to the latest version of EB to give me this experience - M2TW is a great game and I will enjoy playing that, but I will also still have a place for playing EB because it is a different experience altogether.

I'm no historian but I would say or guess that no 2 men in any unit had the same equipment or weapons or armor except for the richest country's, tribes or city-states. Because pc capabilities today the only way to possibly and for entertainment to make a strategy war game. Let me know if I am wrong.

Well, from what I understand, equipment was not that standardized; however, similar troop types did tend to be clustered together, and they did tend to have the same basic kinds of weapons. Archers, for example, would likely carry daggers, shortswords and hatchets because their primary focus was on their bows; milita would tend to use spears because it was the simplest, cheapest and easiest weapon to make and use, not to mention polloxes for the same reasons; men-at-arms and seargents would have a little more variety, but they still had the same "range" of weaponry, this being spears and polloxes, and swords (though to a lesser extent.) And the Knights, being the wealthiest, would have the best weaponary as well, weaponary which would be focused on being able to combat other armoured men, which meant swords, and later warhammers and maces.

Sure, the weapons weren't all the same, but the general representation isn't so bad.

Too generic and boring units were problem with MTW1 too. It was only with mods like WesW MedievalMod which fixed the problem and brang some diversity to armies. MTW1 vanilla was, in the end, all about fighting against worthless riff raff bands of peasants and crossbowmen.

This is one of the reason why I don't buy M2TW until it has quality modbase supporting it. I does not have to be EB like übermod, but I'm already used to fact that "serious" games(titles that need historical research) are very rarely interesting in their vanilla form.

At least now they are dressed differently within the unit. That's a start.

Part of the problem might be that by the medieval period, warfare is beginning to get "codified" and what has proven to work is what's adopted across the board.

In medieval europe there wasnt a whole lot of the area that was unknown to each of the contesting powers.

In the period covered by RTW, it was probably not all that uncommon for some of the lesser "factions" to meet on the field of battle for the first time with larger factions and have a "wth??" moment as they look across at the different armor/dress/weapon styles presented.

By the medieval period, armor and weapon manufacturing has gone through enough evolutions that it's worked its way to a fairly common consistancy.

Due to costs and such, I'd guess there was a fair bunch of "legacy" equipment (hand-me-downs from grandpa's days on campaign) and such, but can that really be implemented within a game system at current levels of tech? How would that be implemented? Have a random chance that some percent of the poor fools in each unit are going to be in some half rusted old funky stuff? or a patchwork of boiled leather and chain pieces?

I'm not meaning to jab at anyone or anything, my knowledge of the time periods is really limited but it does seem to me that by the time period of M2TW, arms and armor would have been at least somewhat into the process of becoming uniformed in acceptance of what works and what doesnt.

Most of the factions in the MTW time period were at roughly the same level of development. It would be like an RTW game just set in Greece for example where all the various cities had pretty much the same armies.

The scot army list provided me with a surprise : nakes higjlanders, two handed sword wielding nobles and nakes pikemen for the highlands troops while the lowlands receive their share of spearmen and pikemen, both lightly or heavily armored. They have a variation of hard hitting but badly armored ligh cavalry and few knights. I had fun playing them, the style is really different. Danish troops too proved to be innovative.

For the french army i think they nearly got it right, except that sergeants and town militia should have received a bit more love. the HRE is a joke, the muslim factions missed it and i haven't tested Byzantium ans Spain yet.

All in all, it's in the right mood but some factions (France for instance, or HRE) should benefit of local troops like mail clad normand knights or flemmish pikemen and militia (armed with godendags of course.)

In this instance, i think the EB team demonstrated that local troops added flavor to the game and strategic objectives. In the same way i like to add the fast moving and hard hitting Bagaudas to the Aedui forces i'd like to add the Sergeants from the town of Soissons or the Knights of Ile-de-France to mu french army list in M2TW.
Which sort of makes me seriously consider joining a modding team.

I think the point is that in M2TW nearly every single unit with 'Spear' in it's name is exactly the same, save for the colors. Such things, but if I'm mistaken then the thread really is about - gah, Medieval warfare is just a bunch of all guys wearing basically the same, and not about - gah, CA creates a game, and isn't concerned with adding any variety at all.

If it's about history, then the great invasions that had taken place before the game's timeframe may explain why most units are the same. That is because there is basically one dominant culture, with one dominant fighting style - that of the Romanised Germans. It has developed over time, of course, and thus it isn't remarkable to see there were actually big diferences between say the South and the North - but still, all the basics are pretty much the same. What can't be explained by these lines of thought though is: 'why on earth are the Saracens wearing Norman equipment?' :wall:

I'd add that the spear is a basic weapon since a long, long time and is easy to build. You can also use a sharpened long staff, iron is not necessary.
Reading Jean Froissart's chronicles we learn that knights, when they fought on foot, used first the spaer or the glaive and then the sword/axe/mace has a secondary choice. Commoners and mercenaries used the spear as soon as they had to fight in order and ressorted to other weapons in siege fights or when the fight turned to a "press."
This weapon switching is illustrated at the Rosebeke battle fought by the footed french knights and militia against the flemmish militia. On the initial shock the french resorted to spears, fauchards and glaives. When they encircled the flemmish and the fight turn into a gigantic press they took axes, mallets and sword and slaughtered their enemies (Too bad Charles VI was mad when Azincourt was fought, this king knew how to use its host.)

To put it learly EVERYBODY used spears or spear like weapons. That's a fact.

Then it does not explain that in this game nobody uses flails, maces or other, commonly found weapons in this age.
IT does not explain either that the various forms of pikes, spears and other polearms are not representend in game while they were in the first (footed noble knights used glaives and boy, were they nasty !)

PS : basically, not being able to switch mounted/footed troops like in medieval is disappointing.