Medieval II Total War - Impressions from a TW Veteran

Sorry for the boasting, but I play TW since 2000, and I own every game + TW Eras.

Now, I bought M2TW some 2 and a half months ago but I installed it only this week, on Monday. I was extremely excited to see that M2TW worked smoothly on my rig, although I feared it might be very slow. I own the special Collectors Edition, and I liked the extra bonuses in the package.

I installed the game, and I entered it very excited. After selecting the faction (HRE), it took me to the campaign map. I selected VH/VH, and so far I have moved on for about 55 turns in the campaign. My first view was "Wow, really nice, a bit improvement. It looks superb." I checked every option, got myself used to the Recruitment Pools, diplomacy, AI... I started building my empire, and I was surprised to see the Senate-type missions handed out. Nevertheless, it's a good plus to the gameplay. Battled against the Rebels, to test the AI and to see the different types of strategies you can use, how different are they from RTW. Diplomacy is now of more use, the different aspects such as the characteristics of your kingdom and the other kingdom are very useful when offering something. ~:)

No doubt about it, the AI and diplomacy have been improved. The AI is a bit smarter right now, but it still lacks serious matchups with the player. I played on VH/VH, and I haven't lost a single battle, even if it was 200 vs 500 for the computer. Diplomacy is indeed better, it's not as stupid as it once was, but there are some stupid things like allies attack you after 10 or 15 turns. (Milan besieged Bologna, same Venice, but they all got trashed...) :book:

As for the aspects of gameplay and variety, this is a very subjective opinion. If you have been playing lots of mods, like BKB and XL for MTW OR EB and RTR for RTW, you will be heavily dissapointed. At least for HRE, the unit recruitment is based just on some stereotypical units, such as Feudal Sergeants/Armoured Sergeants and Mailed Knights. Specifical units you might find at the other factions, such as the Byzantines, who are unfortunately blocked at the start of the game. :balloon2:

New features add to the uniqueness of the game, but from my opinion, if you are a big fan of the old TW (STW and MTW), your opinion from the start will change like a traffic light. The chess-style of MTW and the feeling are totally unknown to M2TW. The tracks try to represent the old MTW, but they are far off from the road. :thumbsdown:

My final opinion would be: If you're a newcomer, try it out, it's well worth the money. But if you're an old TW player, and you still love the old games, then just try it out and see if you like it. I for one, got bored of it, but there's a HUGE plus to it: Multiplayer. It rocks.

Mark: 7.5 out of 10

Enough ranting from me. Go and play! :grin:

if i was to rate it from a newbie perspective, i'd give it a 8.5 to a 9

if i played since shogun a solid 6...if you have been playing since then you will probably pick it up anyway, and them guys in suits and ties know that

i think multiplayer sucks, nothing new has been added and gamespy servers are as worse than ever :no:

also due to the shield and 2 hander bug you get alot of "dude, i was scots first" :wall:

but it never was a game built around multi, its kinda just thrown in there...the community makes it what it is, or was

It rocks on Multi because it can provide great weekend fun. All these new units, and it's slightly new, and people might expect something different from this. I enjoy it, but I do have connection problems.

It gets 7.5 because it's a very pleasurable game(it provides good fun), but it's deficitary. It will stay on our computers for a long time, but still the old ones are better.

Plus, it has huge modding capability. :grin:

Interesting take. To each their own I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Plus, it has huge modding capability. :grin:

---

Not a chance mate. This game is about as unmoddable as you can get, make me a list of stuff you can change and I'll make you a list 5 times as long of stuff you can't.

We're still at the beginning. We'll talk in half a year's time. ~:)

pending that spearmen will come out stronger for patch 1.2 im hoping to get more involved in multiplayer as i tire of all cav armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

New features add to the uniqueness of the game, but from my opinion, if you are a big fan of the old TW (STW and MTW), your opinion from the start will change like a traffic light. The chess-style of MTW and the feeling are totally unknown to M2TW. The tracks try to represent the old MTW, but they are far off from the road. :thumbsdown:

My final opinion would be: If you're a newcomer, try it out, it's well worth the money. But if you're an old TW player, and you still love the old games, then just try it out and see if you like it.

---

Interesting review, edyz. I didn't play STW, did play the original MTW (and loved it), didn't play Rome, and have been playing M2:TW off-and-on for a few months.

I've actually really enjoyed it, in spite of the bugs that will hopefully be fixed in patch 2. I liked the chess-style of MTW/STW, but in all honesty I don't miss it - the new style is simply different and good in its own right. I feel less like I'm playing a Risk-style board game and more like I'm managing a nation, which IMO helps the immersion factor.

It depends on your taste. Having a board-like game makes the game MUCH more tactical, and thus for more "veterans" while the RTW style helps new players. This is why RTW and M2TW have been so successful in comparison with MTW and STW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

It depends on your taste. Having a board-like game makes the game MUCH more tactical, and thus for more "veterans" while the RTW style helps new players. This is why RTW and M2TW have been so successful in comparison with MTW and STW.

---

How does having a "board-like" game make it more tactical as opposed to the free roaming map which presents opportunities for ambushes, battles in all kind of terrain, the defence of mountain passes etc?
I don't think limitation equates to more tactical. The only reason STW and MTW are like that is because there was no better way at the time. Now there is.

How exactly does a simplistic map lead to more tactical options?

I can see what you're getting at but if used properly, the current system has a huge potential.

Think of it like a chess game. You have to secure yourself(your territory), having enough troops to defend it, if you decide to attack. Plus, some moves are still MTW-only, like the cavalry charge. So far, it only works bug-free in MTW.

To me, MTW is far more tactical, even if you don't have ambushes or defence of mountain passes.

Also, one big thing, apart from the tactical. It's not the same feeling. I was dissapointed by the soundtrack, in comparison with the MTW one.

I'm pretty sure I know what edyz is getting at, and I agree with him: the strategic layout of MTW *was* more limiting in terms of movement abilities, but this very limitation simplified things for the AI and made it more of a challenge. The AI didn't need to worry about which exact tile it landed its troops on, how far away it could stray from the settlement before it was too far away to support it in the event of a lightning assault by the player, how many soldiers to keep in town vs in the province... there have been a million discussions about this in the RTW boards. Yes, the system does have potential, and I love the ability to maneuver my troops in ways undreamt-of with MTW, but I can see at the same time that this kind of setup makes things more difficult for the AI, and so the MTW strategic AI was more consistently ruthlessly effective.

Exactly. You are more limited, and thus you have to think seriously before you act. I for once in an MTW campaign, tried to conquer a province, but I left the one from where I started open. The next 5 turns I lost the one I conquered, the one who I already owned + 2 other provinces.

The AI would be better too in a limited enviornment since you don't have such a wide variety of things to program into the ai and can instead on focusing on programming the few things it has to worry about well

I, too, found the the soundtrack for Medieval 2 sorely lacking. Somehow, it is nowhere near as immersive as the the Medieval soundtrack was.

And having played MTW a lot, I can fully agree with edyzmedieval concerning the campaign map and tactical battles.

One more thing which severely dissapointed me was the lack of unit variety. MTW had a HUGE tech tree, and even the HRE had some really nice units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

One more thing which severely dissapointed me was the lack of unit variety. MTW had a HUGE tech tree, and even the HRE had some really nice units.

---

Econ and I had a good debate about that in another old thread. It would *appear* that M2TW actually has more units... But like you, I still think MTW had more variety. For example, the English have a large lineup, but 4 of those units are just variations on the "billmen" unit, and the other 4 are glorified "longbowmen" in M2TW.

:balloon2:

I agree that the M2TW campaign map requires less strategic thought, but that has relatively little to do with the make-up of the map itself. It has everything to do with the fact that the RTW/M2TW maps are far, far more complex, thus the AI has a harder time keeping up. The STW/MTW system was only more "strategic" because it was primitive enough to allow for a relatively simple AI. The failure of the new games to keep up is a failure of the AI to adapt as well to the complex map, it's not a failure of the map itself. The old system was nothing more than an elaborate version of Risk which, as much as I like it, is not exactly the pinnacle of strategic gameplay.

Indeed. As much as I still have very fond memories of STW and MTW, it's really hard now to go back to the old Risk style map and the 2D sprites. I love the new 3D map much much much much more than the old Risk style one. That doesn't mean it wasn't well done for the two games, but I'd never want to go back to it in future games. Also, it's been my experience that the AI does a decent enough job keeping it's front lines manned with heavy stacks, and it does a halfway decent job fighting a retreat before someone else's onslaught. In my last RTW campaign as Seleucia, I took on Egypt fairly early and keep it on a fighting retreat. Egypt did a very admirable job of trying to overpower me at every turn and stop/push me back. Even when I got to the "warm chewy center" of the empire that would (theoretically) be very lightly defended, they did a good job of keeping the pressure on. I ended up whipping them soundly, but it was due to generalship, not weight of numbers. Most often they had me outnumbered, in fact as I finally play as Seleucia, it makes me realize why Egypt becomes a superpower so quickly.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

The failure of the new games to keep up is a failure of the AI to adapt as well to the complex map,

---

Actually it's a total failure in AI updating at all. When you read the AI files and look at the on map behavior the AI is still treating the map as if it#'s risk style. SO it does absolutely no forward planning and doesn't alter or change decisions it's already made based on the current circumstances.

Quote:

---

Not a chance mate. This game is about as unmoddable as you can get, make me a list of stuff you can change and I'll make you a list 5 times as long of stuff you can't.

---

No offense Whacker, but this statement is utter garbage.

The Game is supremely moddable ATM, and whilst not as moddable as many of say Relic's games, it's still very good. The majority of games I own cannot be modded AT ALL, and of those that i do own that CAN be modded, only 2, (M2TW and DoW), are easily moddable and well supported by the respective companies, (by well supported I mean you can go on one of their big forums and instantly find out how to mod the game and be up and running inside half an hour, I'm sure UT2003, (as an example of game I have that I know can be modded but isn't well supported IMHO), has modding forums somwhere, but they are nigh on impossibbile to find and somehow i doubt it would be something i could pick up in half an hour like i did with Dow/M2TW).


I've actually seen various posts elsewhere by you about this in the modding forums, and what you and others are asking for simply isn't realistic. The level of modability and code access you want is fairly large, and based on what I understand of copyright issues from many license and terms of use documents I've read, opening up the engine to the degree you want would have to be handled very carefully if they are to avoid putting their own copyright at risk.

Most companies wouldn't take the risk of something slipping past them and putting their copyright at risk, so in reality your being totally unrealistic in your demands. The best you can hope for is for more of the hard-coded values to be made moddable. Anything more is likely to be wishful Thinking unless CA is one of those rare companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl

No offense Whacker, but this statement is utter garbage.

---

None taken, but on the same token this statement here:

Quote:

---

The Game is supremely moddable ATM

---

is just as wrong and patently false. If you really want to, please feel free to PM me and we can debate this. Be more than happy to talk about it there.

Edit - Same to you fenir, if you'd like to debate it, please PM me, be glad to chat about it.

Whacker, I too am wondering what you mean.
I have been modding games for as long as I can remember, and nearly all the TW series are very modder friendly by comparisions to other games.

We have unit, Resource, map, factions, and yes, we would all like more in the way of numbers of resources and unit access, and more depth to the ablility we already have, but we must be realistic.
We have diplomacy AI DB, Campaign AI DB, we have modded almost everything we normally do.
So please, which part (realistically) is there that we cannot?

But as it stands, the game is very modd friendly IMHO.

This is one area I will not fault CA for. I applaud them.

2. My impression of the Patch (unoffical) 1.2u.........very good improvement, but so much was not fixed.
All together, we got what we wanted of the P1 fixes, but thats it basically.
Lots of room for improvement

average patch 5 / 10

Will wait for the Offical version now, but i don't anticipate any great change to the line up.


fenir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Indeed. As much as I still have very fond memories of STW and MTW, it's really hard now to go back to the old Risk style map and the 2D sprites. I love the new 3D map much much much much more than the old Risk style one. That doesn't mean it wasn't well done for the two games, but I'd never want to go back to it in future games. Also, it's been my experience that the AI does a decent enough job keeping it's front lines manned with heavy stacks, and it does a halfway decent job fighting a retreat before someone else's onslaught. In my last RTW campaign as Seleucia, I took on Egypt fairly early and keep it on a fighting retreat. Egypt did a very admirable job of trying to overpower me at every turn and stop/push me back. Even when I got to the "warm chewy center" of the empire that would (theoretically) be very lightly defended, they did a good job of keeping the pressure on. I ended up whipping them soundly, but it was due to generalship, not weight of numbers. Most often they had me outnumbered, in fact as I finally play as Seleucia, it makes me realize why Egypt becomes a superpower so quickly.

:balloon2:

---

I don't agree with you here, unfortunately. I like the old risk-style map because the AI KISS (kept it simple & stupid). Nothing too complicated, and many times I ended with my whole army led by a 5 star general routed heavily.

The RTW AI proved really easy to counter, even on VH/VH.

I'll get in touch later today, i'm getting some testing in on my V1.24 Rebuild-ProblemFixer ATM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Think of it like a chess game. You have to secure yourself(your territory), having enough troops to defend it, if you decide to attack. Plus, some moves are still MTW-only, like the cavalry charge. So far, it only works bug-free in MTW.

To me, MTW is far more tactical, even if you don't have ambushes or defence of mountain passes.

Also, one big thing, apart from the tactical. It's not the same feeling. I was dissapointed by the soundtrack, in comparison with the MTW one.

---

I tend to think of these issues as more a strategic consideration.

M2TW, I think just lacks one thing right now - apart from a couple of bugfixes perhaps - and that's the possibily of being modded. I mean: they [CA] improved battle AI, engine, graphics. It's just this anoying: you have more than 10 - 12 provinces? Oops, not anymore: we'll attack you en masse. It's just the GUI (I hate it, I think RTW's to be much better). It's just the font style. It's just...




...that we've become spoiled with all the mods out there and the standards that have been set and which we judge M2TW by? Perhaps?



:hide:

...Medieval.

The GUI is nice, pleasant. But the AI is stupid. I can't do a single move in the campaign without Milan or Venice attacking my Italian cities.

My biggest problem with the game is that since RTW the series kinda became more arcade like and more unrealistic. To boil it down, I hate the fact that you can have armies comprised of elite units. In RTW it was units like the pretorian cohorts and urban cohorts, just to name a few.
In M2TW its units like the socts guard and sherwood archers. IMO these kinds of elite units have no place in largescale wars. CA should either remove them or limit them.
But thankfully some great people made a realism mod for RTW and im sure that someone will make a realism mod for M2TW.
And I see that the trend is gitting worse, as the expansion gives us special generals with special abilities, like confusing units....what the hell is that all about? And teutonic knights with bigass ornaments on their helmets. Cant say that I like the direction CA is taking my beloved TW series:(

If the AI could handle it, then, yes, the map of MTW2 would be far better than the Risk style map of MTW. But think of it in another way. In MTW, each battle was significant. If you lost a battle, you either lost the province or became besieged. In RTW/MTW2 most battles are not such important things.

Even if you claim that the MTW campaign AI was not up to scratch(which I think is nonsense), the battle AI was brilliant. When I first started playing MTW(I hadn't played Shogun), I was delighted with the fact that most battles were hard-fought. In fact, since RTW, I reckon my tactical ability has plummeted, due to the horrible AI.

I agree that the MTW AI was the best of the series, but I wouldn't call it brilliant by any means. It was not difficult to beat once you got a feel for it and the only battles I ever lost where when I was heavily outnumbered, which is no different than in M2TW. It seems to me that time is improving the reputation of the MTW AI in many peoples' minds. The best it the series by a small margin, but not remotely difficult.

I think that's generally a problem all the TW games have. Their mechanics are so complex that it's very, very difficult to write an excellent AI for them. I think the only real way to get it done would be to opensource the AI code and allow 10,000 people to have a go at it.