-
Here some small bits of info from gamespy's latest preview (link on the main page) concerning SP:
-We do have simulated plagues. As a siege begins to last over multiple turns, people begin to die of dysentery.
-You can rule by fear, but then suddenly your king gets assassinated, and the empire breaks down, because he's not there as the source of that dread in the population. You can even have civil war.
-The historical battles are great one-offs. We have the Battle of Hastings, the Hundred Years War. Frederick Barbarossa is an interesting German campaign. In real life, a huge proportion of his army dropped dead from syphilis, and he fell off a horse and died. We've included a "what if?" scenario, because Barbarossa had been poised to charge into historical stardom. We've got Richard the Lionheart vs. Saladin in the Third Crusade. And we've got the Mongol Horde Invasion. They swept over all of Europe like an unstoppable tide until the Great Khan died and they all got called back for the funeral. And we'll keep adding more, post-release. Maybe we'll have a William Wallace campaign as a download after release. Plus, a map editor will ship with the game, and that's really easy to use.
-GameSpy: You have assassins in this game. Are the Hashishim (the original assassins) represented?
Michael: Yes. Lots of units are culturally specific. Italians get poisoners, the Eastern factions have the Hashishim, and so forth. England has Witchfinders, you can accuse people of heresy, and if they're convicted they can be burned at the stake. That's a type of assassination, but the Witchfinder's zeal increases with each conviction. If he gets pushed over the edge, he can go berserk and start accusing your men, or even you, of heresy.
The next few are from PC.IGN (again a link on the main page):
-Each nation will also have a specific Glorious Victory condition. England, for example, can win the game by mounting a large enough Crusade to reclaim the Holy Land. Venice is tasked with building an enormous trade empire. The Danes are set to reconquer England, which they had lost it in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings. Specific events like the Black Death and Marco Polo's trip to China will also appear during the game and shift events in a new direction.
-If your king survives a few assassination attempts, he may become Paranoid and start executing the people closest to him.
From action vault(again bla, bla...):
-The first is that attacking cavalry will actually have momentum; units that charge into enemy lines will penetrate two or three rows deep. (To lucky demo owners: Have you had the chance to see this?)
-Players will also noticed that the morale meter of their units will now have a reason for the unit's current rating. This a great feature because it means that no more wondering if units are starting to flee because they're being out-flanked or because they're getting tired. (To lucky demo owners: Is this feature usefull?)
------------------
La vie est un don.
-
On the first question, if youy watch closley you can see the first of the cavalry forcing their way into the unit.
The moral can be usefull, things like "worried about unprotected flanks" can tell you about a risk. But "encouraged by the general" or "worried by high casualtiues dont make much of a difference.
------------------
"A warriors death in battle should be bloody"
-
"High casualties" and "encouraged by general" dont seem to make much of a difference and in some ways are "no brainers" but they do actually influence your troops a lot.
These tips are more for the less experienced gamer though and to help indicate clearly why troops may be routing or running away or just wavering.
I know its obvious to experienced gamers that its better not to send in a depleted unit over a full complement unit but...
Units worried by casualties will break easier and get even more nervous when flanked - the tips need to be judged cumulatively really - if you keep weakened units close to the general (especially a dreaded one) and with protected flanks (rather than putting them on the flanks) it does help.
As with the general - so long as he isnt dead or routed or fleeing you and you are NEAR him - you will get the encouraged by the general... but it helps judge the generals influence "radius", remind you if he is still alive or if hes running away.
Other key ones are "Frightened by artillery" and "feeling safe on the hill".
To the new gamer if they see "Feeling safe on the hill" "Happy flanks are protected" encouraged by the general" - all scrolling by then you know you're in a good situation.
Ive seen a big unit of royal knights charge right through a strecthed unit of foot - keeping massed ranks is important against cavalry - if they break through in a charge you get routed almost immediately.
Spreading a thin unit of foot across your bow line is often used - that's just fresh meet in MTW, you need spearmen at least 4 ranks deep to have a hope, even though only the first two ranks can fight...and if you have them in loose order then they are toast against a wdge charge (and also by key charge-bonus infantry like gallowglass, vikings and clansmen etc)
[This message has been edited by Darkmoor_Dragon (edited 06-22-2002).]
-
Thanks for your time and input Darkmoor_Dragon. Your description of what happens when cav plows through a foot unit or spearmen having to be 4 rank deep to be effective are very encouraging to me.
------------------
La vie est un don.
-
yeah same here the way cav seems to penetrate lines is gonna be cool
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
-
On the issue of spearmen there is a stat in the units file that determines how many ranks can support the front line in melee. For Spearmen it was 2 and for Pikemen it was 4.
So in other words you should have at least Spearmen 3 ranks deep and Pikemen 5.
No indication of how much support the front rank gets from those behind so it's one of those things to playtest.
-
?
CA said that only the first 2 ranks of spearmen could fight (ie row 1 and 2) - wouldnt that column refer to that? (rather than 1 + the next 2 rows)
-
a question about the generals on the field.
Are they represented on the field like in the shogun games ie "hidden" in a normal unit, or are they a special figure ?
-
Another interesting info found in 2 previews out of 4. It seems that troops will be easier to disengage from melee (and in one preview they add *to fall back and regroup*). Did anyone had the chance to experience this with the demo?
------------------
La vie est un don.
-
I guess not.
SOmehow I think the general should be represented as a seperate unit, not as part of a normal one.....
-
Darkmoore, this is the column heading from the stats file:
'NumSupportingRanks Number of ranks behind first that can give support in melee. Default is 0.'
Kuma, I found that it was much easier to disengage. This enhances the use of cavalry, charge them in withdraw and charge again. Works well.
But the main thing is that you can charge those archers/foot soldiers that have spearmen behind, then as the spearmen come to get you, withdraw the cavalry and allow your following MenAtArms to take over.
I was playing 96mgb's custom battle and basically all of both armies were engaged in a mass brawl with my Knights in the middle of it. I was able to disengage them and bring them round for a flank charge. Something that was impossible in STW.
-
The "actual" general is represented by a square flag ( I say actual as its that precise unit figure that is regarded as the general)
DrNo - thanks - leads to some confusion that does - i'll try to get it clarified this week when i revisit.
Disengaging: Yeah it seemed much easier - if you "walk" the unit out from mellee you can actual see those units involved in mellee walking backwards fighting. Some of the more impetous units just dont listen though - and other low-class ones like peasants tend to get into trouble if you try to disengage them... all units tend to take more casualties if going backwards (though that could have been imagination).
What (appeared to be) the major factor in disengagment was whether or not the unit you were disengaging was the prime focus of the attacking unit - if they were just supporting another unit who was the prime target then they were easy to disengage - if not, if they were the direct focus of the attacking unit they were more difficult to disengage - i think unit experience and quality/type also comes into it as described above. (Easier to disengaage mounted units fighting footmen)
-
