Medieval III: Total War Announced!

Made you look!!

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Am I the only one who's day would be made if this were true?
M2 was supposed to be not a graphically improved revisit of the Medieval period, but rather a reworking of the game set in the same period.
While the graphics surpassed my picky wants, the game itsself had very few inovations. The recruiting system was greatly improved, but other than that...nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I like the game, it just seems like such wasted potential since they will certainly never come out with MIII: TW, despite my greatest wishes.
I made SOO many easy to implement suggestions that would have COSMICALLY improved the game, and yet, they STILL made a RTW clone!

:furious2: :furious2: :furious2: :furious2: :furious2: :furious2: :furious2: :furious2:


EDIT: I mean suggestions like being able to go through the expensive process of retraining your troops to improve their battlefield endurance, attack, reload time, accuracy, etc. None of those simple variables showed up. Stuff like that would have REALLY made the game, and that all my other suggestions were ignored.

We are getting Empire:TW instead, after that probablly an expansion, and after that a break period and after that rumors of a new TW game, at least that's how it's been after Shogun.

Yeah, but my hopes aren't exceptionally high for Empire. :P I'm sure they will put a great game together, but it will never be as good as they had the chance to make M2: TW, cause it is not in the medieval setting. :P
lol

They had such as opportunitty...and they threw it to the wind...

I will go bitch elsewhere. :P

Hell no ive just purchaded Med2 with kingdoms. Med2 was supposed to be around £15 I think which is what I wanted but I got kningdoms expansion aswell for only £20. Can't beat ASDA best supermarket.

Quote:

---

it just seems like such wasted potential since they will certainly never come out with MIII: TW, despite my greatest wishes.

---

How do you know? Are you psychic? :idea2: It seems like anything is possible, I mean they already revisited Medieval, so why not again in the future? I mean there are plenty of time periods to explore that they have not tried yet, but Empires will satisfy me all the same. Gunpowder becomes dominant in warfare during this time period, which means there will be skirmishing again, something which drastically lacks in the cavalry rush-fest that is medieval 2 total war.

Quote:

---

I made SOO many easy to implement suggestions that would have COSMICALLY improved the game, and yet, they STILL made a RTW clone!

---

Oh didn't we all? Hehe.

Oh,Vuk,now that's just wrong! You got me pumped for MIII,all for naught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

[SIZE="5"]
Don't get me wrong, I like the game, it just seems like such wasted potential since they will certainly never come out with MIII: TW, despite my greatest wishes.

---

Creative Assembly has never refined any of the TW releases to their full potiential. STW was the closest they got to maximizing potential, but even that fell short. They cut and run to make the next TW game in order to maximum monetary profit. This ensures that none of the releases ever get the refinement they need to realize their potential. As the game system have become more complicated, the gap between realized potential and full potential has widened.

Forgettng about potential, I just wish Creative Assembly would make all the features that they put in their games work properly, and also give the players access to all the parameters necessary to balance the game at both the strategic and tactical levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpartanGlory198

Oh,Vuk,now that's just wrong! You got me pumped for MIII,all for naught.

---

lol, sorry. :P I would love if it were true also. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Creative Assembly has never refined any of the TW releases to their full potiential. STW was the closest they got to maximizing potential, but even that fell short. They cut and run to make the next TW game in order to maximum monetary profit. This ensures that none of the releases ever get the refinement they need to realize their potential. As the game system have become more complicated, the gap between realized potential and full potential has widened.

Forgettng about potential, I just wish Creative Assembly would make all the features that they put in their games work properly, and also give the players access to all the parameters necessary to balance the game at both the strategic and tactical levels.

---

I kind of agree with you, but I gotta say STW was not the closest IMO. I think that RTW and STW both came close in their own way, and that a blend of them would be very close to perfect. M2TW's recruiting system is a major improvement though, I will give it that. In short, I really don't think that one ever came closer than another. (maybe it gets down to what you are looking for)
I just wish they would try some basic CORE game improvements instead of just changing the setting or graphics.
Not to say that they un "Total Warify" it, but that they BUILD, and improve.

I suppose if you are satisfied with a lack of unit diversity then Shogun was great, but for the sake of integrating a variety of tactics used in the historical period, diversity is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8Koala

I suppose if you are satisfied with a lack of unit diversity then Shogun was great, but for the sake of integrating a variety of tactics used in the historical period, diversity is needed.

---

The STW/MTW battle engine is a better simulation of reality than the RTW/M2TW engine. The quality of the simulation is an important factor in determining the variety of tactics that are possible. For instance, the "squeezed to tight" combat penalty in the older engine is important tactically, but that tactical feature was dropped in the newer engine. Also, the AI doesn't know how to use some of the tactical features added in the later games, and some of them are not very well implemented. For instance, the phalanx in RTW remains screwed up after several patches. At least spears in Shogun work properly, and that's extremely important for the proper functioning of combined arms tactics which is what the AI in all the TW games is designed to use. When the RPS doesn't work the AI is a pushover, and multiplayer is also less than interesting. The penchant of Creative Assembly to have cavalry dominate the game ever since MTW is not historically correct for any of the periods covered by the TW games.

The variety of unit types you mention is "smoke and mirrors". There were only about 14 cost effective units out of the approximately 100 units in MTW, and many of those 100 units were redundant. Also, the combat system only supports a limited number of units that are significantly different from one another. Some features were added in the later games, but the AI doesn't know how to use many of those features. Secondary weapon for melee units was added in RTW, but the AI doesn't use them and therefore, for instance, it doesn't make use of the armor piercing capability of an axe for cavalry that use a lance as the primary weapon. Artillery was added starting with MTW and it moves in RTW, but the AI doesn't know to protect its artillery. When the AI moves its army it leaves the artillery exposed to attack. Shields were added, but the AI doesn't know how to use the shield. It doesn't even know its men have shields. In RTW, the AI runs it's troops everywhere with no consideration for fatigue. In Shogun it walks its troops until they get within a certain proximity of the enemy. In Shogun, the AI coordinates two AI armies on the battlefield. In RTW, the AI doesn't make any attempt to coordinate multiple armies. In Shogun, the AI will move a unit under ranged attack out of range and into the cover of trees if possible. In RTW, it leaves the unit standing there being shot, and in many cases it doesn't even put the unit into loose formation. Armor piercing weapon was added in MTW which is a nice feature, but the AI is designed to choose targets based on combat power differential, so if enemy armored units have a high defense, as they often do, the AI is going to use the armor piercing weapon to attack a weaker unit which wastes the armor piercing capability.

Another factor in the successful use of tactics is reasonable predictability of success of a particular tactic. If there is too much randomness in the combat result, you can't efficiently utilize the tactics because your decisions are undermined by chance. Starting with the RTW engine, the randomness of the combat results increased dramatically. You can offset this by making the combat bonuses for a particular tactic larger, but this doesn't enhance realism. To my mind that makes the gameplay less realistic and more "gamey". I did Monte Carlo simulations for years as part of my work, and I can see a robust statistical engine when I test it. Unlike STW/MTW, RTW does not have a robust statistical engine, and since M2TW is based on RTW I doubt very much that this aspect improved because Creative Assembly doesn't even acknowledge that it's important to the quality of the simulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

In short, I really don't think that one ever came closer than another. (maybe it gets down to what you are looking for)

---

It gets down to what determines quality. I don't buy into the, "One thing isn't better than another. It's only different.", viewpoint. Features that don't work properly don't increase the quality of a game. Features that the AI doesn't know how to use are effectively exploits for the player to use against the AI. You can also see a trend in this series where the battlefield interface has been simplified so that it can be sold to less adept players. I suppose in some backwards way of thinking one might consider that an improvement in quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I just wish they would try some basic CORE game improvements instead of just changing the setting or graphics.

---

The graphics quality is what sells the product. Personally, I'd be happy with stick men with most the effort going into improving the simulation and implementing modest diplomacy improvements that actually work logically, but that's never going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

There were only about 14 cost effective units out of the approximately 100 units in MTW, and many of those 100 units were redundant.

---

Now that si a good point, I would much prefer there to be only a few units of what would actually have been seen on a preffessional battlefield. Town Watch will not have been included so why have they been in TW games? Also I would like to see garrison buildings taken furthe so you do not need extra troops to garrison so you could focus on your elite armies.

Quote:

---

Creative Assembly has never refined any of the TW releases to their full potiential

---

That's what mods are for....
Your are right though, but it doesn't stop the TW games from being at least interesting.