One way of looking at things, if the target audience are those who generally have limited historical knowledge, is that hopefully it will inspire some interest in learning more about the period. I think this is probably already the case
......Orda
Printable View
One way of looking at things, if the target audience are those who generally have limited historical knowledge, is that hopefully it will inspire some interest in learning more about the period. I think this is probably already the case
......Orda
[quote=Turin]I'll be honest.
I love historical accuracy as much as most of you but really, as long as the game isn't buggy and there isn't some terrible imbalance, I'm fine with it. It seems already that the units look real, historically inaccurate, but real nevertheless. No more bright 80's dance floor colors at least. quote]
I agree with Turin about the historical accuracy, the bug factor and the bright disco colours. The historical accuracy will come with the mods as it did with RTR, EB, & the soon to be coming out NAP 2.
Plus I hope that it will be far less buggy than RTW & BI, it was annoying & shameful, what slipped through when they released RTW but also the skins for the merc (all green, the kermit the frog brigades) and bright blue for the Thracians and etc.
Here's with hope that MTW2 will be worthy or equal to MTW.:book:
It had that affect on me in regards to both STW and MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
But it is pretty hard to look up Chosen Axemen or Warband... I guess the names of RTW were just a little too generic. They were there in MTW as well (Feudal Men at arms? Can't look that up either), but at least their names were to an extent more connected to the period.
Well, it must be granted that Medieval - or for that matter ancient barbarian - military terminology tended not be characterized by excessive pedantism or concern for clear-cut typology...
Put this way: you tell me what's the main difference between HYW "varlets" and "gros varlets" (types of mounted troops AFAIK) besides the latter being heavier equipped...? And I for one haven't the faintest idea what the English called their equivalents, if they even had those in the first place.
It is a very optimistic thing to believe that most people are competent or willing to actually learn from a game or learn because of a game. But it just doesn't happen that way in general.
Sure, historically correct units can look cool, but in general the money and time they have to invest into getting historically correct units and the return the get on their efforts makes research not worth it. 95% of their audience won't even know the difference.
I beg to differ... It costs what? 100$ in all to get the assorted Osprey MAA books on the subject. They provide ample amounts of subjects for inspiration (I do not say they have to copy them, just get one of those 'aha'-experiences).Quote:
Originally Posted by Turin
Besides, they are already dishing out plenty of semi-researched stuff. Meaning, they HAVE to look it up somewhere to get it. Not that that means it is correct or perfect.
And learning... Well, it is true that neither they nor we can expect people to understand the difference. But if most SP people are like me (though I doubt it), they will read the little description of the unit. That alone will provide quite a few interesting moments. If the unit hassome cool looks and sounds great too, while being at least a fairly good unit, chances are that not a few will do at least a cursory internet search on them.
And as for the generic units.
Ghazi > Warband
Ghazi would in RTW terms have been called Fanatics, but so would Futuwwa and Nizari. Flavour please.
"Ghazi" is probably a pretty bad example, as the word has way wider connotations than the MTW one...
A ghazi is a person who fights as a volounteer for his faith against infidels.
If a man did that he earned to be called that. In time people have earned it as a name as well.
Anyway it pretty much fits the unit of the game, a devout warrior.
Even if it is only one of several ways it can be used, it can still be used this way and thus not wrong. While not prfect it adds leaps an bounds more flavour than truly english generic names do.
[EDIT]Looked up the word. Seems I was slightly wrong. A Ghazi is a warrior that has successfully fought infidels. And it is/was often given as a title to said warriors, hence the names today.
Can also be understood as warrior/raider in more generic terms.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ghazi
There is a new screenshot up.
It shows some Egyptain/Turkish heavy cavarly (look at the flags) running near what looks a hell of a lot like the walls of Constantinople.
Maybe Constaninople and other big cities will have their own unique layout and walls.
I've definetly spent a lot more time looking at the units close up with EB. And I must say, I really like these MTW2 pics!
Ooo!
http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_04.jpg
http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_05.jpg
Looks like some of the town is outside the walls, the settlements in general seem to be a huge improvement. :)
Constantinopole didn't sit smack in the middle of sandy desert, last I checked...Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
Anyway, those fellows seem to have most of the appropriate "eastern heavy cavalry" look about them. I'm under the impression fairly substantial shoulder and upper arm defenses over the mail were the norm though, and the European-style lances are definitely off.
I think it's actually the Egyptians attacking the Turks.
They aren't that western in style... Just more like evolved spears. Though I have never seen such lances for eastern factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Yes, the shoulder should be more protected than the forearm, it is after all more likely to get struck. But such small matter are not important to me. This unit looks very well and I accept its minor faults. I like it... It's spectacular (and stylish) without being too incorrect.
And yes, it seems like Egypt vs Turks.
And just so the rest of you don't have to running over to the .com (taken from there)
http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_13.jpg
A spear evolved like that is quite specifically the European-style cavalry lance adapted for use with solid body armour (to absorb part of the impact). And to my knowledge never used by the "Easterners", who stuck with more traditional permutations of the cavalry spear that weren't so much one-use "alpha strike" shock weapons.
Just bugs me is all. Though I'd imagine this gets weeded out for the commercial release - the graphics and unit models ought to still be in somewhat early stages after all.
Well, that unit does look finished, so I doubt it will change.
We can of course hope they will change the lance to a spear, but I doubt it.
What I meant was that European lances were more pronounced in their lip and grip as well as the lance itself. This looks like a bastard child between a western lance and an eastern cavalry spear.
Looks pretty short to me. I know that the units in MTW weren't 3D but the mounted knights looked like they were practically carrying pikes.
Well, lances could be four meters long. Even more in some cases or specialized designs. Ditto, actually, for two-handed cavalry spears.
Nice eyecandy I must say, but again the game behind it, AI etc, is what I'm most interested in, because I mostly command the units with zoom out, especially if battle speed is fast (like in RTW). Unfortunately gameplay can't be demonstrated until the demo comes out... The engine looks promising though with all it's functions, so modders will probably be able to do quite a lot with it if there's enough interest and time devotion from the community, provided the AI, which can't be modded much, is good enough (or - drool - moddable). However I that with so many functions, such as multiple animations and multitexturing, it might be more work to make a mod, so there'll probably be less mods completed...
Yes, but until then we have to make do with what we get...
I must say that all the lances I have seen so far look too big and bulky to me. They all look like jousting lances. A jousting lance only had to be carried around for a few seconds while making a pass at the other guy. I have my doubts that such lances would have been used in combat, since they would have to be toted around for hours on the battlefield and would surely fatigue the user.
And take a look at the latest pic, where that guy is holding his lance. He's holding it very close to the end, far from the fulcrum, which would make the lance very heavy. It's just not a realistic grip. His hand should be as far up the lance as possible, tucked right in behind the flared protector.
Yet more evidence that some artist at CA doesn't have much sense of physics.
https://img155.imageshack.us/img155/65/mtwhhmmm7eq.jpg
This guy seems to be going the wrong way!
Also, the overall situation on the battle field seems very odd to me. Judging by the colour of the feathers/plumes on the horses' heads, the cavalry seems to be Turkish. The only other Turkish forces that are visible in the screenie are to the far right, so unless the heavies are retreating after some sort of suicidal charge into the Egyptian main army, I'd almost say both armies are allied, and attacking the city together. o_O
There also seems to be an Egyptian flag just to the right of the horsemen in the front, completely in the back.
That lance on the Turkish spahi looks wrong, plain wrong. mid-eastern lances were just long spears with long points, unlike the european knightly lance.
Anyone notice something wrong with all the swords, they have no hilts!?!!