I think the pics look good and I can't wait for the finished game.
Printable View
I think the pics look good and I can't wait for the finished game.
I see no reason why that should be so. It makes perfect sense that provinces have different size. Are suggesting eastern steppe provinces should have the same size as Italian city states? Further, the number of provinces a faction has is rather unimportant, at least at the start. A single province can generate more wealth than several small ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
The map has the same kinda look to it as the Rome one does, so therefore it might be as easy to add provinces in this map, therefore within about two weeks a modder woul;d have come along and released a "more provinces" mod or something
The map looked good, except the province distribution may require a lot more work to be acceptable. I mean looking at the minimap I saw that Denmark didn't have Skåne, Halland & Blekinge, and it wasn't because of rebels or something like that but because they were a part of the Swedish province. Skåne should either be it's own province owned by the Danes OR part of the main Danish province! Not having Denmark have Skåne is (in this timeperiod) like having an England that doesn't have Kent.
You just made an assumption, that both the countries had the same population....Quote:
Let's pretend in a purely hypothetical version of MTW, the Holy Roman Empire (Germans) and the Kingdom of Hungary (who start adjacent to the HRE) control equal amounts of land, but that Hungary's land is divided into 2 provinces while the HRE's equally sized territory is divided into 5. If they go to war against each other, which faction has the advantage, assuming neither side has inherently superior troops? It would seem pretty clear to me that the HRE would be at a strong advantage simply due to having more "provinces", even though the two factions are equal in actual land and population.
Well, yeah, that was part of the hypothetical situation. Guess I didn't specificly state that part. Anyway, really the population isn't that important to me. The number of provinces is more significant, from my perspective. Reason being, when these hypothetical German and Hungarian factions go to war, the Germans only have to successfully capture 2 cities, while the Hungarians must capture 5, in order to eliminate their opponent. Plus, the Germans potentially have 2.5x the production capability of the Hungarians, based on the way recruitment has worked in previous TW games.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
I guess what I'm trying to represent is the way I imagine castles were spread out throughout medieval Europe and the Middle East, in order to prevent factions like the hypothetical Hungarians from being conquered in 2 sieges because their seemingly large holdings are represented by exactly 2 fortified positions. I guess I can't speak with absolute certainty on the matter, as I've never been to Hungary, but I imagine that modern day Hungary contains more than one medieval castle. If a king wanted to defend their country, they wouldn't just be like, "Well, there's some pretty nice walls around the capital, so the whole country's protected." The larger your holdings, the more castles you would have spread out, so invading forces couldn't just steamroll over your borders and straight to your capital. At least that's how I imagine it was (and still is). If I'm way off, then somebody please tell me, and I'll withdraw my statements.
OK BalkanTourist. It’s obvious that you are Bulgarian or you have Bulgarian ancestry. So, I will write two simple words – Bulgarian propaganda!Quote:
Originally Posted by BalkanTourist
I just don’t know from where to start because you wrote so many disinformation.
I think it’s better to open new thread (you or me) in Monastery to discuss.
P.S.
You know what happen on the 28th July of 1330?
I like this map more than the map of RTW. But i hope that some modders will change the Amount of the priovinces. This map have to have more provinces!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo
awesome man. i peed a little in my pants.
in other news, map looks great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
To me population matters everything. If I say have country x and y. Both the same geographical size, but one has twice the population and resources. In my opinion that more populous nation should have the more provinces. Naturally Hungry didn't have two castles, but the game is meant to be a represenation to real life. If Country x has twice as many people its likely it has twice the number of castles. Where in real life this may be 100 to 50 in the game it is represented with 4 castles for one faction and 2 for the other. What im trying to get across is geographical size simply is not the real indicator here.
Im not saying Germany has twice the population as Hungry, to be honest I do not know, but my point is its very flawed to say they are the same size thus should have equal resources.
Double post
Having to capture 5 cities in stead of two can as well be an advantage because the enemy has to defend all 5 while you can concentrate your defences on 2. The production capacity due to more cities did play a role in past TW but since the the recruitment system will be different in MIITW, I expect less problems there.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Looks like nothing, to be frank. This is nothing but the RTW map, a sure sign that this engine is nothing but a rehash of the RTW engine with a maxing out of its abilities. Furthermore, there is a very obvious concentration on the battles, where the strategic aspect of the game gets little to no attention. This is proof for the graphical side (no improvement from RTW compared to a huge improvement in the battles), but that will probably also prove true for the gameplay.
That is not necessarily bad. MTW (and STW too), my favorite TW game to date, certainly did not have a very complicated strategical side to it. And the RTW battles, the bread and butter of the series, certainly need a huge makeover if they are to return to MTW's levels. So this could prove to be positive.
I just wish they would pay some more attention to the strategical side, the world outside the battles. For once upgrading the AI to make it able to handle itself on the new 3D map would do much to fill the potential of this new system. If that potential would be filled we could truly have a revolution in TW games -- instead of just returning to a level that should have been in place in the first place.
Well FWIW the strategic map is almost exactly the same as the MTW one with a few added provinces namely in western North Africa and Western Europe (Scotland seems to be split into two).
I do like the fact that the high res pic of the strategic map shows a much more green and colorful / textured map.
Boy, do you have some lessons to learn. :sweatdrop:Quote:
How DARE CA even think of streamlining and simplifying such a complex game so that more people can play it? I can't believe they want people besides us historical blowhards to have any fun at all! Doesn't CA know they have an obligation to US to present everything perfectly accurate, even if that means it'll be dull as a doornail?
Let me give you some "Bulgarian propaganda" serb boy.I have taken this "propaganda" from wikipedia ,which as we all know is filled with "BulgarianQuote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
propaganda".Other people call it historical fact, but i guess to you it's "propaganda".
Quote:
"By the late 9th and the beginning of the 10th century, Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessaly in the south, Bosnia in the west and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and eastern Hungary to the north. A Serbian state came into existence as a dependency of the Bulgarian Empire."
Thats a cool piece of "propaganda" dont u think?
[IMG]ftp://store3.data.bg/Screenshots/Image_Bulgaria-(893-927)-TsarSimeon-byTodorBozhinov.png[/IMG]
Quote:
"Under Tsar Simeon I (Simeon the Great), who was educated in Constantinople, Bulgaria became again a serious threat to the Byzantine Empire. Simeon hoped to take Constantinople and make himself Emperor of both Bulgarians and Greeks, and fought a series of wars with the Byzantines through his long reign (893-927). The war boundary towards the end of his rule reached Peloponnese in the south. Simeon proclaimed himself "Tsar (Caesar) of the Bulgarians and the Greeks," a title which was recognised by the Pope, but not of course by the Byzantine Emperor."
Nice "propaganda" eh?
Quote:
"The Byzantines ruled Bulgaria from 1018 to 1185"
That's why Bulgaria will not be included in the game, because the game should start in 1080.
Quote:
"Resurrected Bulgaria occupied the territory between the Black Sea, the Danube and Stara Planina, including a part of eastern Macedonia and the valley of the Morava. It also exercised control over Wallachia and Moldova. Tsar Kaloyan (1197-1207) entered a union with the Papacy, thereby securing the recognition of his title of "Rex" although he desired to be recognized as "Emperor" or "Tsar". He waged wars on the Byzantine Empire and (after 1204) on the Knights of the Fourth Crusade, conquering large parts of Thrace, the Rhodopes, as well as the whole of Macedonia"
"In an inscription from Turnovo in 1230 he entitled himself "In Christ the Lord faithful Tsar and autocrat of the Bulgarians, son of the old Asen"."
And the last piece of "propaganda" in which we(Serbs and Bulgarians) both fall to the ottomans.
Quote:
"However, weakened 14th-century Bulgaria was no match for a new threat from the south, the Ottoman Turks, who crossed into Europe in 1354. In 1362 they captured Philippopolis (Plovdiv), and in 1382 they took Sofia. The Ottomans then turned their attentions to the Serbs, whom they routed at Kosovo Polje in 1389. In 1393 the Ottomans occupied Turnovo after a three-month siege. It is thought that the south gate was opened from inside and so the Ottomans managed to enter the fortress. In 1396 the Kingdom (Tsardom) of Vidin was also occupied, bringing the Second Bulgarian Empire and Bulgarian independence to an end."
So in conclusion: FACTS ARE FACTS whether u like them or not!!!
We should be able to build bridges over rivers in the campaign-map.
It would be cool to be able to build pontoon bridges over rivers in the same way as you might build watchtowers, but it might lead to rivers getting too cluttered. Maybe they'd only last a single turn or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien_Tortoise2345
And it would completely ruin the point of strategic bridges...
I can allready see AI making thousands of bridges without any need. And not bilding them where they are needed.
Hmmm... Is that a fraction of Finland I see near the top? I know Finland wasn't really a major player in the medieval world, but I'd sure like to mod the game so that Finns could TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahem...
My sentiments exactly. I see no marked improvement over RTW and that goes for unit graphics too.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
The Golden Horde look like they need plenty of work.......Nothing changes
........Orda
At first I was also disappointed at seeing how similar the M2TW map looks to the RTW one, but then I remembered something quite important: Medieval 2 uses the same engine as Rome, so it's just an evolution, not an revolution as some here seem to be expecting. It was the same with Shogun and Medieval only that the similarities were not that obvious because one game displayed Japan, while the other displayed Europe.
So yes, it does look a lot like the Rome map and it still has those silly city icons that really don't give me the feeling of looking at a grand medieval town and/or castle, but the canges are there. The textures are much better for example and the landscape looks much better. Also the animations and look of the Strategic Agents has improved a lot. So I know that's not much, but there really wasn't more to expect.
Cheers!
Ituralde
I don't get people's disappointment with the campaign map's appearance, either. Like Ituralde said, the game's engine is a modified version of RTW's, and the geographic setting is the same. I suppose they could have radically altered the GUI, but what else was to be expected?
The province argument might be pointless anyways.. the recruiment system looks different. Each city has certain amount of recruitment slots for each turn. So in the Hungary/HRE situation.. maybe each province in HRE can only do 2 units a turn while Hungary gets 5 each.
This was never hidden, we were aware of this from the begging. The same was true of MTW and STW. However, that did not stop MTW from being exceptionally better.Quote:
Looks like crap, to be frank. This is nothing but the RTW map, a sure sign that this engine is nothing but a rehash of the RTW engine with a maxing out of its abilities.
There are huge improvments here. The skin looks 100 times better and the UI does as well. The city and army models also look much better. So better graphics here in general. Exactly what we have been givin for battles.Quote:
Furthermore, there is a very obvious concentration on the battles, where the strategic aspect of the game gets little to no attention. This is proof for the graphical side (no improvement from RTW compared to a huge improvement in the battles)
I see no reason to believe this just yet.Quote:
, but that will probably also prove true for the gameplay.
You are seing Novgorod.Quote:
Hmmm... Is that a fraction of Finland I see near the top? I know Finland wasn't really a major player in the medieval world, but I'd sure like to mod the game so that Finns could TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahem...
Well, clearly in the beginning the province would be under Novgorod rule or perhaps a rebel province, since Finland as a nation didn't really exist in medieval times. I was merely pondering whether that is a playable province at all or just some off-limits zone, like sahara was in MTW. But if it is playable then geocraphigally that is the patch of land where modern-day Finland is situated, and I'll mod the game so that Finns will be a faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Sadly, nobody can tell me the truth about this untill the game is out. Just thinking aloud...
EDIT: If the gray provinces are all rebels, then Finland starts out as rebel, as do Sweden and Norway.
Actually, if you zoom in and look closer you'll see that Holland and Scotland are in fact different colors on the map. Scotland black, Holland dark blue. So no Scottish-Dutch empire there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zatoichi
If you look at the South-Western corner of the Dutch holdings, you see that they also appear to be black-coloured. Seems to be some graphical issue if there's not enough Blue land between the White border of the provinces, making everything in between look black. This is what happens in Northern Scotland as there is not enough landmass there, so the province seems to be black.
All in all, I'm convinced that it is in fact at Dutch-Scottish empire, if not for my argument above then because of the fact that there just isn't any other faction around that could be there.
Cheers!
Ituralde
Right, I should have thought about that. It's likely a graphical issue like Ituralde said.
If you check out the new screenshot at Gamespot, you'll see that there's no land bridge across the English Channel. At least no green arrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zatoichi