Interview at CVG!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

Eras are coming back in MULTIPLAYER ONLY!
So I'm sorry to say the AI won't be around to screw anything up concerning the eras.

---

mp only? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

What plans do you have for multiplayer in Medieval 2?

Bob Smith: [...] We're also bringing back the choice of "eras" form the original Medieval [...]

---

combined with prasthereapers statement over at the .com:

Quote:

---

4) Eras - lack of multiple starting positions

[...]

4) Each era is effectively a completely new campaign that needs to be individually setup, tested and balanced. Having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game.

---

lead to the only conclusion that the eras will be available in Multiplayer only.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adherbal

It's certainly good to hear they are putting more efford into balancing in MTW2 (I wonder if they even bothered at all in RTW), but only time - or a demo - can tell if it'll be enough to win us MTW/STW vets back to the series.

---

Well by the interview it certainly sounds like Bob Smith, the project manager, is going in to micromanage this, and he likes the gameplay of Rome.

They definitely worked on the kill rates and movement speeds in RTW, and made the choices they wanted. They even re-evaluated the movement speeds in the RTW demo, and told me they were ok.

I guess the dev team behind RTW was almost entirely new, without much experience with MTW. That's the only way I can explain this dramatic change of gameplay, and the drop of so many realism features (combat penalties, unit speed, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

the evaluator seems to think that the gameplay in RTW was awesome.

---

Yeah, I noticed that. Didn't exactly inspire confidence. Hopefully it was no more than a bit of hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

It's nice that they're finetuning things now. Hope it leads to a better balance.

Whatever my complaints about RTW, it is the game I've played longest and I've still enjoyed it immensely. However, at a LAN party recently we got round to playing it and BI, and in multiplayer it was atrocious. At 10.000-15.000 denarii I would build a balanced army, whereas someone who had barely played the game went wild on cataphracts or berserkers - there was no stopping him, not even with two players. It just wasn't fun, and I hope at the very least costs are balanced to prevent this from happening.

That said, it was great fun playing against someone who also knew the game well and we both had good armies. Lots of maneuvering going on, and plenty of tense moments.

---

Play 5,000-10,000 denarii for more balanced armies, and cataphracts are easy to counter with a solid phalanx wall.

About the unit speeds, the only thing I can say about them from RTW-
CA must have had an Aboriginee and a horse with rider run side by side and compared the speeds, because here in Kentucky a man without armor carrying only a sword running flat out against a horse with rider carrying a sword simply can not run that fast away from the horseman. Beats me where they measured their running speeds.:wall: Maybe in Medieval times everyone ran like Yule Brenner decked out in full plate mail armor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh

yes and such a person armed with a warhammer or an axe can kill quick, see.

---

If that where so then Medieval Lords would have just armed entire armies with said war hammers, and axes.

I found it interesting that when Smith was asked about improvements to "the game and gameplay" he simply went on about the improved graphics. . . again.

I don't think I've ever seen a single posting at any of these forums begging for better graphics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

A very interesting interview with Bob Smith. I especially like the sound of the last paragraph regarding multiplayer. Seems like the problem with the different armies, mentioned here a couple of times, has been solved by reintroducing the ear Early, High and Late for the multiplayer game. They're even trying to balance the units. Wonder how that's gonna turn out.

---

Excellent, that reverses a particularly painful change that marred RTW for me: the absence of an elaborate tech tree. After some fifty to eighty turns (a fraction of the total possible playtime) in RTW, you had reached the end of the tech tree, and had all the most advanced and most powerful units that could be fielded. Moreover, the way to attain these most powerful of units was exceedingly simple: to get each of the most advanced production buildings all that was required was population growth. No tie-ins with other buildings (think smithies, markets, etc.) -- just straight upwards.

It made for an extraordinarily bland experience concerning the units you could produce, especially considering the enormous and diverse tech tree that MTW showcased, which was also renewed and increased every hundred turns or so. I, for one, quickly lost interest as from turn fifty onwards my armies would basically be the same and all I would be doing was churn out new ones, instead of developing my armies constantly. That, combined with the simplistic, gamey combat and the MTW AI that couldn't handle itself on the new map, made RTW very boring very quickly.

Edit: I read over the entire interview, and I must say -- the man does like his gimmicks, eh? That's all he really talks about. Gimmicks. Yay, castle can turn into city. Yay, more diplomatic options. Yay, you'll be forced to rely somewhat more on diversity -- but these are all features. Where's the big picture? These are all cool ideas, but they remain novelties and add little intrinsic value to the game. Why doesn't CA build a good foundation upon which to construct its fabulous little quirks -- instead of dumping them on quicksand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Excellent, that reverses a particularly painful change that marred RTW for me: the absence of an elaborate tech tree. After some fifty to eighty turns (a fraction of the total possible playtime) in RTW, you had reached the end of the tech tree, and had all the most advanced and most powerful units that could be fielded. Moreover, the way to attain these most powerful of units was exceedingly simple: to get each of the most advanced production buildings all that was required was population growth. No tie-ins with other buildings (think smithies, markets, etc.) -- just straight upwards.

It made for an extraordinarily bland experience concerning the units you could produce, especially considering the enormous and diverse tech tree that MTW showcased, which was also renewed and increased every hundred turns or so. I, for one, quickly lost interest as from turn fifty onwards my armies would basically be the same and all I would be doing was churn out new ones, instead of developing my armies constantly. That, combined with the simplistic, gamey combat and the MTW AI that couldn't handle itself on the new map, made RTW very boring very quickly.

Edit: I read over the entire interview, and I must say -- the man does like his gimmicks, eh? That's all he really talks about. Gimmicks. Yay, castle can turn into city. Yay, more diplomatic options. Yay, you'll be forced to rely somewhat more on diversity -- but these are all features. Where's the big picture? These are all cool ideas, but they remain novelties and add little intrinsic value to the game. Why doesn't CA build a good foundation upon which to construct its fabulous little quirks -- instead of dumping them on quicksand?

---

Those are my thoughts exactly! The tech tree in Rome is short and boring. Hell, in some factions in the expansion you literally can build every unit in your army immediately! RTW is lacking the "civilization" like aspect of MTW, which is one of my favourite things about the game. Maybe its just me, but there seem to be alot less variety of units in Rome, too. I remember playing as the turks and egyptians and having so much variety I couldn't decide what to build! Having multiple units that fufill the same role, but slightly differently, is a good thing.

In Rome, I only play multiplayer, really, because the campaign is boring, plain and simple.

Well, to be fair, historically armies do seem to have evolved more dramatically over the Medieval period than in that of republican Rome. Play any of the major RTW realism mods and there is precious little of a "tech tree" to speak of, with regard to units. Take the Romans for example - basically, their core army becomes all principes. Rather boring - brutally effective, no doubt, but still boring. Moreover, the realism mods tend to make it available to recruit from the full unit roster right from the beginning (waiting decades for triarii does not make much historical sense).

Some of the vanilla RTW factions have pretty impressive tech trees in terms of units - the Seleucids in particular. They start off with levy pikemen and prodomoi and slowly tech up. I think I was at the gates of Rome before I could get imitation legions. Never saw an armoured elephant (or even a Companion, IIRC).