Printable View
I miss what was said when you won a battle. "portrait of a royal milk sop the enemy ruler flees!" and "The enemy ruler flees may he burn in the thousand fires of hell." These just made me feel good inside rather than the somewhat bland sayings of M2TW.
@ Claran: What's meant by "Choosing your heir" is something you missed. Yes it was the oldest son... but back then, it was much easier for him to have an unfortunate accident...
I would like the stack battles, if they were epic, more troops and multi-faction. Right now it is almost impossible to battle with your allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciaran
And if the computer does no act like a monkey when comanding my troops. I have 100 peasents, the enemy 1000 soldiers... Enemys... Charge!!!!
Never tought about it, but now that you mention it... Yes... In MTW the units rout with 30%, 50% loss. Now they rout with 80% loss, even peasants and artillery just do not rout. There is no regroup and fight.Quote:
Interesting, that might explain why on Medium my mercenary spears and spear militias always fight to the last man while even Dismounted Knights rout at only a few losses when under AI control.
What I miss from MTW 1 are the battles where your whole army already is routing, but you still can manage to rally them and turn the tide. I´ve never had that happen in RTW or MTW 2, once a unit is routing it´s basically gone (not to mention that there´s usally not muc left of the unit in question worthwile to rally anyways).
Fabiano
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Yes, I miss the title system, too.
It was a nice part of MTW that you could promote and dismiss your important generals...
:-(
Actually the AI's do regroup and fight. Way, WAY too often. I really shouldn't be having 75 man enemy teams reduced to 8 and decide they want back in the fight. It's getting ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by fabiano
and religion working better :P you allready said all myne :(Quote:
Originally Posted by FrauGloer
the biggest loss for me is that because the unit rosters is so simple ( no more really specialized regions ) and although it is more realistic of being able to build more than one unit in a year it makes it so much less devastating when you or the ai lose a army because a battle front is left open as you can quickly build a new army up to replace the loses like it doesn't matter that you just got your butt whooped therefore making victories all most meaningless.
But what i truly missed is that their is no big price you pay for failing a crusade as i remember in MTW if i lose a crusade/jihad i could expect a civil war which made them a calculated risk as to whether risk your current empire for a really rewarding piece of foreign pie rather than just a historic element implemented into the game.
So I guess this is way late but I'll weigh in.
Really miss (in no particular order) -
- Dismounting units @#*$@# :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::whip::whip:
- Assassinating my own faction characters, include generals/family/agents.
- Bigger rosters and more unit variety, and more commonality for certain basic unit types across the board.
- Eras. Three distinct eras. I always started on early except once, but I can still appreciate the time progression and differentiation, esp. for tech progression and custom battles which I really enjoy.
- Non-interlocking concentric castle wall defenses that don't require unit proximity to fire. Having all the walls interconnect in M2 is lame as all get out. Also non-capturable towers is really really lame, I really miss that from RTW.
- Faction owned Inquisitors for the catholic factions.
- More building/construction variety and tech depth.
- Titles and honorifics, and being able to strip them from generals I didn't want to have them.
- Effective assassins.
- UI graphics. I think M2TW's unit cards and building cards are a sharp turn for the worse, they were much better in MTW and RTW, much clearer and vivid. They look really washed out and low res in M2TW imo.
- Somewhat better handled diplomacy.
- Much better control over unit statistics (specific unit movement speeds, turning rates, depth bonuses, etc) and CA actually TELLING us how the friggin game works in terms of certain calculations and parameters.
- The 300 hojillion different varieties of castle maps to pick from for custom battles. I realize there's something like this in M2TW but I think a meld of the old system and the new would be more ideal and give the most flexibility.
- Much more control over crusading. I think there's some great new features implemented in M2 that were missing in M1, but the overall difficulty of making a crusade in M2 vs M1... I think M1 was better.
Things I don't miss -
- Insanely long unit/building production times and the forced 1YPT timescale. 2TPY is optimal imo.
- Only being able to crank out 1 unit per year (in general)
- Risk-style map. Once I got used to the RTW style map, and I went back to play MTW again, I almost couldn't do it.
- Civil wars. :furious3:
- Wierd diplomacy quirks and the "everyone suddenly hates you after you own x amount of the world".
- Province specific units. Sorry I'm with Musashi here. I'm all for faction specific units, but not province specific. /shrug
- Excessive province loyalty problems that came with distance from the leader and capital. I think it's been toned down to near-acceptable levels in M2TW, and was getting there slowly in RTW/BI.
That's all I could think of off the top of my head for now. Cheers!
I want to add my 2 cents worth and agree with the need for more unit variety, both within any given faction, but also add regional specific units. (I want my Swabian swordsmen!!!)
More than anything else, this is what I miss and hope it's added to a patch.
Why on Earth would you regress and remove units in a sequel? It almost seems like there are only 3 factions (in terms of units). European, Muslim, and Byzantine. They all seem to have essentially the same units. Why bother playing beyond that? Perhaps I'm missing something, ignorant of unique units or something.
I've won with England and nearly finished with Moors... As it is now, I really don't feel like playing with any other factions! Maybe Byzantine and Danes, for the (barely) unique units, but otherwise, I'm somehow almost tired of this game already!!!
This may go down with EliteForce 2, Stronghold 2, Age of Empires 3, and Civ 5 as one of the biggest video game sequel let downs I've experienced. Maybe I'm just changing tastes.
Poland, Hungary, and Russian also have pretty unique unit lineups too. Most factions have a few unique units, but they also tend to have a fair few, (especially spears and DFK), units they share with other armies.
Weird. I am pretty sure the number of units each faction has in M2TW is about the same as in MTW (I totalled them up for England it was about 30 a piece). But in M2TW a lot more of those are unique - MTW typically had one or two unique units per faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuriousJorj
That's exactly what I thought of MTW. Compare the English and French line ups (or any two Catholic countries) in the two games, there is far more difference in M2TW than MTW.Quote:
It almost seems like there are only 3 factions (in terms of units). European, Muslim, and Byzantine. They all seem to have essentially the same units.
You have Zweihanders and Forlorn Hope - two 2-handed swords in M2TW compared to one in MTW (dismounted Gothics were not recruitable in the SP campaign). Plus don't forget Swabians only came in the VI expansion - M2TW hasn't had its expansion yet.Quote:
(I want my Swabian swordsmen!!!)
I just don't get this "more unit variety" complaint in a thread about what you miss in MTW. M2TW is head and shoulders above MTW in unit variety.
Actually, I should've compared MTW2 with ALL pre-MTW2 games... You're right, MTW did have alot of identical units, esp Catholic factions. It wasn't until VI that there was alot of good variety and cool, unique and exotic units. (loved those Bonnachts, Gallowglasses, Huscarles, and Pict Crossbowmen). Then, RTW upped it several notches and really brought in some cool exotic units (Spartans, Berserkers, Gladiators, War Elephants, Companions, Bull Warriors, Pharoahs Guard, Head Hurlers, Woad Warriors, Screeching Women, etc). Then OMG, BI increased it even more (well, sortof).Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I don't see MTW2 coming close to that, not yet. I hope it does. I'd like to see numerous unique units per faction, as well as at least one regional unit per faction. Maybe that's not realisitic or practical, but it's what I'd like to have!
I tried MTW, but at the end of the day I found it utterly dull in comparison to MTW2. The game is still there for people to live in the dark ages if they want, but I wish people would stop saying how inferior MTW2 is to MTW. Because for one, it really, really isn't.
MTW was a really fun game, and it could certainly be argued that the AI was better in the original, but overall, I still prefer 2. There is great unit variety and plenty of strategy, not to mention the graphics. Oh, how I love the graphics. :beam:
I'm a bit puzzled when everyone says that the unit movement was more realistic in 1. Setting aside the ship teleporting, it took multiple years to travel from Scotland to southern England in that version as well. In addition, there were several spots where, because of the way the province borders were drawn, you would have to travel through an extra province even though the distance from point A to point B was negligible.
Having said that, I miss the ship system from the first (though it could have used some adjustments) and the game-board feel of the map. Also, not loving the merchants at all.
I think what is missing, when you are counting up the number of units for factions in MTW, is the regional units. They weren't on any list for a nation, but most had an impact on the kind of army a nation could produce.
Honestly, the old approach wasn't bad. A guy trained to us a spear and shield in France is going to be like a guy trained to use the same in Russia for the most part. There is variation in some units where there really doesn't have to be. Cosmetics are about as far as some differences should go when troop types would have had essentially the same equipment and training even half a world apart. Also, it was psychological but the large scale similarity of units made the faction specific unit's abilities more profound.
But really, as for game balance, I think moving production of the more specialized and unique units to particular provinces could be a huge advantage. Unlike MTW, there is enough production room available to make even a unit only available in one province have enough out there to change your tactics. Without the production bottlenecks of MTW the regional unit system could really shine.
I'd like to see it where most nations have roughly similar lineups up to the late period. Perhaps different cosmetics, but for the most part largely the same basic units. But in the late period with development, nations could have a handful of specific units to them. The rest could be regionally specific units. Iberian factions would still have Jinettes, but only from certain Iberian regions. Anyone who took one of those regions could then learn from the locals and make Jinettes too. Longbowmen could only be producible on the British Isles. Boyars, only up in Russia. This would be decently historical as well, in that many such specialized units were the result of specific local terrain and cultural peculiarities. And conquerers in many cases should be able to take over using those units.
As for the coding, there already is a regional unit out there: Conquistadores.
Swiss pikes. The ultimate assault and defense infantry of the game. I also miss cheap but powerful units like the original highlanders and viking units. And fast cheap steppe cavalry for chasing down pesky archers.
Being able to crusade on orthodox factions.
Easy bribing.
Being able to hurl assassins and inquisitors at the pope.
Being able to put my leader on trial for heresy.
Easy availability of generals.
Almohad urban militia. In fact in MTW the Muslim factions were more well-balanced than in M2TW as they had some good units. Now they get trounced badly early in the game.
Civil wars that occur in your favour.
try Swiss Guard from the papal States, they perform much like Pikes and are EXTREMLY powerful melee troops. Probably the best single unit in the game in fact in that respect.Quote:
Swiss pikes. The ultimate assault and defense infantry of the game. I also miss cheap but powerful units like the original highlanders and viking units. And fast cheap steppe cavalry for chasing down pesky archers.
the things i miss the most are the units...dismounted hospittalers(spelling), and swiss armourd pikemen:shame:
Yes, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Mostly, I miss the CIVIL WAR feature.
CA, give me back my Civil War, please.
well, I dont need more units, there are enuff differences... What I really miss in the game is the title system from MTW1! And why I cant determine the heir of the faction?
I'm surprised no one mentioned yet historic events like: "reading of Aristotle is on the rise now, religious fanaticism -5 in all provinces"
That was really awesome! I can't believe they did away with that in M2TW, because those small historical touches really help! And since you are building an update of a game on a better engine, just take the old events and put them in, don't need to recreate the wheel from scratch or anything. It's just a strange choice not to put in the little touches that already existed for the previous game.
I never played MTW as much as I did STW, RTW and M2TW, but it did have alot of GREAT ideas that for some reason failed to make it into subsequent games. The main thing I miss is the titles. I really dont get the same satisfaction from role-playing my family members as Dukes, Counts, etc. when they arent really tied to a province in any way, and it also added greatly to the sense of a feudal system. I also really miss the civil wars. I mean come on, what type of war is cooler than a civil war? I didnt like how the side you didnt pick became rebels, but other than that, it was a really good idea. The lack of population made things alot simpler and better I think. I really miss not having to choose between city and castle, it makes things too logistically complicated having the options. The ability to kill anyone with assassins was also really cool. I also miss the satisfaction of setting up a ginormous trade network with a huge amount of ships. I didnt really like how you could use those same ships to move an army from Denmark to Egypt in one move though. Regional Units made alot of sense, I have to admit, although I never really liked or disliked them. I dont miss the battles much, as the graphics were lacking (maybe not for the time), and I wasnt particularly good at them anyway (but I have gotten better).
Ahhhhh! Nostalgic feelings! Must go play MTW...
I miss civil wars and re-emergences to a point. I wish they had a much less potent faction re-emergence event though. A fully assembled army(which is HUGE) is kind of hard to conceal:oops:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zghuk
Probably has something to do with the fact that faction heirs were chosen by closest blood-ties...generally speaking.
Thing is... you don't have to miss any of this.
You can still play the game, the only person stopping you is you. Just play whichever you prefer, don't get sentimental about "I miss this, I miss that", I guess you actually prefer M2TW or else you'd still be playing MTW and then you wouldnt be missing these things.
:dizzy2: Time for bed I think :dizzy2:
I miss the Glorious Achievements. Being able to win in a semi-peaceful kind of way was nice, even though some conquering was always necessary, both for homelands and crusade points, as well as for factions like the Sicilians and all the others who didn't have any GA in the late or even high game, who couldn't depend on GA points later on.
Things I miss:
Region specific Units & Valour Bonuses.
Civil Wars
Faction Emergence/Re Emergence
Bribing - Actually keeping the whole army you bribed!! Remember bribing those longbows or varangians and treating them like gold because there werent retrainable!!
Exploding bombards
Boiling Oil
Dismounting for sieges
Better mercenaries
i also miss the historical campaigns, william wallace hist. battles
How about the simple, clear graphics, the ability to have an effect on the other side of Europe through fleets without having to have the fleets carry them around for something like 8 years, sending your princesses/agents to whichever port was available... Or having true central regions that couldn't be left behind after invading Constantinople or something, because all of your precious teching up would've been for nothing... Or the ability to revise your moves before hitting "end turn"...
It was also a lot of fun to have your chrusade waltz through a re-emergent French territory and see how their hopes and dreams were turned from regaining their former lands. Also, I'd hardly ever handle my MTWVI armies like McDonald's hamburgers, as I'd rather see the men make camp alive than dead, these days you can get reinforcements quickly and easily. And Grand Inquisitors were a lot of fun after a long and bloody war against the Spanish - no matter how many times they'd re-emerge, the line would still be hunted to extinction again.
Teching up has never since given so much pleasure either.
And I will never forget fighting Kataphraktoi - somehow the Byzantines could be the most fun to fight against.
But Medieval 2 is a great game and a different game, so it's a great thing I don't have to give up either one.
I totally agree! The unfortunate thing with MTW VI was the problems trying to keep it running on newer drivers. The aa fix I found was nice but the last update of my driver made it impossible to keep both games on the same CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
There both great games and the ability to use mods is what makes them both interesting. The people making mods have done a great job on both games.
What you're saying it's perfectly absurd. I'm playing 2(or played, gave up after 5 vh/vh campaings finished in under 1 month and banging into this absolutely worthless ai till I decided I had enough - and yes, after I've patched and installed fixing mods ad nauseum), not because I'm thinking it's better then 1(actually I think it's much worse - bought 2 copies of that game only to show my support, while I have no intention whatsoever to buy even 1 copy of mtw2 considering what junk they want to sell me), but simply because the graphics of 1 are OUTDATED.Quote:
Thing is... you don't have to miss any of this.
You can still play the game, the only person stopping you is you. Just play whichever you prefer, don't get sentimental about "I miss this, I miss that", I guess you actually prefer M2TW or else you'd still be playing MTW and then you wouldnt be missing these things.
Time for bed I think
It's like saying I should use my dad's car simply because it was a super car at it's time and my current one isn't(ok, I use cabs and don't have a driver licence, but that's beside the point)... The graphics are outdated; that's that... I can't play spectrum64 or x86 games that I very much enjoyed at their time either, simply because, well, years passed and things advanced and obviously 640x480/256 colours wouldn't appeal anyone atm. That doesn't make them less of a good game, thing at which mtw2 sorely fails.
Well you go a little overboard Snowly. Cars? In all honesty, there are old cars out there that have torque unmatched in current performance cars. Or how about all those masses of "outdated" M14's the US military is dusting off lately... not because they are short on M16/M4 series weapons but because the M14 simply does things the newer rifles can't. Newer doesn't always mean superior in every way.
Arguing everything based on graphics is about the same... it's all surface but not a judgment of depth or playability. I still play the original X-Com once in a while, in spite of it's "dated" graphics, simply because nothing newer compares to its balance of strategy and suspense.
But the argument of just play the old one doesn't touch what most people are missing. Most players are talking about features they wish were NOT abandoned. Things that, when they purchased the new game, they were expecting to find in it. There were some nice features in earlier TW games that are sadly absent.
err, as I said, I'm rather clueless regarding cars; if they carry me from a to b it's great;) Maybe it wasn't the best argument, but that was what sprung into my mind...
And was reffering to graphics because that's probably the thing that prevents most of us to "get back to mtw" as the poster suggested. At least, that's what drove me back, because the game mechanics itself are still pleasing me. And obviously the fact that you can't play with the same "fury" a game that you already finished x times and know in/out.
Otherwise, I regard this thread as you do: suggestions/wishlist/whatever you wanna call it about what should've been there and it isn't.
What I miss fom MTW.
1. Regions, that allow the owner to build a certian unit.
2. Regions, that allow certian unit bonus.....eg: longbow.....most famous from Kent Sussex and Surrey.
3. Miss the Historical immerison of MTW. As opposed to the politically correct, "region" names.
4. I miss the effects of a leader upon the realm.
5. I miss choosing my own heir, and keeping it in the family.
6. I really miss titles, and having the effects build up on your generals.
I was hoping for something like a father passing on to son.
7. Glorious acheivements. taking the map is easy, give us a challange.
8. Game play!!!!! MTW even now, ok it's stickier, it is a bit clunky, but overall game feels better.
There are lots of good things about MTW over M2tw, but this topic depresses me.
so in short...
M2TW major plus is Diplomacy, and graphics. Some factions, like the French and Turks and HRE, have had a lot of time spent doing their units, and all credit to CA.
But that becomes a moot point when most others are so lacking.
Espeically one of the most played and talked about.....The Roman Empire. This faction doesn't even have half the real units of Alexi, john and manul's army.
Some factions, don't even have pikeman, when in history they did.
Some only have Arquebruisers, and no muskets, when we know they did.
And some factions tech up stops at their historical point, with no thought of the player going longer than that time. And no thought has gone into their continued being.
It really is a pity, that the potential of this game, was so trashed for want of a better description.
I actually thought CA wanted our opinion on what we wanted, or at least, read what we wanted.
the major ones as i remember...
We all cried out in one voice for titles return...
We asked for more trade goods...
Glorious achievements...
more regions...
unit specific regions, and individual factions where possible...uniqeness.
we found we needed more factions east...georgia and or armenia, the persians...
Era beginnings...
and others...
and i guess we all thought......yippie mother maker.......CA is going to expand upon, and update their(our) most glorious game.... MTW.
Oh, how wrong where we......................... :shame:
Don't miss understand me tho, M2TW is a good game, but it is not, and has not, become the Great game built upon, and improved, MTW.
well i havent' played M2TW now for 4 weeks, but i have had two great games on MTW. Yes I still have it installed, it has it's own personal MTW drive all by itself, and i still mod it from time to time.
:smash:
fenir :whip: oh yeah i bin bad again...
Your leader has an effect on your realm in M2Tw, and you couldn't choose your heir in MTW. You were stuck with the oldest son as heir.Quote:
4. I miss the effects of a leader upon the realm.
5. I miss choosing my own heir, and keeping it in the family.
No you weren't. Why do several people seem to think this? What he meant was you could choose your heir. This was accomplished by removing the heirs you didn't want... pruning the old family tree. But we can't murder off our own faction members anymore, too bad. It was also good for dealing with disloyal generals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Yes there was the assassination route, but no choose heir button like in RTW. I never bothered with killing my own family members in MTW, i just used the heir and king i got.Quote:
No you weren't. Why do several people seem to think this? What he meant was you could choose your heir. This was accomplished by removing the heirs you didn't want... pruning the old family tree. But we can't murder off our own faction members anymore, too bad. It was also good for dealing with disloyal generals.
Go ahead and bite your tongue now or put your foot in your mouth. A multi Gig Hard drive now is very cheap and I can wait a few extra seconds between turns to move. The only thing I could give credit on is when they nod at your castle or city and NOTHING happens. No deplomacy or any other option opens up.Quote:
Originally Posted by castle
That is a bribe attempt...Quote:
Originally Posted by Budwise
I miss being able to dismount knights. The decision to dismount before a fight was perfect and easy to implement. I don’t understand why this was changed. It was absolutely better being able to use the knights as you pleased. Buying dismounted knights makes no sense at all. No horse means no knight. Knights didn’t have to fight mounted but they surely needed to own some horses.
Many people asked how to build dismounted knights in MTW so I wonder if that’s why CA decided to make them distinct units in MTW2.
I too very much miss dismounting units. To be honest I don't think this was left out due to the reason you stated Nelson, I think it was mainly 1. a feature that CA seemed to think they could cut and people wouldn't mind for the most part and 2. related to MP balance issues. Given the overall community response I think they sorely misjudged us and our response to them leaving it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
:bow:
I miss the fights, in MTW the AI would try proper tactic(not that they worked)but in M2TW all the AI does is charg at you amkes battles boring after awhile.
Wow, I'm famous... or at least my thread anyways. :sweatdrop:
I miss dismounting a load of druzina and getting a bunch of feudal foot knights that slaughtered everything.
I also miss playing a game without using the community forums... I know it sounds kind of bad, but before forums I didn't catch 5% of the bugs listed. Now that I know what to look for they're a little hard to avoid. My ignorance was bliss, damn you all! :laugh4:
I miss being able to dismount cavalry. Besides that there are some specific units I used to like using- gothic sergeants and swiss armoured pikemen (two key parts of the late game super pwnage army I loved to build as the HRE). But in terms of unit variety there is really no contest between MTW and MTW 2- MTW 2 has far more units and it also has horse archers that function properly. Re-emergence of factions would be interesting I suppose.
the ability of high valor units to fight in multiple directions and form a ring of death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Even though I just had lunch (probably because I just had lunch), reading that makes me really, really hate you. Moroccan food is the best in the world.
i have to know that im not the only one, tell me, was any body else dissapionted with the new historic battles, and how easy they are!?
I miss those who asked that silly little question.... "How do I get to Ireland?".:no:
I want to reinforce what others have said: units don't route fast enough!
I just noticed this last night playing my third campaign as Byzantium (already won as England and the Moops), and I have to say, it gets really old and annoying how every single unit apparently turns into heroic warriors fighting to the death! Completely unrealistic. Should be returned to exactly how it was with MTW.
The other night, I (re-)watched this special on the history channel, about Hannibal whipping the Roman Scipio in northern Italy. During the battle, the Romans were so terrified, yet had no place to go, that many of them literally buried their heads in the ground out of utter terror!
If Cohorts didn't become valiant warriors fighting to the last breath, then I don't think peasants and militia should either.
Totally agree with the guy who said battles are not decisive enough.
In MTW2 the campaign just degenerates into dozens of minor battles against small stacks and then you have 2 unit rebel stacks spawning everywhere and GOD it becomes the most tedious game experience I think I've ever played. Medieval 2 Total Tedium is probably a more accurate name, I haven't played further than 20 turns in any M2TW campaign so far.
It is awesome in MTW when you have a massive decisive battle somewhere, leading to the destruction of the ENTIRETY of the enemies military forces and maybe a few of their royal family...then you can just march troops into their defenseless provinces with ease! >:3 Of course the opposite can happen and you start to panic as French Knights rampage through England as your insane king, your only remaining royal, sits in London and has sex with his sister and fondles little boys. D:
Also, immersiveness and atmosphere are totally absent from M2TW, or at least any sort of Medieval/Historical immseriveness or atmosphere is missing, you're left with blandness and the faint sense that the UI seems to be made of plastic.
No offense, but I think this discounts almost anything else you're saying about the campaign in M2TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuffy
I'll admit, 20 turns was an exaggeration, but I really don't see how it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown_user
I mean, by the 20th turn I've fought about 18 battles, all relatively small and I have two rebel 'armies' bimbling around somewhere which I don't want to stand in one place and block trade and cause devastation but at the same time it is too tedious to try and get rid of them. Add to this I'm at war with someone and they keep sending four unit stacks at me and the occasional 14 unit one, but then they either just rebuild their armies in a turn or go bankcrupt and I get to siege castles/cities garrisoned by one unit! OH WOW THIS IS SO MUCH FUN.
Where are my decisive, kingdom ruining engagements?
:laugh4: So true, so true. Those were the days, when you bought a game and played it out of the box on ends, when nowadays games get bug reports and mod forums before they even come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulTa
However, by the time MTW came out those blissfull times were already long gone by...
I am surprised that no one talked about what I think should to be improved. That is the princess/marriage system. Yes I remember that in MTW you could have a princess marry a person of another religion. I also wonder why the Muslim factions are not able to have them it just doesn't make sense. Is anyone else with me on what I said?
Chuffy I think you need to play the game more. If all you can do is bitch about it after numerous 20 turn campaigns then maybe you should stick to FPS.
Personally, the only thing I miss about MTW is the ability to run it on a 486DX 100mhz with a 8mb graphics card. Ooh, hang on... I've taken my rose tinted spectacles off and now I realise I don't even miss that.
Anyone else fancy taking their specs off?
Sorry, I just realised that I miss chasing outnumbered enemies round and round and round and round and round the battlemap before I corner them and they will stand and fight me. Silly me... the hours of fun I had doing that.
I miss the Jedi generals killing half my army on his own inside his unrealistic looking castle.
I miss the sophisticated ship trade and ship travelling system that was a huge improvement on what we have now.
I miss the battlemap that was the same every time no matter where you were in that territory.
I miss units that were routing coming back for more punishment time after time, even though they fled in the first place.
My god people, instead of looking at an OLD, TIRED game look forward. The improvements that the later games have brought are obviously going to have downsides. That's the price you pay for a more complex game (which we all would have been disappointed if we hadn't got). Give me more RTW and M2TW and let's let MTW rest in peace, I for one don't miss it when I've got these two to play.
Sorry Slug For A Butt, yet I disagree there. Although I have not played M2:TW, henceforth cannot compare it to M:TW, which I have played. Instead, sadly, I have to compare it to R:TW, my apologies for that. I have found that the older game was generally the better with the most complex and intelligent infer structure with, on harder difficulty levels, a superior AI both on the strategy map and the battle map. Another few things I prefer about M:TW compared to R:TW is the wonderful and complex vices and virtues system which even had brilliant hidden traits, the ability to kill your own generals when their loyalty dropped, the penalties provided to armies if their great general was killed, the ability to try generals through your spies, the ability to defend your provinces from spies using border forts and, most importantly, a fun, enjoyable and well balanced gameplay - there were no instant routes in the grand original and were fewer imbalances. The complexity and interest of that classical and amazing game was much more that that of the newer R:TW in gameplay and re-playability terms.
M:TW is a great and interesting, classical and tactical challenge that will probably live on in peoples minds and hearts for decades to come. I doubt many of the veterans, not me, I started out at Rome, will ever forget the amazing classical game, it's map, it's re-playability, it's sheer advanced complexity and what was lost with their reformation which was R:TW and M2:TW.
Nuff Said. I loved MTW, I never buy a game when its 50 dollars and I rushed right out and got this one. I have played nothing else except a quick round of Counter Strike with my stepson when he asked and I don't foresee myself playing anything else for a while. Good Job CA for this great work of ark. Now please, even know its 100% perfect to me, polish the edges for the nae-sayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
What I miss most, and would love to see in MTW2 is:
1. Ability to grant titles. It's really cool to be able to grant your deserving general that just won a heroic battle some title recognition. It also adds to the fun and immersiveness of playing the leader of a faction. Particularly if I can award/strip titles by sending diplomats to the general concerned. I hardly use diplomats in MTW2, they are so useless.
2. Region differentiation. Previously it made a difference whether or not I had certain regions because they produced special units or gave valor bonuses. Now I can hardly be bothered to remember the names of the states I conquered since they all seem the same, particularly in Central Europe.
The only things I miss from MTW are the titles and the darker music. Otherwise I think M2TW is far superior.
Titles I can live without but I loved the VI music of the vikings so much I modded the last MTW game and added that to the Catholic Factions. I really wish I could hear more because I don't know how to find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ByzanKing
You missed the point of this thread entirely in your attempt to belittle other's views and opinions. The point is the features we MISS from MTW and WANT to see back in our new game. I agree with you the old 2D sprites are old and busted, and now that I have the new engine I don't want to go back at all, but dammit there are a number of big things that CA left out with the sequel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
I don't think i can be the only one but what i loved/hated the most about MTW was that without a clock of some description near the computer you could accidentally completely lose track of time and find yourself playing it to 3 AM :oops: because you were so totally immersed in the management of your empire.
I agree. There are obviously a lot of things good about the game, things we like. That's obviously not what this thread is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
QUOTE: "The improvements that the later games have brought are obviously going to have downsides."
Why? Seriously... why? Why must newer games inherently have problems? Not bugs (which I don't even think there should be, but that's obviously another topic). But why must so many new, often sequel games, LOSE aspects that were proven good from prior versions? What's wrong with dev's, why do they do this?!? :wall:
It's evident that there are improvements, nearly all are good. Now ADD the other things that were better from previous versions, that apparently everyone wants. I don't want the "good and the bad," I want the "good and the good."
(wasn't this response entirely just common sense? Why has it become an Oprah Phil world?)
yeah, i miss the titles too. i also liked how each individual unit had a leader with traits and stuff, and you could any of them titles - so in a battle your right flank by be anchored by some men-at-arms led by the Earl of Wessex, while the Duke of Brabant would lead the longbowmen and the Lord of Southampton would lead the knights. those were sweet.
I don't understand. Is this implying I don't have a long attention span? Because my favorite games are EU2 and Crusader Kings which require you to do a lot of waiting around. Luckily you can adjust the game speed and there are lots of events...in M2TW you cant do much about dozens of small battles and the fact you need to conquer EVERY. SINGLE. SETTLEMENT. TAKING. THEM. ALL. BY. FORCE. The clone settlements also do not help things (my my my...Constantinople is looking suspiciously like Lisbon...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
This was a problem that was also very prevalent in Rome, although to give M2 credit numerous, tiny, indecisive battles do not happen as frequently as they did in RTW. The problem is I got tired of that happening in Rome...and you'd think that if they managed to eliminate clone soldiers (thank you very much CA) they might at least have one or two unique buildings or cities here or there?
Thats the problem I have with M2, many of the bad things inherent in Romes system just haven't been resolved or improved upon. A 3D map is the way to go, thats true, but two different types of settlements and a new agent type doesnt make the campaign game any more enjoyable when every other turn you are having to fight 1 unit stacks of rebels and even the largest battles start to lose all meaning or importance.
Shogun's and Medieval's campaign maps are simpler from a technical standpoint and are far from perfect, but they work better. The 3D map brings many positive things to the game and as I said above, is the only way to go, but right now it has so many problems inherent with it.
Oh and what do you have against FPSes? Trying playing Red Orchestra, Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault some time, they take a lot of patience, skill and intelligence to get good at. And who can beat the teamwork in the Project Reality mod for BF2? ;)
Play RTW- brilliant. Simply concept and you have to develope your charactors to prosper , win and succeed.
MTW was ok.
MTW2 well half the army doesnt work. The generals are either crap and get defeated, or half good but get burnt as heretics. never mind yet another MOTH will come along. Three attempts now and the royal family has not survived past grandsons. You might just as well buy them as in BI
Can you produce inquisitors?
Merchants do not appear to be a worthwhile option as many do bother even trying to utilise them as there is always someone bigger on the block.
And who tries seiging a castle with three units a peasants with a few archers? The again half the units do not work properly in the first place
Really dissappointed with this game. Going back to MTW and try a mod
Hi Captain Pugwash,
Apologies, but they belong to the Papal States only. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Pugwash
Do not attack people because they disagree with your opinions. The MTW vs. RTW/M2TW topic tends to make people a bit passionate. Try to keep it cool and on-topic or this thread will end up locked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
You missed the point I think, I was never meaning to belittle anyone.
I was not talking about 2D sprites, I was making points based on features not graphics ( I mentioned an "unrealistic castle" once in my whole post, big deal), please reread my post and don't be disparaging about me when I have afforded you the same courtesy, I was making my points thats all.
I am not disparaging you personally, I'm referring to your post. I took it all as a whole even though I only quoted that one bit, and I read it all, and found it to be pretty offensive. Telling someone [who] "bitches about a game after numerous 20 turn games should stick to FPS" is pretty obnoxious, his style of play and views has nothing to do with his opinions, nor does it make them less valid that anyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
Another one of your points that I will agree with that I did NOT miss from MTW was the refusal to engage by an inferior force. Chasing someone across the map for the better part of an hour trying to pin them down or in a corner was incredibly lame and obnoxious, so that I agree 100% with and do NOT miss in the slightest.
Guys it's EASY to pin an inferior force. It takes 2 turns. First move your force next to the enemy, but DO NOT ATTACK. Then next turn, attack, and they will run, but they can't move as far retreating as your army can with its full movement points. So go hit them a second time. An army can't run away twice in the same turn.
Thanks for the pointer there mate... But we aren't talking about M2TW and RTW, we're talking about MTW. And we aren't talking about the campaign map, we're talking about the battle itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
:idea2: :laugh4: :beam: :smash: