Medieval2 ~:cheers:

There's also something that doesn't understand, but it might just be because I suck at history. Look at the cannon, now it looks pretty high-end to me, and then there's the trebuchet which also looks alright.

But does that fit with the particular style of armor. Unless those are peasants or a very low-end militia, shouldn't they have more armor, and was the kite shield even used in the period of the more modern-lookalike cannons(like that one looks to me). Also, doesn't the horseman's spear look a bit...low-class for the cannon period?


Er, I'm most likely wrong, so please correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleh

But does that fit with the particular style of armor. Unless those are peasants or a very low-end militia, shouldn't they have more armor, and was the kite shield even used in the period of the more modern-lookalike cannons(like that one looks to me). Also, doesn't the horseman's spear look a bit...low-class for the cannon period?


Er, I'm most likely wrong, so please correct.

---

Or this could be from a custom battle and they just picked a bunch of random units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Gander

cool! cavalry can hover in the air now!

http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/49...een5_large.jpg

---

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMT

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

---

I prefer medieval period over Reneissance or Napoleonic period (although I like them too). Heck, I still play MTW still as that gives me a challenge compared to RTW.

The crusades, the different Western European, Byzantine & Islamic armies and the very history itself makes it very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleh

There's also something that doesn't understand, but it might just be because I suck at history. Look at the cannon, now it looks pretty high-end to me, and then there's the trebuchet which also looks alright.

But does that fit with the particular style of armor. Unless those are peasants or a very low-end militia, shouldn't they have more armor, and was the kite shield even used in the period of the more modern-lookalike cannons(like that one looks to me). Also, doesn't the horseman's spear look a bit...low-class for the cannon period?


Er, I'm most likely wrong, so please correct.

---

Remove the wheels from the trebuchets, and you are getting somewhere with this. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMT

What's that thing on the right side of the tree? It kinda looks like a giant stickman :laugh4:

By the way, isn't there anyone else who hates this time period of history?

I think medieval games suck with these crusades and religion and all the other annoying stuff, blah! I wish they'd make a RTW 2 instead.

---

see the good sides mate, it's easier to depict the medieval times properly ~;)

*edit*

the stick insect is a tree, btw.

Mmmmm, the time range covers one of the most interesting periods of military history, that of the 1st military revolution, with the arrival of artillery and the mixed units of pikes & muskets essayed by Castilian commanders -such as the 'Great Captain' Gonzalo de Córdoba- in Italy, and the definitive fall of medieval knights and men of arms as the main tactical resource -with Crécy and Azincourt as milestones.

But I don't feel confident we'll ever see that progression. As an example, that definition of the Catholic Church as an arrogant demanding power in that era -when it was going thru one of its darker moments, with the unending confrontation with the Sacred Empire, the French 'napping' of Popes in Avignon and the cismatic phenomena (curiously enough, the game ends in the midst of protestant Reformation)- gives a somewhat weak and simplistic 'feel' of politics in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Looks like they simply are converting RTW's 'Senate' into the 'Pope'. They won't even bother in change the RTW key city: Rome (nor even when the Pope has his seat in Avignon, or there are Anti-Popes).

I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

:no:

---

A guy posted this in the other MTW2 thread
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...et/wheels.html

21 playable factions I think was mentioned in that IGN interview. Could that mean many more other factions? I hope so.

Hmm, considering the main problem for RTW mods is the lack of modellers this newfound individuality for the troops could be worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antagonist

....Do I take it then that I am the only person who thinks that the fusion of Total War and Soul Calibur is an idea with extraordinary, near-limitless potential, and that correctly implemented could quite possibly result in the Best Game Ever?

........

~:(

---

They have more or less.... Kingdom under Fire Crusaders and Kingdom under Fire Heroes. Problem is after two or three battles its BORRRRRIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG. Very Repetative so no I don't think it would be the best game ever ;)

MTW 2 tho has GOTTA BE THE BEST IDEA EVER!!! :)

I just hope a little bit of thought is put into it and we aren't banging our heads against the wall again waiting for Mods to come out to make the thing interesting.

I really don't think I'm going to get a game that will have the Aztecs... That is, unless I'm part of a mod for a medieval era historical mod (without America).

Looking forward to seeing an EB2 on this engine :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

Looking forward to seeing an EB2 on this engine :2thumbsup:

---

Don't know if the EB team will have the strength or will to make EB2.

The chances for modding Medieval 2 depends entirely on the degree of moddability.

But can guarantee that EB 1 v1.0 will be finished before any work starts on a possible EB2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

---

Heh, technology wasn't even the most important. I wonder how they will model European germs - if even.

Also, this timeline is - for lack of a better word - nonsensical. If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern. People fought very differently from around the 100-years war onward - in a stile that contrasted greatly from the knight-in-shining armour tactics that we associate with the Middle Ages. Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.

And I also agree with Dux Corvanus on the issue of politics. This whole pass-out-your-princesses and conquer-the-world-because-the-pope-says-so crap is making my toes curl.

Quote:

---

This whole pass-out-your-princesses and conquer-the-world-because-the-pope-says-so crap is making my toes curl.

---

:laugh4:


Cool link about the wheeled trebuchets though. :2thumbsup:

The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data, so that having wheels will mean that these behemoths can move around effortlessly like tanks. Regardless of terrain. While in reality, the wheels in question were only a reaction to the immense recoil. The trebuchet is, like siege towers, dependant on 100% flat terrain. In fact, the terrain would have been prepared beforehand.

So, yes. Have the wheels by all means, but at least make it immobile. Positioning it is a question of labour and time. It's remarkable how easy it is to move these behemoths when the terrain is perfectly flat.. And it's nigh impossible to move them on anything else but well-prepared "runways". The same applies to siege towers of course. Well back into ancient times..

Aztecs?!? :inquisitive: How on Earth are they going to fit them into the map?

Maybe they've increased the max-size of the map?

Or maybe the provinces will be less detailed :no:

JC i really don't understand you people. Its one big 'well CA prolly won't do that or this. meh they're stupid:

quote: The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data,
How the hell do you know?
quote:If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern.
BS and you know it youreself

quote: I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.
Very simple: as goals like they did in part 1. Worked perfect you know.
Quote: Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.
Yeah why would they bother with anything. They are just a moneymilking machine out to get you're hardearned dollars for a crap game while they're laughing at you. Newsflash: i said it before you are not the market.
How in M:TW did they depict the rise of cities? Never heard anybody about it. Could be very simple though. Larger upgrades from a certain date in certain areas. See?

First of all how many games are out there that offer this depth (which you people complain is shallow) at all. It's fun to marry out you're daughters. You can rig papalelections. It's wicked. The time frame is a bit odd but saying that half the game is in the early modern period is as nonsecal and you know it yourself. EM era has started just 30 years before. I find some of you to behave like spoiled little brats who don't get the exact, correct historical game and start crying. In fact already debating how wack you're christmas present is gonna be. If you find that why do you play R:TW? Why did you bother with any Total War game. Fact is the TW series deliver gameplay that's nowhere to be found but now you're used to that, it's not good enough. Read the website again. It's about immense epic battles. Not about all you're reforms and specific little details happening on the exact date.
I never ever heard anyone complainng tha M:TW lacked anything on the history front. How come? You apparantly feel cheated with R:TW. Well then go play something else.
This is disgusting.

Everyone his/her own opinion though

kotd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shigawire

The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data, so that having wheels will mean that these behemoths can move around effortlessly like tanks. Regardless of terrain. While in reality, the wheels in question were only a reaction to the immense recoil. The trebuchet is, like siege towers, dependant on 100% flat terrain. In fact, the terrain would have been prepared beforehand.

---

Probably yes but who knows, maybe they didn't.
But it would probably be too much work for them to create a animation where they dismantel the trebuchet and then move and then put it together again so CA will have them push them around.

King of the Dutch has a point. We hardly know anything about the game and already you are taking it apart. I can already predict that the game is not going to be how you want it to be. There are too many different, and often opposing, wishes, and CA does not have ten years to create the ultimate game. The best I hope for is that they remove the main errors of R:TW: A.I. (including diplomacy) and restraints to moddability. The rest can be modded.

No need to be pessimistic here..

lets do some innovative thinking as to how to explain their new ideas and innovations to TW series..


"Spain": the game starts 1080 a.d. at which point this nation would be referred to as the kingdom of castile. However, by the time it will end, 1530 a.d. it has become spain. we'd like to hope that this is worked out through the progress of campaign. lets give CA the benefit of the doubt.

"Aztecs": Alot was going on in the new world in the 1500's.. the age of discovery. The struggle between european nations in the caribbean was just getting under way. Legendary SPANISH conquistadors were beginning to make a name for themselves; Cortez, Pizarro, just to name a few. Desoto and his journeys. The original MTW actually had 3 campaign maps: Early, High, and Late era maps. although only slightly different from each other, one could hope that since CA already has a war engine already established, that they would have time to make a new world map exclusive of europe.

Rome Total War vs Medieval Total War 2: I remember for like a month straight prior to its release that i was making constant phone calls to every game shop in town trying to find out if they would happen to be getting it in earlier than the other guy, learning that it had been pushed back several times grr. I even asked for the strategy guide just to have something to at least keep me occupied prior to its release. When i finally called the day of its release and heard "yeah we have it", sure enough i fired up the camaro and hit 100 on the i-state to get to Gamestop. My girlfriend went with me and thought i was just out of my mind over a computer game. RTW didnt turn out to be what i expected.. games never do, but RTW still ended out a damn fine game.. in some ways better than i expected, and the modding community helped make it that way. MTW2 wont turn out to be what we expect, but modders like the EB team, RTR team, and the great guys at the forge and strat center will make sure a good quality product with result in the end. My girlfriend is no longer with me, but RTW and its mods still are hehe.

Also you should wonder on questions such as when will the Total War series finally be all inclusive of a "total war" it proclaims and finally introduce naval battles

What I'd really like to see is a complete overhaul of the economy. The system currently used for managing city growth, creating buildings and recruiting units is IMO too simplistic and clearly outdated, being a direct evolution since STW. As in RTW CA took away the Risk-type strategic map, I hope that now they tackles this issue.

im a medieval times freak, im here cause rome is my second option, and eb tryes to do it its best but mainly i like medieval (age of vikings and fanatics or chivalry, or the crusades) but your quiality makes roman times worth it

i hope AI can match the graphics and the game will be really the game of the year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of the dutch

*snip*

---

Wo-hoo what agression!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by king of the dutch

quote:If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern.
BS and you know it youreself

---

Is it really?

Let me give you the most obvious difference between Medieval warfare and Early Modern warfare: professional armies. Around 1080, kings and his henchmen were still driving around the countryside rallying troops for his cause, yet by 1400 -and certainly by 1500- you had a centralized military apparatus with professional soldiers, mercs or not. How are they going to model that? Are they going to change city-based recruitment to a centralised recruitment pool? Are they going to add a promotion system where all military leaders were not nobility anymore, but entrepeneurs and adventures could rise up into the ranks of the army too? Are they going to model the the pre-Early Modern feudal armies and the Early Modern violence monopoly of the state, by not allowing direct control of your recruitment in the Medieval period?

These might seem like ever so slight details to you, but they make a huge difference to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of the Dutch

Quote: Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.
Yeah why would they bother with anything. They are just a moneymilking machine out to get you're hardearned dollars for a crap game while they're laughing at you. Newsflash: i said it before you are not the market.
How in M:TW did they depict the rise of cities? Never heard anybody about it. Could be very simple though. Larger upgrades from a certain date in certain areas. See?

---

Hah, if only if it were that simple. You can't model the transition from an agrarian-run economy to a city-run economy like that. Apart from the military matters I've discussed before, there's a whole lot more to the transition from a feudal society to the Early Modern society. How would you model the hard-fought independance of the cities? The fact that each city formed its own mini-government? Work specialisation? Trader economies? Indirect taxes? City militias? Cross-national trader unions? Trade centers?

Good luck trying to do that with the RTW engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of the Dutch

First of all how many games are out there that offer this depth (which you people complain is shallow) at all. It's fun to marry out you're daughters. You can rig papalelections. It's wicked. The time frame is a bit odd but saying that half the game is in the early modern period is as nonsecal and you know it yourself. EM era has started just 30 years before. I find some of you to behave like spoiled little brats who don't get the exact, correct historical game and start crying. In fact already debating how wack you're christmas present is gonna be. If you find that why do you play R:TW? Why did you bother with any Total War game. Fact is the TW series deliver gameplay that's nowhere to be found but now you're used to that, it's not good enough. Read the website again. It's about immense epic battles. Not about all you're reforms and specific little details happening on the exact date. [
I never ever heard anyone complainng tha M:TW lacked anything on the history front. How come? You apparantly feel cheated with R:TW. Well then go play something else.
This is disgusting.

---

I don't mind games simplifying history, yet I do mind games distorting history. If they want to make a game about epic medieval battles, then they shouldn't add the whole princess 'n popes crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

King of the Dutch has a point. We hardly know anything about the game and already you are taking it apart. I can already predict that the game is not going to be how you want it to be. There are too many different, and often opposing, wishes, and CA does not have ten years to create the ultimate game. The best I hope for is that they remove the main errors of R:TW: A.I. (including diplomacy) and restraints to moddability. The rest can be modded.

---

Seconded. It's barely been announced yet some people find it possible to conclude that it'll be awful already. To detractors, calm down a little, take a deep breath, and wait for more concrete information to base your claims on.

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of the Dutch

quote: The problem is that CA will misunderstand this data,
How the hell do you know?

---

Have you looked at the egyptian faction in Vanilla recently? Or any "barbarian" factions? Let's just say they haven't wooed me with their historical research in the past, and I tend to be a realist. If something has changed for the better since then (which is definitely possible with a new publisher), then I'd be pleasantly surprised!

It's always an interesting thing to see someone agressively worked up defending a meme. Even though I personally don't feel that I attacked the meme in the first place.
I don't see what's to be detracted though. It's common knowledge that artillery in the Rome-engine move around effortlessly on almost all terrain. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they have altered this. In any case, let's hope it won't be difficult to mod for those who would be interested.

Although the primary improvements in M2:TW seem to revolve around the graphical, I'm extremely happy to see something as simple as colours are being done right. This suggests to me that CA has acquired some proper art coordinator. Because I no longer see the fluorescent colours of RTW, but rather desaturated, realistic, natural and dirty colours. Good stuff. Of course, it could also be that their art coordinator hasn't been replaced, but rather has learned something from all the modders.

Since they've improved the colours, it may not be such a huge leap of faith to believe they may have improved the historical research as well. ~;) One has to be allowed to dream.

The grit and blood, and variation of soldiers within a formation is an enormous improvement in itself!

I was very happy to see the news about this game's release. Especially reading about the graphical upgrades. I just hope it will be very moddable.
In any case, I look forward to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

---

... and if you didn't notice, most liked RTW. It's core strengths - especially the battle system - is still lightyears ahead of any other game in simulating the mechcanics of classical and medieval combat. It's so easy to bash historical inaccuracies to make yourself feel learned, but would you rather have historically (and slightly modding) troubled engine or no game at all? If CA made TW fantasy from the start instead of mock-history people would even be interested in realism. Goodness be happy that there is a Total War series and that the next game will have greatly improved graphics. Does bad hype actually annoy you even you play?

Well I still have some hopes for the moddability of MTW2, unless they restrict the possibilities even more. And as you point out, it is the best that we have now, and will probably ever have for a long time to create a historical game.

Has anyone else noticed this ?
From totalwar.com-"New Settlement Types
Build through six levels of settlement ranging from humble villages to vast cities and wooden forts to mighty stone fortress. Develop your faction as a feudal aristocracy using you castles to keep the peasants in check whilst conquering your enemies with your powerful armies. Or build cities to develop a wealthy urban society, and battle your foes with diplomacy, bribery, assassination and armies of mercenaries."
It sounds to me that you now have a choice with what you want your settlements to specialize in. Castles for military and possibly agriculture, Cities for commerce and agents. That could also be a way to show some of the changes that took place between the middle ages and the renaissance, Castles could be more important early on when your trying to expand and protect your empire, but when you have yourself established and secure you'll need the commerce from cities to support your empire. Also, castles might give you access to better units earlier on, while cities eventually give rise to well disciplined, professional soldiers. This is all speculation, but i think it is a good possibility something like this will be implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

---

All games are announced like that, its simple advertisement, what did you expect them to say "This game improves on some of the flaws of its predecessor"? The reason they are toting the graphics instead of the features is because the game has just been announced. First of all, allot of the features probably haven't been finalized or completed. Second, Pretty graphics are probably more likely to attract NEW players (not just us familiar with the series) to the game. Things like "improved A.I." and "historically accurate units" are less likely to pique people interest initially, especially if they haven't played any of the previous games.
I'm not saying that MTW2 will be the best game ever, that yet to be seen, but I don't think we should be taking every turn of phrase used by CA as a bad omen at this stage.