Medieval II: Total War Official Thread

(Originally posted in the RTW forum before I realised there was this stickied thread in the Entrance Hall which was a better place for it!)

In the words of Brave Sir Robin:

'I've soiled my armour!'

Wow - I know graphics are just eye candy, and the important stuff is how it actually plays, but even so - my eyeballs are in a sugar-induced diabetic coma!

The whole 'discovering America' thing is pretty interesting, as is the units being made up of individually dressed and equipped soldiers that will see the benefits of armour/weapon upgrades. Getting one of your cardinals elected Pope also sounds like a good twist on the whole 'kill the Pope' scenario from the original.

I wonder how easy this will be to mod? I mean, does this mean to mod one unit skin you'll actually have to mod about 10? It seems they've really upped the details and decreased the over-abundance of in-your-face faction colours. I'm all for the more naturalistic colours you see in the many excellent RTW mods, so this is a good thing.

I'm actually pretty darn excited about the whole thing. Not looking forward to explaining to the wife about exactly why I need a new PC though... The game only costs £34.99, but I'll end up paying about £1100 to play it with all the bells and whistles set to max. This after having already upgraded in December 2003 on the strength that RTW would be released in early 2004 (then discovering it was getting delayed until Autumn - gah!).

TW - keeping Dell in business!

Heck - I'm not complaining though - bring it on!

'I've done it again!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate

looks like its been edited.

no idea the phrase already existed as a slur, i made it up on the spot.

no offence intended, except to a dead civilisation that has no relevance to a medieval game. :)

---

Maybe, but it'll be funny fighting them nonetheless. Again, hope there's no hard feelings about that.

And sorry about the Serbians thing, I always thought it was a real term.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Dick

I speculate that the M2:TW minimum specs will probaly only differ from the RTW specs in slight ways, such as a minimum of a Pentium 4/Athlon 2GHZ+ processor, 512MB RAM and direct x 9.0c compatible cards.

---

That is no slightly increase.
That's a pretty big one.
A slight increase would be Pentium 4/Athlon 1.2GHZ+ processor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Im not a history fanatic :book: ...Well maybe I am. The spanish conquered the aztec's with 300..I repeat THREE HUNDRED, theres noway this game (If it includes aztec-spanish) isnt going to be way off historically accurate, the spanish slaughtered the aztics, and the aztecs thought there gold was mere fancy decoration. So they would have to invent some system of coin for the aztec natives.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will) but it really wasn't that simple. Cortes had to use a fair old bit of diplomacy to survive in the americas, ally with the tlaxcallan and other tribes (who were the aztecs enemies) and was repulsed on his first jaunt to Tenochtitlan. It really wasn't tens of thousands of aztecs against just three hundred spaniards. That would be silly in the real world not just a game.

I must say I am somewhat concerned about the 'gimmick' factor in this though. Some representation of the new world effect is pretty important, given the time period we're looking at. However, South/Central america is such a different proposition to Europe, and the Atlantic is so big, (compared with the med/north sea) that it is going to take some pretty creative ideas from CA to make it work well. What might have been a better idea would be the possibility of setting up 'trade' routes to the americas once these were discovered, and having to set aside ships to do the transporting of captured gold, silver and gems. Rival factions could then send ships to disrupt your gold fleets as privateers.

In this way, we don't need an American land mass. It just seems a little simplistic from what we've heard so far (Aztecs mentioned but no other powers in the Americas?), only south and central america?

What is the point in having just south and central america? Because historically they were the land masses exploited by then?

How much historical accuracy do we want (especially by the end of the game era?)

Why not the possibility of further african/eastern exploration? If we have additional land mass in the campaign, these make just as much sense - you could choose where you go to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia

Maybe, but it'll be funny fighting them nonetheless. Again, hope there's no hard feelings about that.

---

I think in order to make the Aztecs worthwhile, and make sure there is some balance that the Aztecs will raise huge armies, mostly fodder but they'll just try to overwhelm the enemy.

If not..then you cant make their units actually better, surely thats too ahistorical...so they'd end up being pointless.

Ok i brainstormed a bit and i need some CA employees to answer these questions:

1.Why no norwegians? the only scandinavian country is denmark ~;p

2.Why the Americas, how about the far east too just for the heck of it? (i.e China, and probably japan, you all know Shogun is still in ours hearts)

3.If the Timurids are in, that means you'd have to map out persia, might sound interesting, but before them were the Ilkhanids and Khawarizmians, i wonder how they will work it out if they cut 2 important factions.

4.Also the entire "global" crusade thing is a bit gimmicky, what will CA plan for orthodox factions? (muslims will probably get jihad again, and a global jihad[?])

also about the aztecs, i do believe their units are competent enough against the spanish, but CA need to think this our very well and make the aztecs fun.

Oh yeah, also, I am still VERY excited about this game - Lets hope AI and diplomacy are fixed (sounds like a lot of thought has gone into diplomacy at least, but if AI is still dumb on campaign map it will be pointless)

But just look at those screenshots. I really will need a new computer now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

An excellent question--one that I brought up in the official forum as well. After AI, the pacing of battles is probably my biggest concern. I admit I could do without the 8-hour battles we sometimes fight in Medieval 1 (I suppose I might as well get used to calling it that now), but Rome's battles were over so quickly it was absurd! There has got to be a happy medium somewhere....

---

The main problem with MTW1 battles was the endless hordes of reinforcements. Remove that (replacing it with the excellent reinforcement mechanics of RTW) and you get battles with perfect mechanics but without the unrealistic and boring reinforcement hordes.

As long as this game is not WORSE than RTW, as long as it is as much fun (mods), it's good.

I'm not happy with the fact they are dedicating their time to the Aztecs though, certainly they have much better things to do, so we can only hope the whole Aztec thing is fun enough or provides an interesting modding possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

1.Why no norwegians? the only scandinavian country is denmark ~;p

---

Because the danes were the strongest faction in scandinavia during medieval times.
I would love nothing more then to see Sweden there but if they have to pick one then even I would say danes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

...also about the aztecs, i do believe their units are competent enough against the spanish, but CA need to think this our very well and make the aztecs fun.

---

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

And of course, nothing says that it MUST be the Spanish battling the Aztecs, in-game. Just as Egyptian camels never wandered the streets of London in actual history, they can and do in our Medi-I games. So it could be seen that Polish Retainers, or the Golden Hoarde might encounter the americans in Medi-II.

Great fun, I think. Looking forward to it.

Dropping of jaws, soiling of pants etc...
This looks awesome. Hoping for decent AI and heaps of moddability.
The vegetation looks a bit better, though it does not feature too prominently in the screenies.

As for Scandinavia, the power balance could have swung different ways from the early stages on, but historically Denmark would be the best choice as they ended up being top dog most of the time, and they had the best odds as well. Norway was almost always weakened by civil wars, seceding earls and turbulent priests. Sweden hardly existed as such in 1080. (it teleported in a bit later).

Wow ... but then I remember how I felt after hearing about RTW... :inquisitive:

Apparently nowadays, improving games graphically is really the "easier" thing to do. You can almost always expect new games to have vastly improved graphics so I'm hardly moved. :no:

I really really hope they do something with the AI!!!!! I NEVER had a truly epic or interesting battle that lasted more than 30 minutes in RTW. NEVER in RTW did I fight a campaign battle against more than 1 faction, nor did I ever fight alongside an ally. I guess the new campaign map complicates this from happening but it NEVER happened to me at all!!! I hardly ever bothered with diplomacy in RTW because in the long run, you'll almost always win anyway!

Don't get me wrong, I'm a slave of CA and I will DEFINITELY buy this when it comes out (or at least until I get a PC that can run it, I'm currently forced to play RTW at around mid-settings). I just wish I don't start browsing online for mods or patches after a couple of weeks. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

---

Possibly, but more likely I think will be a separate map for Central America. You couldn't really place the New World closer to Europe, because everyone knew it had taken Columbus six months (or whatever it was to get there). Everyone knew the distances involved were vast. In order to travel to the New World in MTW2 I think it'll be a case of moving a fleet 'off' the western edge of the world, and then on the next turn it'll arrive somewhere in the Caribbean. And there'll be a button to switch between the two maps.

Been having a little think about about what I'd like to see in MTW2 and coming top of the list at the moment (aside from an improved AI of course) would be an improved inheritance system. Its hugely annoying in MTW to lose a game because your King failed in his royal duties. I'd like to see it so that a nephew, or second-cousin, or even (gasp!) a daughter could take the throne. Obviously there should be problems (especially in the latter case) of disloyalty etc. But the historical precedents are there.

And also, it always struck me as bit odd in MTW that you could have Catholic factions forming alliances with Muslim ones. I mean the Pope's just said "go and kill the evil heretics", so surely any Catholic faction that formed such an alliance really should be getting some severe diplomatic penalties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

And of course, nothing says that it MUST be the Spanish battling the Aztecs, in-game. Just as Egyptian camels never wandered the streets of London in actual history, they can and do in our Medi-I games. So it could be seen that Polish Retainers, or the Golden Hoarde might encounter the americans in Medi-II.

Great fun, I think. Looking forward to it.

---

Good points.

There is one thing irking me about the game...

the aztecs didn't have cavalry.. how will they balance it out for MP? ~;p

Quote:

---

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.

---

This interests me. It sounds like towns and castles are seperate things. If you look at the screenshots the towns don't contain keeps.

Maybe you train knights from castles and there is a limit to the number you can have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Trebuchets are made more efficient if wheels are added to them.

---

If I remember this correctly, you CAN'T have trebuchets on wheels. Trebuchets need very firm and stable surface to fire or else it wouldn't work. That's why you can't have catapults or trebuchets on castle towers. The castle towers usually are not a stable enough foundation, and would shake apart if a trebuchet fired. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Because the danes were the strongest faction in scandinavia during medieval times.
I would love nothing more then to see Sweden there but if they have to pick one then even I would say danes.

---

Norway had a fair bit of land between 1220-1319 i beleive. Also weren't the Rus the swedish vikings? (they made kiev and novgorod?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General_Sun

If I remember this correctly, you CAN'T have trebuchets on wheels. Trebuchets need very firm and stable surface to fire or else it wouldn't work. That's why you can't have catapults or trebuchets on castle towers. The castle towers usually are not a stable enough foundation, and would shake apart if a trebuchet fired. :P

---

There are medieval illustrations of both types:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/ht/ht01.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/ht/ht02.html

As was mentioned earlier its thought (and has been demonstrated on medieval weapons programmes) that the wheels allowed the trebuchet to move back when firing. This causes the weight to drop in more vertical line, rather than proscribing an arc (which it would do if wheelless), and that this generates greater force.

The screens look promising, and I know some people are wary claiming "touchups" and all, and while this is true to a certain point, the initial screens for Rome were not that much better than the graphics in the game...

I am torn when it comes to the theme of the game, however...

Though I do like the Medieval era, I was actually hoping for something fresh, or if they had to make a "sequel," then I would prefer to see one of Rome (perhaps a bit earlier too, focusing on the diadochoi kingdoms).

I am optimistic that the AI, diplomacy, and other factors will be improved, and that new features will add much to the game. I'm concerned about the addition of an Aztec faction, because if they are added, then I would expect the Americas to be well represented too, which I doubt due to the 21 factions...

Still, this is just early speculation, and more importantly, I need to grab a 7800 GTX :sweatdrop:.

Come on guys, Martok is the only one from here backing me up in the AI thread :help:

Maybe we can at least get CA to allow AI modding, if that's even possible? Then the community could work on it, instead of wasting crazy man-hours redoing all the skins out of boredom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alx

Maybe we can at least get CA to allow AI modding, if that's even possible? Then the community could work on it, instead of wasting crazy man-hours redoing all the skins out of boredom.

---

The A.I. is such an integral part of the game that making it moddable it is almost impossible. Mind you, I am not saying that it can't be done, but that it will be very, very hard. However, it is possible to make A.I. preferences moddable, and CA has done this in M:TW and R:TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The A.I. is such an integral part of the game that making it moddable it is almost impossible. Mind you, I am not saying that it can't be done, but that it will be very, very hard. However, it is possible to make A.I. preferences moddable, and CA has done this in M:TW and R:TW.

---

That's it. That's what I want out of M:TW II than anything else.

I want a better array of options that "arcade" and "something else."

What soured the fan base on R:TW more than anything else? Unit speeds. People used to controlling their battles were aghast at the run-around. It looked goofy.

For me, the biggest laughable problem was the "flying horses" stuff.

You can drop arcade battles, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like options between "RTW" style play, which is obviously designed to be quick, and "traditional," or "paced" or "MTW-style" or (some would say) "slow and boring" play.

I'd like things like the spear bonus back, too.

What about titles? King of Aragon, King of Serbia, Duke of Bavaria, Voivode of Wallachia, Count of Flandern, Censor of Genoa etc.

I want them back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hambut_bulge

There are medieval illustrations of both types:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/ht/ht01.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/ht/ht02.html

As was mentioned earlier its thought (and has been demonstrated on medieval weapons programmes) that the wheels allowed the trebuchet to move back when firing. This causes the weight to drop in more vertical line, rather than proscribing an arc (which it would do if wheelless), and that this generates greater force.

---

I think you have misunderstood.
We aren't talking about the wheels that are on the drawnings.
We are talking about wheels under the trebuchet so that they can push it around the battlefield.
All Trebuchet versions I have seen don't have those wheels.

Yes agreed. Hand cranks are not the same thing as vehicular wheels.

BTW, Hambut_bulge, those are very interesting pictures, thanks for showing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Looks very beautiful graphically, but it seems like only a few new gameplay elements added... I'm curious about how the map looks in terms of scaling - will they shrink it in order to include the Americas or will they keep it detailed? I'd also be happy if they had increased the number of factions to perhaps 50 instead, to reflect the changes in the period. Egypt sounds a little cheesy compared to Abbassids, Mamluks and Fatimids, for example, there should IMO be differences over the periods. Finally I'm curious about how/if they're going to fix the most important issue that detracted from gameplay - removing the numerous small skirmish battles with brigands and similar and make the AI factions capable of regrouping and assembling larger armies for the battles instead of sending their units a few at the time. It's also important that they keep battle speed down so that the AI doesn't get completely crippled in the battles, so that better strategy on the map is necessary to compensate for larger losses in the battles. I'd also like to know how they're handling recruitment - if they're trying to limit blitz strategy by making it difficult to recruit in newly conquered territories right away.

---

I agree about Egypt thingy, I don't remember if the Omaweyins is in that era too or earlier (But they were before the Abbassids)..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

I do hope the muslims get some decent units earlier on and not cheese units like muwahid and nubian spearmen that were almost the same bar some small statistic changes.

Also i do hope they get better units as they advance, sure they were in decline but just to keep up with the europeans, a late european army is far easier to handle than a muslim one where you have to micromanage.

---

I really don't know why they are always downgraded. After all, they were the only ones to repell the danger of the mogols and all the crusades.. I think they should have some nice troops with the exeptional option of 'VERYYYY' excellent morale. As muslims when in a battle, won't fear either death or life. For if it is death, paradise is the nest stop and if it's life, glory is the next stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

I think you have misunderstood.
We aren't talking about the wheels that are on the drawnings.
We are talking about wheels under the trebuchet so that they can push it around the battlefield.
All Trebuchet versions I have seen don't have those wheels.

---

Not at all. In my haste, I merely should have linked to page 3: ~;)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rmine/ht/ht03.html

The drawing for the Siege of Jerusalem has what appear to be wheels on the base, although the accompanying text does admit that this is a rarity in medieval drawings.

Also I found a link to a site (http://authors.history-forum.com/lia...h13122005.html)
about Chinese war engines (apparently the Chinese invented the trebuchets) and near the bottom of this are a couple of illustrations of what may be wheeled trebuchets. Sadly, as with many drawings of the period, there is a great deal of room for interpretation.

Also came across these pages (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...et/wheels.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...t/builds.html). This TV programme was shown on BBC2 a few years ago and provides a practical demonstration of how a trebuchet with wheel could actually work.

OMG, its just wheels. There only there so you can move the thing around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

OMG, its just wheels. There only there so you can move the thing around.

---

Well yes, but what else are we going to do until winter 2006? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

OMG, its just wheels. There only there so you can move the thing around.

---

Hey I have no problem with the wheels. :2thumbsup:
As I said before they probably added them for gameplay.


@Hambut: Thanks for the links, very interesting read :book:

This is a pretty dissapointing announcement. Better graphics, a few new gameplay elements and a rehashed game. I wonder which they'll remake after MTW, STW or RTW. Probably STW, if we're lucky Sega will go under before anything as lame as RTW2 can be made.

Quote:

---

Well yes, but what else are we going to do until winter 2006?

---

It is winter 2006.

'Deep thinking strategy campaign' - sounds promising, I just hope that there is more diplomacy and diplomatic intrigue, these after all went hand in hand with war.

Thought I'd put my nose into the Trebuchet debate.

The wheels on the base are there to allow the trebuchet to fire (much)further and also allow it to deal with the strains of firing with less stress on the structure. It allows the weight to drop almost vertically, as it moves through the firing motion.

I saw this on TV, so it must be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I really don't know why they are always downgraded. After all, they were the only ones to repell the danger of the mogols and all the crusades.. I think they should have some nice troops with the exeptional option of 'VERYYYY' excellent morale. As muslims when in a battle, won't fear either death or life. For if it is death, paradise is the nest stop and if it's life, glory is the next stop.

---

Don't be silly!
We can all be rational about fear when we are outside it. Then we can feel as if we don't fear anything, but fear does take a man, even a determined religious fanatic. And it wasn't as if they were religious to the point fanaticism, some were but most weren't. It has even been argued that the christians were worse in that department in that age, that they were more likely hold some sort of religious fervour in battle, and disregard their own lives.

Since practically all battles prior to the modern age have been decided due to morale, the Muslims would never have been halted if their morale was consistently better than their enemies.
Also how do you explain routing muslim armies? Or tiny crusader armies beating much larger muslim ones in the first years of the crusades?

Now I agree that in MTW the Muslims were terribly underpowered when the game moved into High. And that was just not right. THere are reasons as to how the Almohads/successors managed to stay in Grenada for so long after losing their heartland there. Part of the exlaination is that they were not stagnant.

But from making the technology better to making the Muslim armies unbreakable is a serious misunderstanding of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

It is winter 2006.

---

Exactly!!!!
But I fear SEGA doesn't know that...

OMG im in love...is that blood i saw on a units armour...i mean if it is .......oohohohohooh

and i hope i read and saw it right but does a unit now have multiple faces or is that just for the screenies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Don't be silly!
We can all be rational about fear when we are outside it. Then we can feel as if we don't fear anything, but fear does take a man, even a determined religious fanatic. And it wasn't as if they were religious to the point fanaticism, some were but most weren't. It has even been argued that the christians were worse in that department in that age, that they were more likely hold some sort of religious fervour in battle, and disregard their own lives.

Since practically all battles prior to the modern age have been decided due to morale, the Muslims would never have been halted if their morale was consistently better than their enemies.
Also how do you explain routing muslim armies? Or tiny crusader armies beating much larger muslim ones in the first years of the crusades?

Now I agree that in MTW the Muslims were terribly underpowered when the game moved into High. And that was just not right. THere are reasons as to how the Almohads/successors managed to stay in Grenada for so long after losing their heartland there. Part of the exlaination is that they were not stagnant.

But from making the technology better to making the Muslim armies unbreakable is a serious misunderstanding of the situation.

---

But morale did get them where they went. Muslims didn't have those very heavily armored catas, or those deadly 3 metre pikes. They had valour, they kept attacking Constantinople untill they occupied it. Unbreakable!! Who said that? I said make their valour the best (In other words) or else find a way to make them as good as others 'while' keeping them historically accurate.

nice screenshots =D

time to make wallpapers again! :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

But morale did get them where they went. Muslims didn't have those very heavily armored catas, or those deadly 3 metre pikes. They had valour, they kept attacking Constantinople untill they occupied it. Unbreakable!! Who said that? I said make their valour the best (In other words) or else find a way to make them as good as others 'while' keeping them historically accurate.

---

Actually the muslim armies were not really technologically behind the European armies. Their cavalry was often as heavy and their light cavalry was most assuredly better.

Yet the shock of initial contact with European/Frankish styled charges broke them consistently in the beginning. Even the bravest men fled. Just like they had in Europe.

The muslim armies did have a morale advantage, in general, in the initial expasion after Muhammed. That is true. But it is not superior morale that means you will take a place after hundreds of years of trying, that is determination of your leaders and in some cases chance.

No what would be more practical and historical would be equal morale (to Europeans) save special units, better mobility and slightly less armour. Broadly speaking.
Muslim units were not 'behind' much until plate armour began getting popular. But still the Ottomans kept up by developing other equipment.

Ottoman persistence and eventual success in attacking Constantinopole had everything to do with their imperial priorites and skill in siege warfare and preciously little to do with religion. And they had to try several times, too. And it was *still* a pretty close run thing.

Back in the 7th century or so the Arabs had besieged the place for years, to no avail (I think the Emperor eventually managed to offer them enough tribute to get them call it off). And they were still running on the high gear of the newly established faith's militant expansionism phase. The as-such usefully unifying religious fervor didn't much keep them from having serious issues with Sassanid war elephants, however, and routing from several battles for other reasons. Ditto for the Moors when they butted their heads bloody against Frankish lines at Poitiers, 732 AD.

Conversely, firm belief in a direct ticket to Heaven through martyrdom did not to my knowledge make either crusading European armies or the military Orders in some way unbreakable. Some of course were; but when the push really came to shove, most would panic and run like any other soldiers in the same situation.

The Muslim (initially really Arab) ability to overrun a poerful, long established empire and bring another to its knees in their initial Blitzkrieg came from many reasons, but among the chief ones was the simple fact Byzantium and the Sassanids had been fighting each other more or less intensively for quite a while and were caught in a rather weakened state. The Arabs may not have been steppe nomads, but quite a few of them were desert nomads and hence capable of considerable strategic mobility, especially in deserts, that the imperial armies found difficult to match.

Around those times pikes had fallen from use (although to my knowledge standard one-handed infantry fighting spears the world over have tended to reach lenghts of some two and half meters that doesn't quite compare to the up to 5.5 meter Hellenic and Medieval pike...) anyway, and the Arabs swiftly copied the cataphract principle to the extent their resources allowed - which in practice meant most of the horses had to make do with hardened leather barding, for example. Well, at least that kept the load down and retained greater mobility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

But morale did get them where they went. Muslims didn't have those very heavily armored catas, or those deadly 3 metre pikes. They had valour, they kept attacking Constantinople untill they occupied it. Unbreakable!! Who said that? I said make their valour the best (In other words) or else find a way to make them as good as others 'while' keeping them historically accurate.

---

They took Constantinople with very large guns. Not a great deal of valour there.
While I agree that in MTW the Moslem factions were too weak in comparison with the European, I agree with Kraxis.
As for the Mameluks and stopping the Mongol threat.....there was far, far more involved than a disciplined army. Ain Jalut was an army against a rearguard ( and that rearguard gave a very good account ) and a large contingent of the Mameluk army were in fact Golden Horde, sent there by Berke.
For a clearer picture of how impossible any further expansion was for the Ilkhanate, read Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia. The complexities of threats from all sides meant consolidation was all the Ilkhanate could realistically think about.

As for MTW II, I just hope CA do not repeat the mistakes of MTW. Namely, overly strong European armies, poor unit cost comparison and a pathetically weak Mongol presence

.......Orda

Despite sharing some peoples' questions or doubts about specs, the AI, battle speed, diplomacy ectetera, I must say some of the announced features are enough to make my mouth water.

Hurling dead animals into cities, now there's a thought for the weekend.

And the new, 'historically correct' option to have your Priest become Cardinal or even Pope, thus enhancing your faction's power and standing, is in one word: brilliant.
:elephant:

OMG, this is my happy day! I was praying for MTW2 and got it! I think it will be better than RTW and even better MTW1. With sega providing better support, it will get a better start than RTW did when it came out. I was hoping for more factions like 30 or so, but we will see. The pics looks cool and the press release says a release date of december 2006, cool! I just hope it doesn't gets moved.

how i love the .org, people arguing over the slightest irregularities(sp?) *sighs*
instead of focusing on the big shiny pictures

Start firing up your modding skills, VH! ~:). I'd like to see 30+ factions, too. And of course if they do make any of the mistakes we worry about, I'm counting on guys like you to fix them.

Ajax

On the little mini-debate, the muslim factions definitely need to be made stronger (touche for mongols as well) but not at the levels that some may suggest.

It's undeniable that the muslim armies immediately after Muhammad had unmatched morale and zeal...

Take the example of Yarmuk where a lightly equipped muslim army essentially crushed a Byzantine army AT LEAST twice it's size and with much better arms and training in a frontal assault.

But it is also undeniable that this kind of ethic in the muslim soldier tapered off as time passed...and the muslims suffered reverse defeats.

I think that the best way to go about this is somewhere in the middle...

And yes, I am intrigued by the shinies, but more so about the POSSIBLE* improvements in gameplay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Start firing up your modding skills, VH! ~:). I'd like to see 30+ factions, too. And of course if they do make any of the mistakes we worry about, I'm counting on guys like you to fix them.

Ajax

---

Well, im not very good at making 3D models, so I can only mod tekst stuff ~:) . It is one of the resons why I don't mod RTW any more. Maybe I'll make a realism mod of some kind if MTW2 isn't perfect, but we will see ~;) .

Much as I am excited by the breathtaking screenshots, I'd rather have a great game with mediocre graphics. Afterall, the #1 game I play here in 2006 is M:TW (1). 3 1/2 years out and still going strong.

Ajax

Need to clear some issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Back in the 7th century or so the Arabs had besieged the place for years, to no avail (I think the Emperor eventually managed to offer them enough tribute to get them call it off). And they were still running on the high gear of the newly established faith's militant expansionism phase. The as-such usefully unifying religious fervor didn't much keep them from having serious issues with Sassanid war elephants, however, and routing from several battles for other reasons. Ditto for the Moors when they butted their heads bloody against Frankish lines at Poitiers, 732 AD.

---

poitiers was a case of a small arab force against a much larger frankish force, they were already retreating from their recent raids when the franks organised for a defence.

The important factor was the frankish shield wall as most raiders were cavalry, think of it as a phalanx, the arabs didn't really put much of a fight though, most were too concerned with the loot they gained.

On the sassanid war elephants, they did adapt eventually, very remarkably fast too, they used camels and elephant slayers in a certain battle, the elephants themselves pretty much did the work for the arabs in routing the sassanids.

But as for the franks, the arabs didn't really adapt becuase contact with them before the crusades was pretty minimal, thats why at first crusaders won against superior odds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Muslim (initially really Arab) ability to overrun a poerful, long established empire and bring another to its knees in their initial Blitzkrieg came from many reasons, but among the chief ones was the simple fact Byzantium and the Sassanids had been fighting each other more or less intensively for quite a while and were caught in a rather weakened state. The Arabs may not have been steppe nomads, but quite a few of them were desert nomads and hence capable of considerable strategic mobility, especially in deserts, that the imperial armies found difficult to match.

---

You forgot that the both empires were fully capable of repelling the arabs, the real problem was the arabs had very good to excellent commanders, even if the empires weren't weak, at best the entire qaddisya and yarmuk campaigns would have been longer, due to the lack of competent sassanid and byzantine commanders.

Now if Heraclius wasn't totally nutters, that would have been a different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Around those times pikes had fallen from use (although to my knowledge standard one-handed infantry fighting spears the world over have tended to reach lenghts of some two and half meters that doesn't quite compare to the up to 5.5 meter Hellenic and Medieval pike...) anyway, and the Arabs swiftly copied the cataphract principle to the extent their resources allowed - which in practice meant most of the horses had to make do with hardened leather barding, for example. Well, at least that kept the load down and retained greater mobility.

---

I don't believe the arabs copied armies they met, they just recruited on the move, visigoths, sassanids, byzantines, and whoever they met on their way, by the time they reached the pyrannese alot of their army were composed of berbers and visigoths, and at Talas it was turkic.

Arab armies were relatively light at the time of conquests, chainmail being the heaviest armor they had, and only available to whoever can afford it (usually nobility).

Anyways, i agree mostly with kraxis, it shouldn't be overtly exaggerated, just make the muslims competent at least without the need to micromanage alot(especially in MP, muslim faction players know how hard it is controlling horse archers and micromanaging them), and also provide units for later ages, in MTW they were stuck with very few mid-late game units and had to rely on mostly crap units compared to the chivalrics and heavier cavalry the europeans got (even the byzantines suffer from this to some extent).

Weren't the Franks heavily outnumbered at Tours/Poitiers, some 17,000 against 60,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Weren't the Franks heavily outnumbered at Tours/Poitiers, some 17,000 against 60,000?

---

There were no certain numbers, based on a christian source it was some 15,000-75,000 against 300,000 (bit exaggerated).

For arab sources, some say were equal, some say the arabs were outnumbered.

Here are the relevant articles:

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu....occitania.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Tours

Personally I can't understand why some dare whinge about CA returning to medieval era again. Was there any alternative course of history you know about? Any unturned stones? Did I miss anything at school? There had been summat like fifty games about middle ages before MTW and you still bloody drooled over it when it came out. I nearly wet my pants when I saw STW even though I had been playing Nobunaga's Ambition 1,2 and 3 before. Just deal with it.
Or would you perhaps prefer Star Trek TW just because it's a fairly fresh idea for a strategy game?

I thought that the Turks got some very nice late game units...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

I thought that the Turks got some very nice late game units...

---

we are primarily on egypt and almohad... egypt can handle a bit of abuse if they can churn out some mamelukes and good commanders, but almohads only uniques are AUM and Berber Camels.. which makes them a bad choice, unless you really like it rough ~;p

Unsure if this has been commented on, but what exactly does 'winter 2006' mean? Is it this winter or next. Granted this winter (the one running now) is awfully close (is winter in fact :dizzy2:) and the announcement awfully late but do we really have to wait for an entire year for this ?

Quid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quid

Unsure if this has been commented on, but what exactly does 'winter 2006' mean? Is it this winter or next. Granted this winter (the one running now) is awfully close (is winter in fact :dizzy2:) and the announcement awfully late but do we really have to wait for an entire year for this ?

Quid

---

I'm pretty sure by winter they mean Q4. I hope i'm wrong though..

Yes, that would make sense, of course. I just had this little glimmer of hope that it would be sooner rather than later because it will be an awfully long wait. Thanks anyway [trots off with a little tear in his eye...].

Quid

By the way, for anyone who hasn't noticed yet, the org now has a whole forum set aside for Medieval 2: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=130
You may want to check it out for further discussion as well.

Ajax

It's outside the time period by 35 years (1565) but in during the Great Siege of Malta the Knights of St John (numbering 600 - 700) with about 9,000 men-at-arms held off an invading Ottoman force estimated at 200 ships and 40,000 men.

One thing of note, amongst many, is the age of the Grand Master at the time. Jean Parisot de la Valette was 71 when he commanded the defences. Also, Dragut Rais, one of the Muslim commanders, was 80. Both had been galley slaves.

I just wish the game covered it. Maybe upto Lepanto in 1571. Ah well, guess we all want something that isn't going to be covered. ~:) Really looking forward to this though.

Am I the only one who is slightly dissappointed about this news?

I was expecting Napoleon Total War or at least a different time frame such as the Peloponnesian/Persian wars or the Mongol Invasions of India and China.

I have played all the Total War games, and will play this too, but there are so many other interesting periods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

There were no certain numbers, based on a christian source it was some 15,000-75,000 against 300,000 (bit exaggerated).

For arab sources, some say were equal, some say the arabs were outnumbered.

---

Of the size of each army there are so few credible accounts that the only thing that is safe to say is that the Franks were victorious. Even the date is being disputed

.....Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChefBoyRDee

Am I the only one who is slightly dissappointed about this news?

I was expecting Napoleon Total War or at least a different time frame such as the Peloponnesian/Persian wars or the Mongol Invasions of India and China.

I have played all the Total War games, and will play this too, but there are so many other interesting periods.

---

I think RTW was something below the disaster. The first-time use of 3d eye candy graphics was RTW's stronghold. I was never and ever excited or nervous while playing the Rome era where diplomacy and variety of soldiers was a "total failure". That was not utterly the mistake of CA though, the concept of war was less "total" by the period. The things were simply "simpler", me thinks. RTW has no atmosphere. Zero. That's why I can't play RTW.

However Medieval era has all brutality mankind carried from the beginning while including complex "peaceful" relationships. And yes, that is total war indeed.

MTW:2 would be CA's worst miss ever if they had never thought about re-making it. MTW2 is here and CA proved out to be one of the best Dev. studio around, because repeating a game concept in order to make use of newer technologies is something the others hesitate or can not plan.

:2thumbsup: for CA... They deserve every penny (and even more) they earn for their efforts. :balloon2:

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Ottoman persistence and eventual success in attacking Constantinopole had everything to do with their imperial priorites and skill in siege warfare and preciously little to do with religion. And they had to try several times, too. And it was *still* a pretty close run thing.

---

But if it weren't for Islam, they'd be sitting back in the deserts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Back in the 7th century or so the Arabs had besieged the place for years, to no avail (I think the Emperor eventually managed to offer them enough tribute to get them call it off). And they were still running on the high gear of the newly established faith's militant expansionism phase. The as-such usefully unifying religious fervor didn't much keep them from having serious issues with Sassanid war elephants, however, and routing from several battles for other reasons. Ditto for the Moors when they butted their heads bloody against Frankish lines at Poitiers, 732 AD.

---

Well, Muslims did have trouble with Saissanid eles at start, but they adapted to them quicky, and it's mentioned that to do that, they trained their camels and horses on bags of straws that looked like eles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Conversely, firm belief in a direct ticket to Heaven through martyrdom did not to my knowledge make either crusading European armies or the military Orders in some way unbreakable. Some of course were; but when the push really came to shove, most would panic and run like any other soldiers in the same situation.

---

That's how you describe Al-Qadisya when 32k muslims withing fighting 1700 women were fighting more than 120k Romans/Sassadins (Can't remember :inquisitive: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The Muslim (initially really Arab) ability to overrun a poerful, long established empire and bring another to its knees in their initial Blitzkrieg came from many reasons, but among the chief ones was the simple fact Byzantium and the Sassanids had been fighting each other more or less intensively for quite a while and were caught in a rather weakened state. The Arabs may not have been steppe nomads, but quite a few of them were desert nomads and hence capable of considerable strategic mobility, especially in deserts, that the imperial armies found difficult to match.

---

Well, the main reason for the battle with Saissadins, was that they killed a messenger for Arabs. And Romans were considering them steppe nomads, so they weren't allowed to go in what we muslims call a holy land (Al-Quds a.k.a. Jerusalim). But still, counting the fact that muslims had nothing more than a chain mail, and really most of them with no armor at all, because of the 'n0-money' status, and yet had the war VS both Romans and Saissadins together, and all they fed on was 3 dates a day, you can't say that the main reason for their victories on them wasn't morale, or tactical generals. At that era, shortly after the death of Prophet Mohammad and the one ruled after him (Abu Bakr Essiddeek), Muslims morale was firing, espiecially that they were led by the bravest muslim general to be known, Omar Ibn el-Khattab (Led as ruled).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Around those times pikes had fallen from use (although to my knowledge standard one-handed infantry fighting spears the world over have tended to reach lenghts of some two and half meters that doesn't quite compare to the up to 5.5 meter Hellenic and Medieval pike...) anyway, and the Arabs swiftly copied the cataphract principle to the extent their resources allowed - which in practice meant most of the horses had to make do with hardened leather barding, for example. Well, at least that kept the load down and retained greater mobility.

---

And what were their resources? All they had is spears, camels, horses and dates. Is that enough to make a cata, then I didn't know that.

Resources can be... aquired. From their previous possessors (read as "looted), captured armouries, captured manufacturing hubs, in trade...

Not that the weight of equipement was such a decisive issue anyway. Steppe nomads seem to have done quite fine with bows, various types of leather armour, and scrawny little ponies. Overextended empires in general actually seem to have been in the habit of getting the stuffing kicked out of them by incursions of poorly equipped 'barbarians', although the invaders also tend to be in the habit of equipping thmselves with better gear ASAP.

To give an RTW analogy, you use unimpressive basic troops to capture a decent-sized city while the opponent is busy elsewhere and promptly start using his infrastructure to give a thorough equipement overhaul to your men. Heck, when the Mongols did their damnedest to turn parts of Central Asia into wasteland they nonetheless made a point out of sparing armourers and other such useful craftsmen... Same principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Of the size of each army there are so few credible accounts that the only thing that is safe to say is that the Franks were victorious. Even the date is being disputed

.....Orda

---

No argument here, i totally agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChefBoyRDee

Am I the only one who is slightly dissappointed about this news?

I was expecting Napoleon Total War or at least a different time frame such as the Peloponnesian/Persian wars or the Mongol Invasions of India and China.

I have played all the Total War games, and will play this too, but there are so many other interesting periods.

---

While I agree that there would have been other interesting scenarios, I can understand that they return to medieval. Many people hoped for seeing a medieval scenario in 3D and it´s simply the scenario that interests most people because of it´s familiarity.

Wow, I go away for a few weeks and look what happens. They're making a whole new honking game here!:dizzy2:

I just have one thing to say to CA: Please, just take your time with this game. It is a perfect era, a wonderful engine and the original MTW was fantastic. However, don't rush the game for the Christmas market so that we all get a half baked product. I don't mind waiting three months extra in exchange for a super and almost bugless game.
Thank you!

All I can say is WOW

This is an excellent time period with so many possibilities.

*rolls up sleeves*

*falls to knees*

"PLEASE LET IT WORK AS AN MP EXPERIENCE LIKE MTW1"

-----------

(& as to Islamic armies - I've always said their units should be much larger than european equivalents)

Many thanks to all for the excellent response. Now that we have a dedicated forum for Medi2, we'll move this thread there.

Junior Members are able to respond there, so new guys: don't be shy. :laugh4:

I seriously doubt we'll see MTW2 in Q4 2006 - all games release dates slip. I remember the howling when RTW was slipping...

Things that have piqued my intrest

- The "individual" appearance of soldiers by mixing and matching different body parts

- The Blood and dirt on soldiers as the battle wears on

- The general jaw-droppingness of the graphics

- The Papacy. They sound very much like the Senate from RTW. The ability to promote Bishops to Cardinal and even intruegue to elect your own pope is reminiscant of the Cursus Honorum from RTW. It also sounds like the Pope will give you missions, much like the senate.

- Scotland as playable faction. The incessant whinging from the jocks in the run up to MTW was unbearable. One less thing to worry about ~:)

- The return of assination movies - yay!

Things that cause me to raise an eyebrow

- The "combo-moves". As someone else pointed out, sounds a little to consoley, but if done properly could actually be really cool.

- Milan as a playable faction, but not Genoa????

Like everyone else says, I also want better AI, better diplomacy, and battles that last longer than 5 minutes.

As for the 2 sub-threads in here

Trebuchets - there was a superb documentary on TV here a few years ago. They built a giant "castle wall" using traditional medieval techniques, and got 2 teams to build a trebuchet each, with which they were to try and knock down said wall. One team, lead by an academic, built theirs without wheels. The academic was a real arrogant, conceited ****. He sneered at any suggestion that Trebuchets had wheels and thus built his without them. The other team was lead by a (non-academic) expert in mediaval weapons and their construction. Based upon medieval sources showing Trebs with wheels, he built his with wheels.

And whaddya know? The wheeled Trebuchet significantly out-ranged the non-wheeled one. And, just as importantly, it out-ranged the longbow as well, something that I'm sure the Treb crew would have appreciated. The programme did an excellent job of explaining the physics of why the wheeled Treb had a longer range, even having slo-mo footage of a little model Treb to demonstrate. IIRC it went backwards, then as the arm approached the release point started moving forwards, giving the projectile additional impetus as it was launched.

They also had cameras set up on the "castle wall" which filmed the rocks as they flew towards to the wall, and let me tell you it was damn scary! Very good program.


Islamic Armies - I just wanted to make a point about the fall of Constantinople. x_DANGEr seemed to think that it fell due to the sheer heroism & bravery of the Ottoman armies. Which neglects 2 key issues.

1) The Ottomans weren't the first to take Constantinople. The infamous 4th Crusade under the leadership of the blind octagenerian Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, some 250 years previously

2) Perhaps the biggest single factor in the taking of Constantinople by Mehmet II was that he had a great big cannon with which to batter down the walls. A cannon designed and built incidentally by a German. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

- Milan as a playable faction, but not Genoa????

---

Well, most people seem to forget that Milan was more of a political power, while genoa was a naval trade power. Milan was the leading city of the lombard league, which defeated the HRE several times, and from the second half of the 14th century (Sforza and Viscont families), Milan had some very close ties with some royal dynasties. The duke of milan was regarded as one of the most important men of europe, and Milan was one of the biggest cities in europe (I think second, just after paris) from the second half of the 13th century, with a population of up to 100000 people. I think the developpers made a very wise decision by choosing Milan over Genoa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Like everyone else says, I also want better AI, better diplomacy, and battles that last longer than 5 minutes.

---

*cough* & maps as big as MTW1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Trebuchets - there was a superb documentary on TV here a few years ago. They built a giant "castle wall" using traditional medieval techniques, and got 2 teams to build a trebuchet each, with which they were to try and knock down said wall. One team, lead by an academic, built theirs without wheels. The academic was a real arrogant, conceited ****. He sneered at any suggestion that Trebuchets had wheels and thus built his without them. The other team was lead by a (non-academic) expert in mediaval weapons and their construction. Based upon medieval sources showing Trebs with wheels, he built his with wheels.

And whaddya know? The wheeled Trebuchet significantly out-ranged the non-wheeled one. And, just as importantly, it out-ranged the longbow as well, something that I'm sure the Treb crew would have appreciated. The programme did an excellent job of explaining the physics of why the wheeled Treb had a longer range, even having slo-mo footage of a little model Treb to demonstrate. IIRC it went backwards, then as the arm approached the release point started moving forwards, giving the projectile additional impetus as it was launched.

They also had cameras set up on the "castle wall" which filmed the rocks as they flew towards to the wall, and let me tell you it was damn scary! Very good program.

---

top show - trying to find the URL i had of an excellent page someone on britarch put up with pics & diagrams of said same

Talking about Constantipole made me think about how exactly will MTW II handle specific cities (and their fortifications). Will there be historical map layouts, esp. for cities whose exact features are extremely well known, such as Jerusalem, Constantinople, Granada etc (maybe even Buda and Pest).

Quote:

---

1) The Ottomans weren't the first to take Constantinople. The infamous 4th Crusade under the leadership of the blind octagenerian Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, some 250 years previously

---

Well, at least it wasn't a real siege with a straightforward attack, like the Ottomans had to face, nor was it that expected. Ofcourse pre-1204 Byzantium was in a considerably better position than in 1453, but still..

Just a minor correction

Quote:

---

A cannon designed and built incidentally by a German.

---

Urban was Hungarian;)

EDIT: If anyone knows the name of that program, please do mention it ASAP:)

Thinking about the wheels makes sense now...

Simple physics tells you that when you throw back weight you are propelled forwards. Now make a 'light' frame and add a heavy weight that swings down and backwards. The frame will, if on practical wheels, move forwards...
Now I didn't think of this as I didn't believe the wheels would be rolling well enough for this, or the weight to be propelled far enough backwards to send the frame forwards. But obviously I was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Islamic Armies - I just wanted to make a point about the fall of Constantinople. x_DANGEr seemed to think that it fell due to the sheer heroism & bravery of the Ottoman armies. Which neglects 2 key issues.

1) The Ottomans weren't the first to take Constantinople. The infamous 4th Crusade under the leadership of the blind octagenerian Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, some 250 years previously

2) Perhaps the biggest single factor in the taking of Constantinople by Mehmet II was that he had a great big cannon with which to batter down the walls. A cannon designed and built incidentally by a German. Go figure.

---

A little correction, he's called Mohammad (el-fateh). And what I insist on being a huge factor of taking Constantinople, was the urging of muslims, they have sieged it many times, attacked it many times and lost many times. But still, they kept attacking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

Talking about Constantipole made me think about how exactly will MTW II handle specific cities (and their fortifications). Will there be historical map layouts, esp. for cities whose exact features are extremely well known, such as Jerusalem, Constantinople, Granada etc (maybe even Buda and Pest).

---

This is something that has me concerned/excited as well. I would like all major cities to look as historically accurate as is *reasonably* possible. I realize that from a gameplay perspective, cities that are particularly large (such as Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Cairo) cannot be shown as their true size. Otherwise whichever faction that owned these cities at the beginning of the game would have a ridiculous and unfair advantage--particularly in terms of wealth and manpower. I still hope, however, that these "uber-cities" (for want of a better term) will at least have some of their distinctive features on the map.

Some examples: Cairo would have the Great Mosque and the Caliph's Palace. Constantinople would have the Imperial Palace and the Haga Sofia. Jerusalem would have the Wailing Wall, the Dome of the Rock, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Rome would have St. Peter's Basilica and the Vatican. London would have the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey. Paris would have Notre Dame. (Yes, I know Rome, London, and Paris were nowhere near as big as the other three back then; I just included them because they're also well-known examples of what I'm referring to.)

Yes, I realize at least some of these structures either didn't exist yet in 1080, and/or were still being constructed. Therefore, I'm hoping these structures appear in their respective cities' build queues once the correct year has arrived.