Printable View
i haven't seen any new features added. from the sounds of the features listed, its the same stuff in previous titles.
i care little for additions. if they can make the battle gameplay good, and ACTUALLY PUT SOME FOCUS ON MULTIPLAYER....
i'd be more than happy.
Originally Posted by caspian:
I hope they add a blood option even if its hidden from the menu. If we're talking about historical accuracy, we have to see the mass of dead over the battlefield lying in pools of blood. :knight:Originally Posted by Me early in this thread:
heh.
I see some blood on that armor. Is this an effect that will occur in battle? If so, we are seeing a major departure from the previous "bloodless" battle policy of the past. It is my impression that CA and Sega are testing the waters. They seem to desire a more graphically engaging product through accurate bloodshed, but desire a measure of consumer and critical response before moving on to decapitations, disembowelments, and limb-launching. I fully support this decision and I hope that they continue in this direction in an accurate way; a portrayal that does not shirk from the brutality, but does not show anime-style 40ft high blood fountains either. Press on CA, you will not be dissapointed in reviews or profits.
Does anyone have any speculation as to the system requirements? I suppose if it is well optimised it should be fine on my system.
I watched Kingdom of Heaven just to get into the mood, man... now it's gonna be hard to wait so long. Granted, Kingdom of Heaven isn't historically realistic but it does have decent atmosphere and I absolutely love the sound track.
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.
Originally Posted by Quietus:
Great graphics!
But will battles last more than 5 minutes?
An excellent question--one that I brought up in the official forum as well. After AI and diplomacy, 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....
Originally Posted by Ilsamir Lord:
IMHO; looking at the RTW minimum system specs and comparing them to the recomended specs, you can see that there is large space for customisation of your own system.
Does anyone have any speculation as to the system requirements? I suppose if it is well optimised it should be fine on my system.
Originally Posted by Rome TW specs:
As you can see, this is very low end, even for a system like Rome. The M2:TW system looks to have boosted many of the graphical features included in Rome, so it is only natural that system specs will have to be increased.
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
* English version of Microsoft® Windows® 98SE/ME/2000/XP
* Pentium® III 1.0GHz (1000MHz) or Athlon™ 1.0GHz (1000MHz) processor or higher
* 256MB RAM
* 8x Speed CD-ROM drive (1200KB/sec sustained transfer rate) and latest drivers
* 2.9GB of uncompressed free hard disk space (plus 500MB for Windows® swap file)
* 100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 16-bit sound card and latest drivers
* 100% Windows® 98SE/ME/2000/XP compatible mouse, keyboard and latest drivers
* DirectX® 9.0b (included)
* 3D hardware Accelerator Card Required - 100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 64MB Hardware Accelerated video card and the latest drivers*.
* ATI® Radeon 7200
* ATI® Radeon 8500
* ATI® Radeon 9000
* ATI® Radeon 9500
* ATI® Radeon 9600
* ATI® Radeon 9700
* ATI® Radeon 9800
* All Nvidia® GeForce 2 and higher
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.
Its better to call it egypt than the several names it went through, they'll have to deal with 4 faction changes for egypt alone, which means alot of work.
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.
Also Aztecs :dizzy2: thats way to ambitious, might as well include mayans and incans just for the hell of it, i do hope the american nations have their unique buildings and not placeholders ~;p
Also decent units, historical accuracy be damned, but in reality the aztecs didn't pose that much of a threat to the spanish, i do hope in-game they make more competent units just for the challenge of conquering the americas.
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia:
Serbs - not Serbians.:oops:
Anyone find the 'playable' part quite interesting? Maybe there will be some unplayable ones, perhaps a good 9 rounding it out to 30 (there's many I can think of - see the list). Really they should be:
The Incas
The Aragonese
The Burgundians
The Cumans
The Genoese (Really should be there in place of Milan)
The Swedes
The Serbians
A Crusader State
The Bohemians
But even then there's loads (Swiss, Bulgarians, Armenians, etc.). At least let us be able to add some factions CA, then all will be sweet.
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia:
looks like its been edited.
Peregrine mate I'm not trying criticize you in any way but you might want to get rid of the jungle bunny remark - I know you didn't mean it in this way but where I'm from its a derogatory term for a black man and I'm worried people might percieve it as such and take offence. I like you mate and I don't want to see you get into any trouble so probably best to remove it or get a mod too.
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. :)
(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!'
Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate:
Maybe, but it'll be funny fighting them nonetheless. Again, hope there's no hard feelings about that.
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. :)
And sorry about the Serbians thing, I always thought it was a real term.:dizzy2:
Originally Posted by Duke Dick:
That is no slightly increase.
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's a pretty big one.
A slight increase would be Pentium 4/Athlon 1.2GHZ+ processor
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.
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia:
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.
Maybe, but it'll be funny fighting them nonetheless. Again, hope there's no hard feelings about that.
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.
Originally Posted by Martok:
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.
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....
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.
Originally Posted by faisal:
Because the danes were the strongest faction in scandinavia during medieval times.
1.Why no norwegians? the only scandinavian country is denmark ~;p
I would love nothing more then to see Sweden there but if they have to pick one then even I would say danes.
Originally Posted by faisal:
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.
...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.
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:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
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.
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.
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?
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Good points.
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.
There is one thing irking me about the game...
the aztecs didn't have cavalry.. how will they balance it out for MP? ~;p
Originally Posted by :
This interests me. It sounds like towns and castles are seperate things. If you look at the screenshots the towns don't contain keeps.
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.
Maybe you train knights from castles and there is a limit to the number you can have.
Originally Posted by NeonGod:
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
Trebuchets are made more efficient if wheels are added to them.
Originally Posted by TB666:
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?)
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.
Originally Posted by General_Sun:
There are medieval illustrations of both types:
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
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:.