Some new pics at the Com

New to me anyhow. Apologies if you've seen them
already.

This one looks sweet, although one or two of the animations of the horsed riders in the background look a bit unrealistic.


http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_12.jpg

I like this one:


http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_01.jpg


Again, nice, but they need to do something about those spears all held at exactly the same angle:


http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_02.jpg

The animations of these spear wielding guys look just totally wrong to me:


http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_03.jpg

These have all been at the CA homepage for at least a week, nice pics anyhow. What faction could that be in the second shot with the artillery? My guess based on their flags would be Timurids...

I hadn't seen a post about them at the Org, so I thought I might as well do the honours.

I have no idea what that faction might be, except that it looks Muslim, kinda Turkish...

The spearing animation in that last frame does look a bit strange. The one guy using an overhead thrust (in the center of the screen) looks pretty good, but those other guys swinging the shield way off to the side, exposing their torso, look suicidal. Maybe they're just really excited or something. It looks like they're in the middle of a charge, so maybe they go into a more shield-defensive mode after the initial charge.

The graphics look great. Zooming in and watching the fighting could be very good, although I don't know how you can play the game and do that at the same time. I also wonder without men being impaled with spears or having heads, arms and legs cut off or sustaining stab wounds if the fighting will appear to be realistic or simply gamey and repetitive.

I just noticed. Not only are the animations going to be different for similar circumstances, but the models will have variants in the ranks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

Zooming in and watching the fighting could be very good, although I don't know how you can play the game and do that at the same time.

---

Theoretically, that's a benefit of the pause button. But I agree I don't do it often with RTW - the action is too frenetic even with frequent pauses. I tend to manage battles zoomed out, where you lose nearly all the eye candy (you just see blurry sprites)[1]. With RTR and EB, the combats last a little longer, so I zoom in more often for a look. Some of the units in those mods are superb looking and suprisingly zooming in for a look does not get old. It's interesting on the RTR forum, some of the modders have been admiring the M2TW screenshots and (modestly) saying CA are catching up with them in terms of artistic virtuosity.

One grumble about the graphics - those short, thin spears in the last screenshort look very weird to me. They are just not functional - imagine trying to face the lances in the penultimate screenshot with those puny things? I know sometimes lances might outreach spears (hence the pike), but really it's too much. They are more like javelins than real spears, but clearly are meant to be spears.

[1]It is a weird thing about the latest RTSs like Dawn of War and Battle for Middle Earth. The graphics are drop-dead gorgeous, but the combat is all so chaotic, I can never really savour them. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Theoretically, that's a benefit of the pause button. But I agree I don't do it often with RTW - the action is too frenetic even with frequent pauses. I tend to manage battles zoomed out, where you lose nearly all the eye candy (you just see blurry sprites)[1]. With RTR and EB, the combats last a little longer, so I zoom in more often for a look.

---

When playing RTW or RTR, I usually saved the zooming in for the closing stages of a battle when I'd obviously won and there was maybe just one enemy unit left. Then I'd set up a fight between it and one or two of my units, zoomed right in to savour all the action.

I still believe that when you are zoomed right in in RTW, the kill speed drops dramatically, things seem to happen much slower, but I've never actually tested it to see if that's really the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

The spearing animation in that last frame does look a bit strange. The one guy using an overhead thrust (in the center of the screen) looks pretty good, but those other guys swinging the shield way off to the side, exposing their torso, look suicidal. Maybe they're just really excited or something. It looks like they're in the middle of a charge, so maybe they go into a more shield-defensive mode after the initial charge.

---

It's not just that, it's the way they are thrusting those spears, with their arms practically out vertically. It just looks wrong, they should have their arms tucked in so they can both aim the spearpoint and get the weight of their body behind the thrust IMO.

Doesn't look right to see these spearmen attacking individually either. The phalanx may not have been employed at the time, but I'd think that any spear wielding troops would have more discipline than these guys.

When it comes down to that, they're also in oddly loose formation. By all accounts most medieval spearmen were near-static, essentially defensive infantry that could only offensively maneuver against equally sluggish formations, but fought in very solid order and (naturally assuming they were any good) quite difficult to break without massive archery saturation, repeated cavalry charges, outflanking and similar.

These guys look like re-skinned Barbarian Infantry from RTW set to loose order and sicced at the enemy line...

There's always battle-lengthening mods like SPQR. Those bad boys take longer than you might think to resolve. Plenty of time to get good looks at all these awesome units killing eachother awesomely. Man I'm loving these. The variation in the units is still one of my favorite new aspects of the game, apart from the improvements in the graphics overall. And even though these preview shots are touched up and taken on super computers in the first place, they can't be too far off from the real thing. Lookin' good.

the spear guys almost look more like skirmishers, not spearmen. The spear shafts are pretty thin, they look more like long throwing spears rather than what I thought defensive spears would look like.

If they are spearmen, I still don't get why their shields are so small, why they're in loose formation, and why they're not holding the spear with two hands (which looks like it could easily be done with the shields they have). For all those reasons, I think they're skirmishers, like the Kerns, rather than Feudal Sergeants.

Also, even the guy with the spear over his head is holding it under-hand (with his palm facing down). That way, he'd have to swing his arm around for power. If they were throwing spears, they wouldn't be holding them under-handed.

The spears don't really look hefty enough either, do they? They look as though they'd snap on first impact with something solid.

I really see nothing wrong. They are charging, that's why their shields are off a little. Though, it's right that both their shields and spears are a little small.

To re-emphasise Watchman's comment about spear formations, they were generally solid, almost static and basically defensive. I doubt that many spearmen broke ranks to charge into melee against better armed opponents. I think we all know who will be the victors in that particular screenshot, regardless of the slope

.....Orda

Well then don't order them to charge.

What use is a shield when you keep it to the side when charging?

Too bad that CA continues to exagerate the animation making the soldiers move in an illogical and unrealistic way. But oh boy, isn't it looking spectacular!?

:no:

It is my understanding stabbing with a spear held underhand does not requie terribly much movement, and certainly not moving your shield too much. Heck, when spearmen with large shields charged opponents they probably just held their spears firmly as if jousting and let the momentum provide the power behind the tip anyway, and kept the shield firmy on the front both to ward off enemy blows and to use as a battering ram against the enemy line.

Or at least most ancient descriptions of heavy-infantry clashes tend to emphasize the tremendous impact of the lines of shields and spears crashing together, with heavy damage to the shields in the process apparently being fairly common.

Very nice pics. At this point. what I care about though, is the tactical combat. If it's like RTW, (ie too fast with unrealistic move speeds etc ) I'll wait for the price to come down before purchasing.

PS I'm happily playing a MTW campaign right now.

will i need to memorize combo buttons for the finishing moves?

looks great, but i'd prefer a more stable battle engine than what rome has provided us. what changes are being made to that?

Oh yeah - far as I know, the knights in the first pick are holding their shields all wrong. Tapering shields were so not held in that manner.

Ditto for the guys in the second last pic - makes me wonder if it's actually a graphics engine/skeleton thing. Anyway, the guy at the front in that pic A) seems to be dressed for suicide, as such berets aren't famed of their ability to stop blows (plus it's not ever red, green or black, so he doesn't get a "truly badass" saving throw out of it... :shame: ) B) is holding a really weird-looking little spear while his mates have really phallic bigass lances C) has clipping issues with his right foot, which makes you wonder why the Heck this pic was allowed to get into the public view. I mean, come on - if you're going to advertise the new graphics for the time being, what's the point of throwing in a glitchy pic...?

Odd, that.

Yeah that little spear struck me as odd too. It doesn't look much longer than a sword. Can't imagine it being much use in combat.

I noticed the problem with the right foot too, but it didn't occur to me it might be a clipping issue. But now that you mention it, yes, it looks like the leg has been clipped by the saddle instead of the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

To re-emphasise Watchman's comment about spear formations, they were generally solid, almost static and basically defensive. I doubt that many spearmen broke ranks to charge into melee against better armed opponents. I think we all know who will be the victors in that particular screenshot, regardless of the slope

.....Orda

---

Depends on their valor. Quick, count the flags! ;)

Another nitpick: the knights aren't riding with the appropriate high saddles and long stirrups that make them keep their legs practically straight.

I do hope they later the skeletons and saddle graphs for the release...

You all have to realize that YOU all are not CA's target audience. There really aren't that many people out there well versed in the specifics of medieval combat, or combat in general. What there are a lot of are people who've watched a lot of medieval movies and whatnot and a few scant popular literature or TV documentaries about medieval combat. They are CA's audience, and to them, as long as it looks cool and not entirely odd, it's all good.

Sorry guys, but this how it works in marketing!

Yeah, but we still get to nitpick don't we ? Everyone needs a hobby. :balloon2:

I'll be honest.

I love historical accuracy as much as most of you but really, as long as the game isn't buggy and there isn't some terrible imbalance, I'm fine with it. It seems already that the units look real, historically inaccurate, but real nevertheless. No more bright 80's dance floor colors at least.

Sometimes you just have to enjoy a game for what it is, a game. You just have to swallow that the world is generally ignorant to history and that is the way it will always be.

Or you can just join/wait for one of the many historical mods that I'm sure will be complete within a year of release.

I can understand those that nitpick enough.

The historical armours, clothing and all that, is more than enough to make a WOW factor for the presumed target audience. They don't care for these rather odd and sometimes not very stylish aditions.

The Twohander is significantly cooler than the Swordsman (what a lousy name btw, at least Man at arms sounds better), and at the same time more correct. And I know as my GF's younger brother (14 and not very historically inclined) found him to be "SOOOO cool!" while the Swordsman got a "WTF? I wouldn't like to be him."

Sure they are from different timeperiods, of which I have to admit the latter period looks more interesting to the uninitiated. But if they had modeled the man over figure 1C in Osprey's MAA of the Medieval Scandinavian Armies (1), he would look not only better but likely be more correct. Or for that matter one of the middle Norman Knight figures.
There is often little need to 'spice' things up. Of course I can understand it is being done when it is truly boring, and I only complain for my own benefit then.

And besides most movies look a whole lot more historical correct than the designs of CA. At least the artists of the movies take the bother of opening a few books and perhaps even go to a museum.

One way of looking at things, if the target audience are those who generally have limited historical knowledge, is that hopefully it will inspire some interest in learning more about the period. I think this is probably already the case

......Orda

[quote=Turin]I'll be honest.

I love historical accuracy as much as most of you but really, as long as the game isn't buggy and there isn't some terrible imbalance, I'm fine with it. It seems already that the units look real, historically inaccurate, but real nevertheless. No more bright 80's dance floor colors at least. quote]

I agree with Turin about the historical accuracy, the bug factor and the bright disco colours. The historical accuracy will come with the mods as it did with RTR, EB, & the soon to be coming out NAP 2.
Plus I hope that it will be far less buggy than RTW & BI, it was annoying & shameful, what slipped through when they released RTW but also the skins for the merc (all green, the kermit the frog brigades) and bright blue for the Thracians and etc.
Here's with hope that MTW2 will be worthy or equal to MTW.:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

One way of looking at things, if the target audience are those who generally have limited historical knowledge, is that hopefully it will inspire some interest in learning more about the period. I think this is probably already the case

......Orda

---

It had that affect on me in regards to both STW and MTW.

But it is pretty hard to look up Chosen Axemen or Warband... I guess the names of RTW were just a little too generic. They were there in MTW as well (Feudal Men at arms? Can't look that up either), but at least their names were to an extent more connected to the period.

Well, it must be granted that Medieval - or for that matter ancient barbarian - military terminology tended not be characterized by excessive pedantism or concern for clear-cut typology...

Put this way: you tell me what's the main difference between HYW "varlets" and "gros varlets" (types of mounted troops AFAIK) besides the latter being heavier equipped...? And I for one haven't the faintest idea what the English called their equivalents, if they even had those in the first place.

It is a very optimistic thing to believe that most people are competent or willing to actually learn from a game or learn because of a game. But it just doesn't happen that way in general.

Sure, historically correct units can look cool, but in general the money and time they have to invest into getting historically correct units and the return the get on their efforts makes research not worth it. 95% of their audience won't even know the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

It is a very optimistic thing to believe that most people are competent or willing to actually learn from a game or learn because of a game. But it just doesn't happen that way in general.

Sure, historically correct units can look cool, but in general the money and time they have to invest into getting historically correct units and the return the get on their efforts makes research not worth it. 95% of their audience won't even know the difference.

---

I beg to differ... It costs what? 100$ in all to get the assorted Osprey MAA books on the subject. They provide ample amounts of subjects for inspiration (I do not say they have to copy them, just get one of those 'aha'-experiences).
Besides, they are already dishing out plenty of semi-researched stuff. Meaning, they HAVE to look it up somewhere to get it. Not that that means it is correct or perfect.

And learning... Well, it is true that neither they nor we can expect people to understand the difference. But if most SP people are like me (though I doubt it), they will read the little description of the unit. That alone will provide quite a few interesting moments. If the unit hassome cool looks and sounds great too, while being at least a fairly good unit, chances are that not a few will do at least a cursory internet search on them.

And as for the generic units.
Ghazi > Warband
Ghazi would in RTW terms have been called Fanatics, but so would Futuwwa and Nizari. Flavour please.

"Ghazi" is probably a pretty bad example, as the word has way wider connotations than the MTW one...

A ghazi is a person who fights as a volounteer for his faith against infidels.

If a man did that he earned to be called that. In time people have earned it as a name as well.

Anyway it pretty much fits the unit of the game, a devout warrior.

Even if it is only one of several ways it can be used, it can still be used this way and thus not wrong. While not prfect it adds leaps an bounds more flavour than truly english generic names do.

[EDIT]Looked up the word. Seems I was slightly wrong. A Ghazi is a warrior that has successfully fought infidels. And it is/was often given as a title to said warriors, hence the names today.
Can also be understood as warrior/raider in more generic terms.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ghazi

There is a new screenshot up.

It shows some Egyptain/Turkish heavy cavarly (look at the flags) running near what looks a hell of a lot like the walls of Constantinople.

Maybe Constaninople and other big cities will have their own unique layout and walls.

I've definetly spent a lot more time looking at the units close up with EB. And I must say, I really like these MTW2 pics!

Ooo!

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_04.jpg

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_05.jpg

Looks like some of the town is outside the walls, the settlements in general seem to be a huge improvement. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

There is a new screenshot up.

It shows some Egyptain/Turkish heavy cavarly (look at the flags) running near what looks a hell of a lot like the walls of Constantinople.

Maybe Constaninople and other big cities will have their own unique layout and walls.

---

Constantinopole didn't sit smack in the middle of sandy desert, last I checked...

Anyway, those fellows seem to have most of the appropriate "eastern heavy cavalry" look about them. I'm under the impression fairly substantial shoulder and upper arm defenses over the mail were the norm though, and the European-style lances are definitely off.

I think it's actually the Egyptians attacking the Turks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Constantinopole didn't sit smack in the middle of sandy desert, last I checked...

Anyway, those fellows seem to have most of the appropriate "eastern heavy cavalry" look about them. I'm under the impression fairly substantial shoulder and upper arm defenses over the mail were the norm though, and the European-style lances are definitely off.

---

They aren't that western in style... Just more like evolved spears. Though I have never seen such lances for eastern factions.

Yes, the shoulder should be more protected than the forearm, it is after all more likely to get struck. But such small matter are not important to me. This unit looks very well and I accept its minor faults. I like it... It's spectacular (and stylish) without being too incorrect.

And yes, it seems like Egypt vs Turks.

And just so the rest of you don't have to running over to the .com (taken from there)
http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/MTW2_13.jpg

A spear evolved like that is quite specifically the European-style cavalry lance adapted for use with solid body armour (to absorb part of the impact). And to my knowledge never used by the "Easterners", who stuck with more traditional permutations of the cavalry spear that weren't so much one-use "alpha strike" shock weapons.

Just bugs me is all. Though I'd imagine this gets weeded out for the commercial release - the graphics and unit models ought to still be in somewhat early stages after all.

Well, that unit does look finished, so I doubt it will change.
We can of course hope they will change the lance to a spear, but I doubt it.

What I meant was that European lances were more pronounced in their lip and grip as well as the lance itself. This looks like a bastard child between a western lance and an eastern cavalry spear.

Looks pretty short to me. I know that the units in MTW weren't 3D but the mounted knights looked like they were practically carrying pikes.

Well, lances could be four meters long. Even more in some cases or specialized designs. Ditto, actually, for two-handed cavalry spears.

Nice eyecandy I must say, but again the game behind it, AI etc, is what I'm most interested in, because I mostly command the units with zoom out, especially if battle speed is fast (like in RTW). Unfortunately gameplay can't be demonstrated until the demo comes out... The engine looks promising though with all it's functions, so modders will probably be able to do quite a lot with it if there's enough interest and time devotion from the community, provided the AI, which can't be modded much, is good enough (or - drool - moddable). However I that with so many functions, such as multiple animations and multitexturing, it might be more work to make a mod, so there'll probably be less mods completed...

Yes, but until then we have to make do with what we get...

I must say that all the lances I have seen so far look too big and bulky to me. They all look like jousting lances. A jousting lance only had to be carried around for a few seconds while making a pass at the other guy. I have my doubts that such lances would have been used in combat, since they would have to be toted around for hours on the battlefield and would surely fatigue the user.

And take a look at the latest pic, where that guy is holding his lance. He's holding it very close to the end, far from the fulcrum, which would make the lance very heavy. It's just not a realistic grip. His hand should be as far up the lance as possible, tucked right in behind the flared protector.

Yet more evidence that some artist at CA doesn't have much sense of physics.

https://img155.imageshack.us/img155/65/mtwhhmmm7eq.jpg
This guy seems to be going the wrong way!

Also, the overall situation on the battle field seems very odd to me. Judging by the colour of the feathers/plumes on the horses' heads, the cavalry seems to be Turkish. The only other Turkish forces that are visible in the screenie are to the far right, so unless the heavies are retreating after some sort of suicidal charge into the Egyptian main army, I'd almost say both armies are allied, and attacking the city together. o_O

There also seems to be an Egyptian flag just to the right of the horsemen in the front, completely in the back.

That lance on the Turkish spahi looks wrong, plain wrong. mid-eastern lances were just long spears with long points, unlike the european knightly lance.

Anyone notice something wrong with all the swords, they have no hilts!?!!