M2: TW. Pre-E3 and E3.

I'd appericiate it if anyone who comes at some new info, would quote it here and put the link of the source.

Thank you!

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...25&mode=recent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gamespot

E3: Medieval 2: Total War Pre-Show First Look!
"Of course, the team isn't putting all its energy into making Medieval 2 look prettier; the designers are working hard to make it play better, too. It sounds like there will be even more for you to do in the midst of battle than before, such as deploying some of the roughly 250 unit-specific abilities that will be available.."

---

Preview on IGN: (The_Doctor)

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/707/707754p1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IGN Preview

During the fight we noticed a few different things about the battle. First off, musketmen fire and then retreat to the back of the line in order to keep the lines firing one after another..

---

A new video on gamespot. Different from the one on totalwar.com (May, the 10th). (The Doctor).

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...war/media.html

Medieval 2: Total War Impressions (Gamespot):

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...44&mode=recent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E3 06: Medieval 2: Total War Impressions

".. the artificial intelligence should be smarter, according to the developers. They've worked on this a lot, and we saw it in the game, as the French army.."

---

2 new gameplay movies (Gamespot):

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...war/media.html

An video interview with a M2: TW dev (Gamespot):

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...war/media.html

Some new info about Aztecs and the New World (IGN):

http://pc.ign.com/articles/707/707754p1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IGN

"The Aztec armies are a colorful lot. It's hard to comment on the authenticity of the garb these guys are wearing when you know very little about the culture"

---

250 unit abilities??!!! I wonder how that will work?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

250 unit abilities??!!! I wonder how that will work?!

---

Unit specific abilities perhaps? We get around 250 abilities to maybe that number or a somewhat larger number of units. It is possible that they did add two or maybe even more abilities per unit, but I personally do not find that as likely.

Call me untrusting, but I have experience with telling the truth and making it work a lot like a very good lie. And this sounds like something I would say in order to make something appear better.

it's Gamespot who said that, not CA. They probably meant there are roughly 250 different units, not 250 different abilities.

Interesting idea.

Lets look at english Longbowmen as an example. Maybe you can train them to have different abilities

Make Wedge
Place stakes in the ground
Use different types of arrows
second quiver of arrows
Aim at different parts of the body or maybe at a mounted knights horse.
Flaming arrows
mounted/ unmounted
different types of contract levy/indenture
Different draws giving different ranges
Specialise - ie knight killers, castle attackers etc.....
dig potholes, ditches or use hedges
etc....

This is just ment to be an example of what could be done with specific units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

Interesting idea.

Lets look at english Longbowmen as an example. Maybe you can train them to have different abilities

Make Wedge
Place stakes in the ground
Use different types of arrows
second quiver of arrows
Aim at different parts of the body or maybe at a mounted knights horse.
Flaming arrows
mounted/ unmounted
different types of contract levy/indenture
Different draws giving different ranges
Specialise - ie knight killers, castle attackers etc.....
dig potholes, ditches or use hedges
etc....

This is just ment to be an example of what could be done with specific units.

---

I like the mounted idea, but they shouldn't fire the bow from horseback just use it as means for speed and movement.

Also maybe using Caltrops as another defensive means against cavalry?

I hear at E3 they will show a night siege, a campaign map demo and the Aztecs for the first time!

I think that such special abilities would ruin the game. I mean, if longbowmen would be able to defend themselves against cavalry, then their will be no way except other archers to kill him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I think that such special abilities would ruin the game. I mean, if longbowmen would be able to defend themselves against cavalry, then their will be no way except other archers to kill him?

---

Or cannon. ~;) I recall reading that cannon was a key factor in giving the French an edge over the English in battles at the end of the Hundred Years War.

Before that, longbowmen were not easy targets for knights - they did use stakes to protect themselves from mounted knights and when out of arrows, they could rush out and butcher dismounted knights with knives, mallets, axes etc. They were big powerful men with very muscular upper bodies and in the English armies in France, probably a hardcore of semi-professional fighters. Some have speculated from the sources that the French knights avoided attacking clusters of English archers because they were not worthy opponents (no honour in killing a "peasant") but I am not wholly convinced.

I recall a TV documentary - fronted by that medieval weapons enthusiast who sometimes was an expert on Time Commanders - which speculated that the English longbowmen could act as horse archers in a pinch, based on an account of how they stormed a defended ford in advance of one of the big battles of the Hundred Years War.

There is a new video on gamespot. It is not the one on the .com.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...war/media.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

There is a new video on gamespot. It is not the one on the .com.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...war/media.html

---

Hmmm, looks a bit weird to me. The soldiers do look motion captured but they also seem to move very jerkily at times. The horses legs when running look all wrong. And the animation of the cannon recoil looks just plain ridiculous, with the wheels lifting off the ground like that. It makes the cannons look as if they weigh next to nothing!

Those animations look very good! With R:TW it seemed that alot of the motion-captured animations were postprocessed to make them look more extreme, but it looks they now looked more at how people move at kept to it.

The jerkiness might come from when one animation goes over into the next. This was very smooth in R:TW so I guess they will fix it.

:2thumbsup: Well done, CA! A few modding tools quickly after release and I am a happy man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia

I like the mounted idea, but they shouldn't fire the bow from horseback just use it as means for speed and movement.

---

Totally agree

What I ment was for moving about, and maybe a nice animation of the horses being help behind the archers. In the baggage area at the back of the camp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

There is a new video on gamespot. It is not the one on the .com.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...war/media.html

---

This link doesn't seem to work for me...
Is there some other link for that video? Anyone....:help:

Quote:

---

This link doesn't seem to work for me...
Is there some other link for that video? Anyone....

---

Welcome the forum, Justicion.
Try going to Gamespot, then search for M2TW and go to the video section of it.


Also there is a preview on IGN:
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/707/707754p1.html

Quote:

---

During the fight we noticed a few different things about the battle. First off, musketmen fire and then retreat to the back of the line in order to keep the lines firing one after another.

---

This is will make the The Lordz happy.

Thanks Doc,
but I guess I wasn't clear enough, the link is fine...
it's just that i can't play the video from their site:furious3: , and i'm not a member :inquisitive: so i can't download it.... but never mind, i'll see it sooner or later
(if i don't die from curiosity first:wall: )

Quote:

---

it's just that i can't play the video from their site , and i'm not a member so i can't download it.... but never mind, i'll see it sooner or later

---

I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justicion

Thanks Doc,
but I guess I wasn't clear enough, the link is fine...
it's just that i can't play the video from their site:furious3: , and i'm not a member :inquisitive: so i can't download it.... but never mind, i'll see it sooner or later
(if i don't die from curiosity first:wall: )

---

Then, register and become one! :)

I see everyone is talking about what it looks like and not how the gameplay is going to be. It is obvious that no time will have been spent improving the Tactical AI, so everyone will have to play multiplayer to get any worthy opposition.

They aren't even thinking of increasing the number of units under a players control. The only differnce is going to be in how it looks. It's a game that only taxes your RAM and GPU. Your CPU will never become the bottleneck as the AI which sets the bar for singleplayer gameplay has been ignored.

I haven't seen any improvement in gameplay since STW. The sprites get prettier each time, and the switch to 3D only critically wounded multiplayer gaming, but it was still possible in that incredibly jerky way for 2-4 players.

(Check my join date before you start bagging me out, I've been with TW a very long time.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

I haven't seen any improvement in gameplay since STW.

---

It depends what you are looking for. If you are just thinking about the battles, I can see your point. But I think the MTW strategic layer was a massive step up from STW. STWs SP campaign was essentially a slugfest (Hojo horde anyone?). MTW liberated the player, giving them much greater strategic freedom, especially with crusades and other glorious achievements. The faction settings and unit line ups were also much more varied. So, personally, I found the gameplay in MTW much better than STW.

RTW is more of a mixed bag. The strategic map is even more free than that in MTW and moving your armies around on it just feels more realistic than the risk style map. Perhaps inevitably, the AI is less competitive on it, though. At a tactical level, I like the greater differentiation of army styles in RTW - phalanx, legion, horse archer, barbarian, hybrid etc. That variety has added to the gameplay, although again the AI maybe has not caught up (esp. with phalanxes - it's rather good with horse archers, as far as I can tell).

Personally, I prefer the SP gameplay of RTW mods such as RTR and EB to that of the older TW titles. It now feels like a pretty authentic and very enjoyable historical wargame, which is what the TW battle engine always had the potential to provide. The AI may be less competitve, but then I guess that's the price of the greater realism and freedom (Chess anyone?).

Best animation yet: Cannon loading! Holy smokes that looks good!

I'm interested in those rockets... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

I'm interested in those rockets... :inquisitive:

---

That scared me too. Reminds me of the greek fire flame-thrower in Spartan. :no:

Flame throwers, flaming pigs, rocket launchers... huh? Sure, there might be one time in history that some bizarre invention was attempted, but as a regular unit incoporated into the game? Gah.

You forgot Cannon Elephants.

:grin:

I don't agree that you must sacrifice on the AI for greater realism and freedom of play.

Take Command has multiple uniforms within individual units, individual sprites for particular officers. The ability to mod for one sprite one = one man, and as its a game for grognards, you can be sure the order of battle is perfect if you want realism. However, if you want freedom, its built to mod, so if you want a new unit or you want to change the unit stats go ahead.

However, it is the AI which makes it a challenge. TW just becomes a slog, and the lack of an AI means increased difficulty just produces hordes.

I'd much rather have them spend 1/4 of the time working on the AI than all thier time designing new unit graphics. The TW community is going to do that anyway. What we can't mod is the AI. What they are doing is adding strategic units one by one to the mix, which adds a bit to that level of play, but it is somewhat meaningless if the only options for the AI are pushover or horde.

Good point. The AI is hard-coded and has been silly in R: TW, and if it continues the same, I think many SP-fans will reject TW games.

"That scared me too. Reminds me of the greek fire flame-thrower in Spartan.

Flame throwers, flaming pigs, rocket launchers... huh? Sure, there might be one time in history that some bizarre invention was attempted, but as a regular unit incoporated into the game? Gah."

If you are going to make it your business to get outraged over historical inaccuracies I suggest you do your research first rather than simply selecting something which seems intuitively unlikely and deciding that it is unrealistic. In fairness to CA rockets of the sort depicted in the video were a regular feature of armies in many parts of East Asia and were used by Muslims too. Amazingly the rationale which CA gives for their inclusion is completely valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

If you are going to make it your business to get outraged over historical inaccuracies I suggest you do your research first rather than simply selecting something which seems intuitively unlikely and deciding that it is unrealistic. In fairness to CA rockets of the sort depicted in the video were a regular feature of armies in many parts of East Asia and were used by Muslims too. Amazingly the rationale which CA gives for their inclusion is completely valid.

---

I have every right to express my concern over historical accuracy, and that is nowhere near outrage. I suggest you watch your tone. If I am incorrect about something, then say so and show me how. I will listen. There is no call for attitude when a member simply suggests something may not be wholly accurate.

We all love TW and have respect for the contributions of CA, otherwise we wouldn't be posting at the Org.


If you want to continue this discussion, PM me. You don't need to flame others in the open forum. However, if you would like to have a scholarly discussion on the historical accuracy of included units, then by all means, let's do it here and with mutual respect. Thanks. :bow:

Quote:

---

There are more than 250 unique units in the game, each with special abilities, such as the English longbow ability to place spikes down before a battle, protecting them from charges by mounted knights.

---

Just found this in another thread. So it looks like we were on the right type of track about abilities.

Flaming? Rofl.

Boomtown preview

interesting:

Quote:

---

Creative Assembly points out the three most important lessons from Rome: Total War: 1) no more samey-looking soldiers 2) a far superior AI and 3) a deeper campaign. We will see the result of their endeavours this November, but after the demonstration I cannot doubt that Medieval 2 will be the best Total War game to date.

---

That is interesting.

That is good news. Of course the thing about AI is one doesn't know how good it is until the game actually arrives.

Well, it is a positive thing that they admitted the horrible battle AI of RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

It is obvious that no time will have been spent improving the Tactical AI, so everyone will have to play multiplayer to get any worthy opposition.

(...) The only differnce is going to be in how it looks. It's a game that only taxes your RAM and GPU. Your CPU will never become the bottleneck as the AI which sets the bar for singleplayer gameplay has been ignored.

---

CA has repeatedly stated they are working on the A.I.; and R:TW's A.I. has undergone a great (and much needed, I think we agree) improvement since 1.0, so I rather think the opposite is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

They aren't even thinking of increasing the number of units under a players control.

---

Given that I have trouble enough controlling R:TW's twenty units I do not see how this is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

I haven't seen any improvement in gameplay since STW.

---

If you talk about the battlefield in general, yes, I agree there. But only in general: there are many small improvements in M:TW and R:TW, from unit line-up, effects of unit depth, cavalry charge. Also, R:TW's A.I., bad though it may be, is more flexible in its formations. Too bad it's basic formations (not to mention tactics) are far worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

I don't agree that you must sacrifice on the AI for greater realism and freedom of play.

---

I think Simon's point is that the more choices an A.I. has too make, the slower and or dumber it becomes. There only way around this is by restricting the number of alternatives available to the A.I. I think we all agree that R:TW's A.I. was poor (pathetic may be a better word for the 1.0 edition, but it has gone a long way since then), but the A.I. of a fast-paced game is always going to perform more poorly than that of a slower one (like I assume the Take Command series to be). Now if we could convince CA to slow their battles down...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

I'd much rather have them spend 1/4 of the time working on the AI than all thier time designing new unit graphics. The TW community is going to do that anyway.

---

I agree completely. However, I doubt that CA is going to return to their niche position after entering the big market with R:TW. Sadly, slow, challenging games aren't considered worthwile by the mass of players that just want to be entertained.

I agree with Dunhill and was disappointed to learn of no increase in army size.

I think the problem of adding more units to the battlefield is collision detection, I remember reading somewhere a CA dev saying that this is the biggest resource hog. I hope that this can be overcome with future TW releases, as for me realistic troop numbers really helps with immersion. Don't tell me that one man represents 10, I see one man so it's only one man.
If I could believe that I would most probably still be playing AOE.
e.g. In RTW I just could'nt believe that I was commanding a Roman army which I belive was around four legions/20,000 men strong. To overcome this I tried to pretend I was a lowly legion commander in command of an under strength legion on border patrol.

As for more than twenty units becoming too much of a handfull perhaps just increase the unit size or better yet, maybe CA will reinvent the way we command our armies, perhaps with less individual clicks and allow us to issue general commands to groups of units.

-IceTorque

If a TW game would introduce 20 000 v 20 000 battles all fighting at once (no reinforcements), than we would see the return of clone armies all doing the same action. As 40 000 warriors all looking different, all doing different things would demand to much of a computer (at least a home computer).

If you really want to be a general this would not be a problem as you probably wouldn't zoom in anyhow in order to keep an overview. But this isn't the way CA has taken the TW series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

It is obvious that no time will have been spent improving the Tactical AI

---

Really? How is it obvious. Its amazing how you can deduce such information from statements such as:

CA is working on the AI, MIITW will have an improved AI etc.

:rolleyes:

If there has been improvement in the AI since STW I haven't noticed it. In other words, I don't think there has been any significant improvement since the beginning.

The thing I like about Take Command is that you can select how many units you wish to control. However, game play can be frustrating when nearby brigade commanders are engaged elsewhere or not aware of your situation, you are on your own to a degree. I see this as half the fun though. You can take commnad of the whole army and micromanage your head off if you want too.

You are correct TC2M is a slower-paced battle. However, melee, when it happens, is resolved rather quickly. It's not glacial, but very realistic. I don't notice it much though, I end up wondering how a game set for an hour finishes so quickly. I like the fact that the game can swing back and forth quite a bit. It's not all or nothing, which RTW often is.

In Take Command you get to pick the level of AI cycles you wish to use. This is one of the best features of the game. You can also select difficulty, but this is just giving more men to the AI. I don't know any other game which allows you to increase AI cycles. So far, the AI in TC2M is my equal.

RTW isn't so much faster, and the number of units are far fewer, so I don't see why the AI has to be so easy to beat. TC2M is working with units of 500-600 men, tracking individual artillery guns, computing fire, ammo, fatigue LOS and morale between numerous divisions, and dealing with complex terrain. It's doing all this without stutter and giving me a damn good game.

Remember, this game is made by two guys in thier spare time, plus maybe another 10-12 helping out. This isn't what you would call a dedicated development team. Maybe that's why it is so good. They don;t have to listen to what the sales team thinks the game should be to sell well. They actually listen to the players and have worked with them to develop a game we all like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

If a TW game would introduce 20 000 v 20 000 battles all fighting at once (no reinforcements), than we would see the return of clone armies all doing the same action. As 40 000 warriors all looking different, all doing different things would demand to much of a computer (at least a home computer).

If you really want to be a general this would not be a problem as you probably wouldn't zoom in anyhow in order to keep an overview. But this isn't the way CA has taken the TW series.

---

What some call clones, I call uniform. I always play with the camera at max zoom to take in the big picture, to try and get that feeling of witnessing a battle straight out of history. If I want close up FPS action I'll go play TES flaw. Obviously what I like is not what the mass market likes, so too bad for me. Smoke 'n' mirrors, bells 'n' whistles win again.

-IceTorque

I really think that one of the most exciting elements about Total War; is the micro-management needed in the battle. I don't want to have a 20k army, where their will barely be any place for any tactical moves, or any tactic to do even. It will be a fight and die battle, with 2 lines clashing together till one routs..

P.S. Links on the starting posts are updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

If there has been improvement in the AI since STW I haven't noticed it. In other words, I don't think there has been any significant improvement since the beginning.

---

I agree that the tactical AI has not been improved since the first game STW. For instance and this is only one example, in RTW the tactical AI was degraded by having the AI make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the unit they are attacking. This never happened in STW until you forced the AI to charge by charging at the weaker AI unit yourself. The AI unit would then charge because it would get a charge bonus which is better than just standing there. There are other specific tactical AI behaviors you can point to that were superior in STW. This sets up the present situation where Creative Assembly can improve the tactical AI in M2TW from RTW, and it could still end up worse than the tactical AI in STW.

In addition to tactical AI, we can also see that the new battle engine is inferior to the original battle engine. For example, the "squeezed too tight" combat penalty was not included in RTW. Another example is the normal unit size was reduced which contributes to the accelerated combat resolution. These things and others has an adverse impact on the gameplay in multiplayer. So, here too Creative Assembly can claim they are making M2TW better than RTW, but it doesn't mean the game will be better in multiplayer than the original STW game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

In Take Command you get to pick the level of AI cycles you wish to use. This is one of the best features of the game. You can also select difficulty, but this is just giving more men to the AI. I don't know any other game which allows you to increase AI cycles. So far, the AI in TC2M is my equal.

---

What do you mean, AI cycles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

I really think that one of the most exciting elements about Total War; is the micro-management needed in the battle. I don't want to have a 20k army, where their will barely be any place for any tactical moves, or any tactic to do even. It will be a fight and die battle, with 2 lines clashing together till one routs..

P.S. Links on the starting posts are updated.

---

Well, I don't think that clicking madly while twenty units are running around like chooks with their heads cut off qualifies as tactics. Although I do concede that if realistic numbers were possible that this might cause the problem of having a realistic looking battle, which would create another problem of having to use realistic tactics. Now would'nt that be a shame.

As for the AI debate I feel that it is far improved over STW, but it is let down by unit formations that are set too wide and no depth, tiny battlefields with not enough room to manoeuvre and problems with the engine itself. I have enough trouble getting the drunken little sods to obey my commands. I imagine the AI has the same if not more trouble with em.

-IceTorque

.. Yet another one comes and say this "clicking madly"..

There is certainly plenty of room for tactics in vast battles. It is just that it would probably be impossible to orchestrate such a large army with the same precision as one can control an army of a few thousand soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunhill

If there has been improvement in the AI since STW I haven't noticed it. In other words, I don't think there has been any significant improvement since the beginning.

---

Since I do not play games of the take command series I cannot compare, but I am certainly willing to believe that the TW battle A.I. can be outdone. I also agree that there has been little to no improvement in the series: R:TW did a small step forward but several big ones backward. Yet I still do not agree that it is obvious no attention will be given to the A.I. The improvement in R:TW's A.I. by various patches suggest otherwise, as do statements made by CA.

As far as the AI my personal comparison would be Galactic Civilizations (spelling?).

A relatively small company title that has the best AI I have ever faced in a single player game.

Of course this may be an entirely different "level" of AI. The AI in Galactic Civilizations is faced almost exclusively on a "strategic" level where Total War's AI also deals with "tactical" issues. Personally I don't know if the strategic and tactical AI's in the TW series are combined or seperate though they do appear to be seperate code.

Besides GA I am universally disappointed in the performance of AI in games. I don't know if GA stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that makes their AI so impressive or if AI is simply not as important a factor for other companies.

I have noticed improvements in TW's strategic AI but I agree that its tactical AI, while better, is simply no better than most games out there.

Whatever the case I never have time to "zoom in" being a less than brilliant general myself. If I don't keep the "bird's eye" view going I have actually lost battles not from being outfought by the AI but simply being overwhelmed by the number of units I'm trying to manage.

I can understand that, as with most games, compromises must be made. However, until the finished product is released, and several reviews are in, we just won't know if those compromises really do hurt the TW experience.

:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:


Elephant mounted cannons have been confirmed !!!!

First of all,

Nice to see you back Puzz3D.. It's also nice to see someone with a join date older than mine agree with my observations.

Myrddraal,

Maybe it would have been better for me to say that, in my opinion, there will be no significant change to the AI and most of the time will be spent on the graphic features. I'm not so sure I can agree with Puzz3D in stating the AI actually took a few steps backward, but it surely hasn't gotten any better over teh past few years, so I've seen no evidence of significant improvments in the past and I expect none now. However, all that being said, I'd really appreciate it if they did do some work on the AI, because that is what is stopping me from playing the game more. It's not providing any challenge.

Screwtype,

AI cycles are loops/programs for the AI to perform as it plays. In TC2M I can select from several settings. This allows me to force the CPU to use more power working the AI sub-routine. This is why this single player game is so fun to play. It is not a push over for me. I have to think hard to match the AI, which was written by a Grognard, so it may already start out at a higher level than other games.

It may also be that TC2M is using a much larger map. Things are happening at real time. So, I have to pay attention to how I move units. Roads and how you move units through some terrain actually have a significant impact on fatigue. I wouldnt try to run units though woods unless there was a great need. In TW I'd not pay that much attention except to height as a bonus.