not sure if you guys have seen it...some low resolution map screens...
http://www.activision.de/new_forum/i...T&f=14&t=2641&
it's very good!give a special look to screen 4...:2thumbsup:
Credits to:Ituralde and Amenbat...
"link was broken"
Printable View
not sure if you guys have seen it...some low resolution map screens...
http://www.activision.de/new_forum/i...T&f=14&t=2641&
it's very good!give a special look to screen 4...:2thumbsup:
Credits to:Ituralde and Amenbat...
"link was broken"
error ! ARGH ! :furious3:
good now?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
enjoy!:2thumbsup:
And this map was held in secrecy? Surely this is still work-in-progress. Or am I getting too used to mods making better and more interesting things than the official games? :tongue2:
it's an alpha version map showed in e3...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
Yes, I do think this is WIP, and do keep in mind the shots are shot in a very low resolution, which literally blurs the image.
Those Papal standing pics. look nice, they found the middle way between the Roman senate system and the Medieval Papal system, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Now let's hope for some High res. shots of the campaing map ~:)
:balloon2:
yes thank you :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximianusBR
The map looks too much liek RTW for my liking though...
I think it's more land in North, West and South...
I wouldn't care if the maps looks like that if the AI is (very) good. Otherwise I don't have a clue what they've been doing over the last year. Then thay'd be better off hiring a mod team. Which is actualy not such a bad idea either way...
Apparently the map is in Alpha state.
it's alphaQuote:
Originally Posted by shifty157
give a look in this thread:
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...cID=2462.topic
I was hoping there'd be more provinces, but that's not too few. Looks like they nearly cut Norway off the map. :viking: I guess most of it would be composed of impassible mountains anyway.
maybe they did it cause the danes always conquered it anyway so its not relevant...
Does it have a place where it displays the year? (Sorry, of course I mean "turn") :inquisitive:
give an special look at the screen 4...there you can read the YEAR, turns left and other things........Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder
Thats some horrible resolution. :dizzy2:
Wtf? Why does some PC Powerplay in Germany get a vid of the campaign map and PC Powerplay in Australia gets nothing? The bloody development studio is in Brisbane!
Danm those germans :furious3: /shakes fist!!
Just for this, im not taking that language class, hope that will teach them to get information before us.
The Papal standings part was interesting, much like the Senate standings in vanilla RTW.
Gents, lets not forget, if this is the Alpha its faaaaaar from finished so to make judgements based on poor quality shots is a bit silly.
Following the link given in the map low res screen thread:
http://www.activision.de/new_forum/i...T&f=14&t=2641&
If one checks out the last screen which is of army movements as it appears on the campaign map- you get a reasonably clear picture of the alpha campaign map which should be instantly recognisable to any MTW_VI player as the orignal MTW campaign map, just rendered hideously so in 3-D.
It follows the exact geographical parameters as the orignal mtw map except that the map has been extended slighly east to include a larger part of the arabian peninsula, and on initial appraisal, it appears to me that the no. of provinces will be severely limited, if not as low as MTW, then definately in the same ball park as BI.
Overall just not very impressive.:ahh:
Also notice the small land-mass in the top left hand corner, in the first pic.
М2 TW map = R TW map
Not good news for me.
The map does have its similarities to the RTW map but again I think people are going a bit overboard, the STW map was hardly that different to the MTW map albeit a bit brighter and obviously a different country and its not exactally a big surprise that it looks a bit similar to the RTW map, which may I add was hardly terrible obviously it had some flaws but I'd rather have the RTW map again with no changes but city names with a smarter AI than a fantastic living Medieval Europe with huge accuracy and stupid AI.
These shots look promising.
I can't be sure, but I would wager that they have kept the campaign map that size, and used a relatively small number of provinces in order to allow the player to conquer it in 225 turns. Personally I don't like that at all.
graphically much more pleasant than RTW, but that's really all I can say. It would be fun if gameplay went through a massive change for variety's sake. Difficult to judge that from looking at those screenies. The screenies confirm that the graphics are good though.
I could read what's in screen 4 and it says:
Overviews:
Capital City: London
Faction Leader: Henry
Greatest General: Willian
Generals:4 Regions controlled:3 (I Think)
Cities:1 Castles:2
Batles won:0 Batles Lost:1
Year: 1080 Turns played:1
Victory condictions:
Domination: Hold 14 regions including: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem
Outlive faction: France
Turns remaining: 225.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it show us that are other victory condition along domination, maybe Glorious Achievements:2thumbsup:....and Cities still have name as it was in Rome...:balloon2:
I like those victory conditions. The number of regions you need to hold is surprisingly small (we're used to 50!) but the precise ones chosen seem very ambitious for England. And the "outlive..." condition is very characterful (apologies to my French friends ~:grouphug: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximianusBR
I reckon it looks decent....look at the mountains in Italy...very nice...
Also I suspect PC Powerplay in Australia will get better quality stuff....while the Germans should get arrested for espionage!
Oh boy! We'll get to conquer Iceland! :jumping: That really makes me happy, even though I don't see any strategic, or even economic, advantage in controling it. I guess the land of ice and fire has just always been very interesting to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
BTW, were the Timurids ever confirmed as a playable faction? Because if they were, I would think the map would have to extend further east.
they are confirmed...but they will be as the mongols...will appear at the map as some kind of advanced horde system...and will not be playable...:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
can anyone put the first pic here to me??? my pc is not loading it completely...I can't see it:help: PLEASE!
don't need it more...problem resolved!...clean disk solved it...:2thumbsup:
Iceland is there!...vikings colonized it wasn't?
I think that will be the east north america cost, caribe, central america and northeast south america part in new world map...it's good!!!:2thumbsup:
i fear that aztecs will conquer all these lands when you come to it....or maybe they will be adjusted to don't attack rebels...they will certainly be unplayable...
You are right about Aztecs not being playable. It would be quite boring since I doubt they will be able to travel across the ocean.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximianusBR
But if we go by the homepage then they won't be alone, the Mayans will be there as well.
And according to a magazine even the Incas but my guess is that they mean Aztecs.
the official CA list says that the 21 factions will be:(star at that I think will be playable)Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Aztecs
Timurids
Mongols
Venice*
Papal states
Milan
Spain*
Portugal
Egypt*
Moors*
Turks*
Russians*
Poland*
HRE*
France*
England*
Bizantium*
Sicily
Hungary
Denmark*
Scotland
True but if you go on the website and click on factions you see that they mention the mayans.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximianusBR
Quote:
The campaign map is divided by a large number of factions including the English and French in Europe, the Egyptians and Moors in Africa, the Aztecs and Mayans in the New World, plus many more.
never seen it.....but i'm happy!!!!!!!and sad at the same time....mayans were decadent at that time so would be best if it was incas...but one more faction is ever good!!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Can't say these screenshots show much progress of the map over RTW; hopefully the AI will be improved so armies coordinate better.
Although it has been stated that this map is in early stages, the fact that the Alexander map looks pretty awful isn't too promising for the final version.
Those of you expecting a radical new campaign map, I think you should think again. Consider the difference between the STW map and the MTW map. That didn't stop MTW being a great game.Quote:
М2 TW map = R TW map
Not good news for me.
The map looks promising but I *seriously* hope they go further north to include more novogordian land and maybe the tip of finland again. I really don't care that much about north africa beyond its coast. Its a crying shame they didn't tilt the whole map a little bit to get more of mesopotamia and scandanavia and the baltic in. You could've even gotten mecca in there too.
I actually planned on opening a new thread, but somehow I'm not allowed to do it. Took me long enough to even register and sign on and find a password that was complicated enought to work but I could still somehow remember.
Anyways, I'm the guy that has found those screenshots in the German forum, and since I live in Germany I went out and bought that magazin to have a look at the video those screenshots were taken from for myself.
I thought it was a pretty nice video.
What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLcQdh6g7Ms
Mongols as a non playable faction? So all we will see in MTW II will be huge stacks of those pathetic AI offerings that are supposed to present some threat. Not a good move by CA if things go this way. First thing I will do with non playables is make them playableQuote:
Originally Posted by MaximianusBR
.........Orda
Did you really expect them to be playable ?? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
The game starts around 1080 AD and there are no periods. Naturally they won't be playable.
Just like MTW they will pop up when the time is due. Same with the Timurids.
Evident, it cannot be difficulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
WOW!!!...cool video...:2thumbsup:...thanks Ituralde...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
as I wroted in Medieval II forum in total war.com:
Three cheers to Ituralde!!!!:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
(again credits to Ituralde by finding these pics)
So when did it become bash the germans on this fourm thats not very nice. I heard people speaking in english in the video too. So just because our people care about us to get us videos :). Also I think the Mongols should be playable its not fair if you have to play only as a monotheistic faith I want to play as a fellow pagan and crush the Papacy :D.
Auch Ituralde Willkommen zum fourm. :2thumbsup: und Dank für den Bildschirm
I don't bash germans...you're good people...i loved to see my Brazil destroing you in 2002 world cup final!!!:laugh4: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by pyradyn
Gah! My Eyes!
It seems to have a great diplomacy system and I can't wait for the High-Resolution version!
Yeah...can't wait to see the mercants too...:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraWar
ouch my hopes for MTW2 dropped AGAIN after seeing that video. An enemy unit charges, and basicly doesn't stop before it's in the middle of the enemy formation, and only then both units start fighting eachother! Even RTW didn't have this problem in this magnitude. It seems the emphasise (sp?) on "cool animations" is steadily killing the TW gameplay...
Looks far better then anything else in the series.
That the front rank always fight while the rest just stands there thingy that has plagued the previous games isn't very realistic.
Now the entire unit gets "stuck in" which is alot better.
Of course let's hope they can get out easily enough. Don't want another Imperial glory "fight to the death" units.
Maybe some units, like spears or vikings, can form a shield wall if you want to avoid such things. Let's stay hopeful
Again the speed of the infantry and cav (if armoured) was way to fast. On the bright side there were no instant routs so the actual battle speed may be lowered (although the battle part of the video was fairly short and I can't compare to RTW as I never played it).
I'm afraid you watched too much Braveheart.Quote:
That the front rank always fight while the rest just stands there thingy that has plagued the previous games isn't very realistic.
Now the entire unit gets "stuck in" which is alot better.
And you played too much TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
All the TW-games has had a serious anti-climax when ever a unit charges because only the front rank do anything. I seriously doubt the others behind just sat there and waited for the guy in front to die before they got some action.
I seriously doubt that after they picking up such speed when they charge that the ones in the back would just stop and wait in line like they do in TW.
And I seriously doubt the front rank would form a neat straight line and just poke their swords and spears at the enemies front ranks.
While yes the front rank shouldn't run past the enemies front rank like that(atleast not all of them) and should start fighting the moment the collision happens but the others behind shouldn't wait like in previous game but pick out their own targets as well and start fighting as well. MTW2 is heading there and fighting itself seems to get better and better.
If we have a time machine and go back and see a medieval battle I think this is pretty much what we will see, a mess of troops.
What about the Aztecs? They made a whole fuss about them and now the map CLEARLY doesn't extend that far.
Well could be because of 2 theories:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
1. The map expands when the time comes.
2. They are simply not added yet to the map which is probably the best theory. It is a alpha after all.
I have a sneaking suspicion they'll be lazy and pull something like they did with VI, have two seperate campaigns and two seperate maps.
Well if those 2 campaigns are equally good then I don't mind:laugh4: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
But I think they said in one of the previews that it would be on the same map.
So you would have wanted to play a long campaign as the HRE, and rather than discovering the new world your people would have invented a time machine which allowed one of your armies to go back to Britain in the dark ages and conquer it on behalf of your new-fangled time and space empire? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Besides, I think that when the time comes you will be able to switch the map over to the New World, do some stuff there, then switch the map back onto Europe and continue the campaign there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Rusher
...you seem confused, because I have no clue what you're talking about.
I said they might put the aztecs and mayans and such in a completely different campaign similar to how VI worked with MTW.
Where in the world did you get time machines from?
depending on weapons used of course, but most combat WAS standing in line poking at eachother. Phalanxes and romans with their large shields depended entirely on that. Charging and jumping in/over enemies is complete hollywood nonsense. If you did that you'd probably knock over your opponent, but you'd go down too, in the middle of the enemy formation. Not something you'd want to happen unless you're suicidal or hollywood actor.Quote:
All the TW-games has had a serious anti-climax when ever a unit charges because only the front rank do anything. I seriously doubt the others behind just sat there and waited for the guy in front to die before they got some action.
I seriously doubt that after they picking up such speed when they charge that the ones in the back would just stop and wait in line like they do in TW.
And I seriously doubt the front rank would form a neat straight line and just poke their swords and spears at the enemies front ranks.
While yes the front rank shouldn't run past the enemies front rank like that(atleast not all of them) and should start fighting the moment the collision happens but the others behind shouldn't wait like in previous game but pick out their own targets as well and start fighting as well. MTW2 is heading there and fighting itself seems to get better and better.
If we have a time machine and go back and see a medieval battle I think this is pretty much what we will see, a mess of troops.
Medieval armies - unlike what you see in movies and even MTW - relied mostly on spear armed infantry, who would fight in very close formations (shield wall). Later on spears when replaced by pikes and halberds.
Unless you were a crazy berserker or suicidal you wouldn't blindly charge your enemy, you'd stick as close to the protection of your brothers in arms as possible.
maybe it happened cause it was a unit using long axes(???) so they would prefer a strong charge to dismenber enemy line...and the atacked unit used litle weapons no spears and shields...Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
I can agree with the phalanxes and romans and the spear units. But wasn't the main objective for the traditional phalanx to break the enemies formation like a wrecking ball ?? While with a big shield like they had in a phalanx this wasn't easy if the enemy fought in the same way and those lines would indeed be created. But the unit in the video has no shields and are using a 2-handed weapon and aren't in a very tight formation either.
As I said earlier, it doesn't look perfect, they shouldn't run through them like that and should react to the first rank but it looks far better then let's say RTW where sometimes the unit stops and slowly walk up to the enemy and these are berserkers I'm talking about.
But if you look on you can see the cavarly doesn't have this and do hit the front rank.
agree with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
suppose I gave you an axe, and tell you and your axe carrying friends to go and attack an enemy formation of halberdiers. Would you charge and crash through the enemy or advance with causion ? If you charge you'll most likely end up with a halberd spearpoint in your stomach.
and halberdier formations actualy fought simular to spearmen. They formed a dense wall of spearpoints to keep the enemy at distance, and then individuals would chop at the enemy with the halberd blade, or pull shields and weapons away with the hook, so that other halberdiers can stab at the exposed enemy. Later on halberds got a cross section on the handle that could be use to block enemy attacks.
None of this charge in the middle of enemy formation nonsense that you see in this video.
Ha ! I wouldn't have been in a army in the first place :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
But it is difficult to say, I have never been in that situation and didn't live in those days. People thought differently back then.
Look at Pickett's charge during the battle at Gettysburg, 15000 men marching up to musket and cannon fire knowing it would kill them and yet they did it. That attack was doomed for stage 1 and pretty much everyone knew it and yet did it.
If it was me today I would have said screw this I'm going home.
Everyone view history from modern eyes wether they like it or not but fact is that people thought differently back then. What is insanity to us may not have been that for them.
They probably did but this doesn't apply to the unit in question. They are not in a tight formation and don't have a shield to take the blow.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
What you see is a not very tight unit that is being charged by a unit with a huge 2-handed axe, high on adrenalin and charging down-hill.
I repeat again, it doesn't look perfect but looks better then before.
Adherbal,Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
You must realize that a medieval heavy cav war horse or light cav charger was really hard to stop once the charge has begun, even by its rider. I would also think that a unit standing firm in front of a cavalry charge would get bashed up quite bad, as tight as it is. A horse back then, with a that armour and its rider, would generate A LOT of kinetic energy that would probably knock three men off their feet, send them flying ten feet backwards if they stood in its way. The way charges were done in RTW was semi-realistic, and in STW and MTW, they werent at all. The only way I see a cavalry being stopped in their tracks is through a spear wall, a phalanx, nothing else, as a horse, however stupid it was, would refuse to charge to its death. I just hope the AI strategical coordination of armies and diplomacy is as good as the graphics are in MTW:II, ive been impressed with the battles so far.
Funnily enough, that's exactly what would happen. Mainly armies would push at each other; usually the flight would start at the rear, if troops thought they were getting pushed back too far and got worried, yet couldn't see the main fighting properly. There were far more advantages to sticking with the group than going it alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Usually, even after charging, only the first two ranks would be directly involved in the fighting, with the second rank covering the person in front. Further back it'd be almost impossible to see what was going on, let alone attack effectively; it would be here that nervousness would set in and flight may start.
Remember, battles would last hours, unlike the minutes of the TW series. There'd be very few casualties until the final rout, and fighting would be very tentative a lot of the time (poking swords and spears at the enemies front ranks, as you put it).
Don't be fooled by TW. It's a very different beast from the way such warfare truly functioned, which is why such high movement speeds and quickly resolved battles are such an issue with many people interested in the facts behind the fiction.
Uh, yeah, I have to agree. That looked totally ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
And those stupid, cartoonish cannon animations really make me cringe.
Looks to me like they have well and truly turned their backs on the realism buffs, in favour of cheap, tawdry, RTS style action.
I suddenly find myself very much doubting I will buy this game. And if it's bad as it looks from that video, I doubt I will ever be buying another CA game again.
Not only that, but Roman troops had a method whereby the troops in a maniple would rotate every few minutes from the front to the rear, that way they didn't exhaust themselves and had a chance to recover and keep going. In that video the enemy are barging right through to the rear, as if the body of men they were attacking had no mass at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Same with the cannon. They bounce up and down and all around like they were made of paper. The whole thing just looks unbelievably silly.
And I allowed myself to have high hopes for this game. Looks like I was just kidding myself.
yeah, but I'm not talking about cavalry, but infantry.Quote:
Adherbal,
You must realize that a medieval heavy cav war horse or light cav charger was really hard to stop once the charge has begun
errm, screwtype, you do understand the concept of recoil in firearms do you? This is normal of anything that goes boom on one end.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Sorry then, irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
true, but the cannons should role backward, or - considering the wheels are blocked - slightly move upward, but not as much as they do now. Although I personally don't care about that. I'd happily trade those fancy 3D graphics for 2D sprites if the gameplay would match or perhaps even excell that of STW and MTW.Quote:
errm, screwtype, you do understand the concept of recoil in firearms do you? This is normal of anything that goes boom on one end.
some people are never happy...:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
I'm sure you are right overall, but there was a lovely historical account posted recently (I think on the EB forums) of how Roman soldiers climbed over the shields of their enemies in their eagerness to get at them. Now that might have been a Roman general over-selling his boys for the folks back home but I suspect there's an element of truth in it. Studies of modern warfare tend to show it is something like 1/20 soldiers who are the real killers who take risks and act offensively. The way elite units and special forces can overcome larger numbers of lower quality troops probably reflect them having a higher proportion of such men, whether by selection, esprit de corps or training. I'm prepared to believe the Roman legionnaires at their prime might have had that advantage over some of their opponents. Ditto the Vikings, the Mongols, the Conquistadores, the Zulus etc in their day. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog, and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
What is this nonsense about England conquering Rome and Constantinople? It was French Crusaders who conquered Constantinople, and as for the English cinquering Rome, I have never heard such utter rubbish in my life! And if England only has 4 starting territories, I wonder how many Scotland will have?
I have grave fears about Medieval Total War II, in fact, at this rate compared to Rome: Total War, Rome: Total War looks like a very good game. And compare it to the original MTW, this is a cheap, worthless, ahistorical scrap of plastic and cardboard.
Ignoramus, I think you're mistaking the English victory conditions for historical achievements. Obviously, whatever mode is being played in that screenshot is not the same thing as MTW's victory point mode, whatever it was called. So calm down. ~;)
That german commander...complete noob. Did anyone else catch how the enemy on his left flank just went through his small infantry and started to attack his artillery? Rout in 2 minutes.
Heres another thing. Why were the enemy advancing on him? He attacked THEM, yet they cleary charged across teh battlefield and attacked, is this possibly because of his adv in long range artillery?
The infantry collision made me laugh. It looks like the enemy couldve just walked through his infantry. And the cannons, they fired TWO SHOTS, how can anything be effective after only 2 shots? All the units reminded me of olympic cross-country runners (running that far, in a suit of armor, in the desert, is extremely hard. Then fighting...)
The romans fough pushing their sheilds against the enemy and stabbing with their gladius from below (hitting..you know..the groin). The were alot more agressive then RTW.
I was thinking about getting this game for christmas or something...but 'glory of the roman empire' city building game is looking nice....
Is CA even reading what we post? Must as well stop posting feedback because they obviosly dont read it.
CA had said from the beginning that realism wasn't going to be their focus for M2, but after seeing that pathetic display (cannons bouncing around like ragdolls and a unit littering not stopping to fight until it had run halfway through its target's formation) I'm going to have to abandon my moderationist outlook on the game. Unless there are some serious improvements to the way battles are conducted within the next couple months before release, the only way I'd purchase this game is if it could be modded so that stupid hollywood nonsense like that simply doesn't occur.