Printable View
here something interestingSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
another:you probably already know this but:Quote:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
i like the preview! (the battles melee sounds great) if i can run RTW on low, do you think i can run M2TW in very low? btw i found this preview at the .comQuote:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Um, bad sign?Quote:
What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain.
yeah even tho many may think that is a funny remark, it probably points at weak AI more then anything. But hey, the graphics took his breath away so all is good, right ?
~:thumb:
Heh, I'm sure this gives a whole new meaning to the word "correct".Quote:
We've even ensured that each nation has the correct accent.
Also did I get it right, infantry can impale themselves?
AI infantry can, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
:laugh4:
But the graphics are better than ever so no worries.
CBR
Tsk tsk tsk, such bitterness, shame...
Now, now, I hope the "sit through" has a similar meaning to "correct accents" :)Quote:
During the course of the next 20 minutes, I sit through three battles, each one more brutal and cinematic than the last.
um.. question?:idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
Sigh.Quote:
"If you want to delve a little deeper into the economy, you'll be able to move merchants to pockets of resources dotted around the map," reveals Roxburgh. "If allied factions have merchants guarding a resource, you can attempt a hostile takeover and force them off. It's like an economic rivalry that's totally separate to being at war with a faction."
Also, 3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes?
Sigh.
Crazed Rabbit
can anyone answer my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
Oops, I forgot to answer that in my first post... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
Well, at one point I'm pretty sure CA said that "if you can run Rome, then you'll be able to run M2TW", but I don't think it's going to be that simple. If you are able to run it, then it will only be on the lowest graphics options...
thanks! at least i can play it! but perhaps i will get a new graphics card by then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
"What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain."
Are the authors trying to convince me to spend my money on something else? Really the only way dumb AI could be justified is if they are playing on easy and they are on Agincourt versing a French side which is scripted to be as stupid as its historical counterpart.
I hope weak game reviews from half wits do not have more impact on game design than the hardcore fans. Remember when the reviews were complaining about inability to tell the difference between your units from the AI's in STW? Ugly bright faction colors started to make their appearance henceforth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Has anyone read Gamspy's review of Alexander expansion? All was good till he started complaining about how hard the game was. :laugh4: Things like that water downs the game.
What is naievety? I have never seen this word, ever. I think it looks great, but my bet is that all the battles we have see are arcade battles witht the game speed set high. I hope the AI isn't as stupid as the French at Agincourt.
That statement was pure evil, but funny and true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
So finally if I shell money to a faction/nation, then suddenly share a border I won't immediately be greeted by a full stack armyQuote:
In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."
Like that's new newsQuote:
What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.
Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? I know other games have that "clubbing together against the pack leader" but I have not noticed it in RTW. (Can't recall about MTW and STW).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaty
I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.
In MTW factions will not ally with you so easily (or not at all) if you're to big. In that case it's also more possible that all your neighbors suddenly start to attack together (think HRE).
I find it strange that CA depicts almost every thing that was included in a TW game but not in RTW as a new feature. It's as if they distance themselves from STW and MTW or that they ignore the older fanbase. Either way I find it a really strange and even (in case of option 2) an insulting move.
I would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
It is probably like in the RTW previews.Quote:
Also, 3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes?
CA showed them something and then moved on without finishing the battle.
Quote:
it probably points at weak AI more then anything.
Doesn't sound stupid to me.Quote:
First off is the age-old grudge match between the English and the French, set in lush surroundings flanked on both sides by dense forests. With Roxburgh's English forces dug in along a ridge, the French infantry launch an audacious bid to turn themselves into gallic kebabs as they march straight onto a row of spikes placed down by his archers (an all-new feature), while they send their cavalry through the trees to launch a surprise attack. Misjudged in the extreme, Roxburgh quickly dispatches an attempted foot soldier diversion, leaving the French mounted knights isolated and vulnerable.
It didn't work true but atleast the AI didn't send it's entire army up through the spikes and instead it tried to flank the army.
While going through a forest with cavalry isn't very smart, it had no other place to go, it was either that or the spikes.
If it went through the spikes then it would have been a sign of a weak AI.
Does anyone with any historical knowledge know how these things actually worked? From my uninformed perspective I imagined that if a force of infantry had no other option than to move through an area guarded by these spikes, then rather than just charge through as normal they'd instead move really slowly suffering only a few losses but arriving at the otherside piecemeal and voulnerable to attack. I suppose this would depend on the density of the spikes, but I just can't see a armoured person willingly charging a wooden spike with enough momentum to pierce his armour.Quote:
the French infantry launch an audacious bid to turn themselves into gallic kebabs as they march straight onto a row of spikes placed down by his archers (an all-new feature)
To be fair to CA this might be how it happens in game, and the kebab comment might of just been the journalist embelishing what he saw. Either way it's difficult to assess whether or not this was a viable strategy from the perspective of the AI unless we know exactly what kind of obstacle these spikes represent and what kind of losses can be expected when forced to move through them.
Mercilessly slaughter the prisoners you capture during a battle (a feature reprised from the original Medieval) and your general's 'dread' rating will rocket, making enemies fearful on the battlefield and civilians more obedient within cities. And while showing mercy in war may make your generals a target for 'big girly girl' remarks from opposing armies, at least the people will love them should you order them to babysit a settlement. Unless of course they raid the fridge, invite over their girlfriend and leave sticky stains on the sofa, in which case, they could be faced with a revolution.
:2thumbsup:
Don't be worried comrades, for even though the enemy troops may be running circles around themselves and marching over cliffs, the gentle swaying of each individual blade of grass in the breeze shall keep us entertained for many months. :no:
now that you mentioined it im the one who brought that thread to the org! what do you mean he said he enjoyed it! (or are you talking about BI?)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Longbowmen's stakes are meant to stop cavalry. They cannot have been too dense as that would have prevented the archers from going forward as we know they did at Agincourt. If infantry gets impaled on stakes in M2TW then that is 100% BSQuote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
CBR
I'm not surprised if that preview brushed aside the criticisms of AI as if it wasn't important - this is the same magazine that didn't actually review Rome Total War, they just presented a glorified press release with a 90%+ score at the end and made no real mention of problems with the game. They even said RTW had 'AI so great Hannibal could be in charge'. Which Hannibal are they talking about exactly? Some drunken unwashed tramp co-incidently called Hannibal who hasn't seen a bath in his life time, let alone a battlefield? PC Zone seem much like all the other games publications these days: full of over the top enthusiasm for games and developers they're in bed with.
Regardless, MTW2 seems a lot more promising than RTW. Who knows, a few more TWs down the line and we might edge towards the perfect real time strategy game.
I see, thank you. There was something that didn't seem to sit right about the concept of being able to build such an effective barrier against enemy infantry. Can you imagine how horrible it's going to be to fight a bridge battle against the English, if this is the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
When I read that I interpreted it in three different ways at the same time.
1 - I thought instantaneously to the wooden stake scene in Braveheart, where the infantry waited until the very last second to drop down and lift the stakes into the air, effectively implailing the entire english cavalry charge and destroying the greatest asset they had on the field that day. I could see the archers waiting until the last second to impale some charging infantry with hidden stakes like that, then charging or firing on the demoralized and scared crapless infantry that just suddenly got a mouthful of spears that hadn't previously existed only a second or so ago.
2 - I thought of the possibility of a really dense hedge of large spikes pre-placed into the ground. The infantry try to move too quickly through the hedge and their comrades in the rear accidentally push the front ranks into spikes as they try to shove their way through.
3 - The infantry try to quickly move through the spikes and the archers unload on them as they do, the kebab part coming from infantry being impaled while wading through the spikes by arrows or infantry who see this happening trying to route and falling over the obstacles, impaling themselves on them in the process.
I would love for nothing more than to hope that the infantry didn't just blatantly charge a wall of spikes it could clearly see.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Mortal Combat Deadly Strategy!Quote:
fatality moves
The great warriors Byzantium and France joined forces to purchase the ultimate warriors, Scorpio Swordsmen! Get over Here!
Actually, I think it is realistic - if you look at the history of Europe, so much of it had to do with maintaining the balance of power. In fact, that was virtually the official foreign policy of Britain for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.
English bowmen didn't use spikes to stop infantry, they used spikes to stop cavalry. Wooden spikes should have next to no effect on infantry, so I don't know what this reviewer is talking about when he says the French inf. show "tactical naivete" to march up to the spikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups when I need my general riding his 480BHP Mustang steed to blitz the enemy pikemen who's close range light sabers usually just kill him outright. Come on CA, sort yourself out. We're waiting for the TW revolution to begin!Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
And power-ups. Don't forget the power-ups! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Aw, ya beat me to it, professor! ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
Re: The linked article.
Yep. I'm going to have to buy a new video card.
Then FINISH HIM!!! a scorpio soldier impales a soldier's head with a rope with a blade. (forgot the word)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
:laugh4: :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
I can just see these spikes making suicidal generals even more suicidal. Ais thinking: "Theres some spikes... need to through... lets try using my most powerful unit! Its bound to work! The fact i could flank it is irrelevant front on charges all the way!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
if CA can put spikes again. thay should also use flamable pitch. (to burn people)
[/QUOTE]In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."[/QUOTE]
Well it seems more realistic as a whole:dizzy2:
Let's try not to consult the movie "BraveHeart" for military history and tactics. It is just not the wisest thing to do.
Quote:
In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."
Well something similar featured in RTW. When you broke an alliance by attacking your ally, after that you realy had a hard time allying with anyone.
So it's not realy entirely new function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
:laugh4: :bounce: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
You guys are great.
About the spike part: anyone remembering a, well sort of, spikes the CIA handed to their Cuban friends to litter the roads with and effectively end all forms of transport by road? I mean those are nearly the same as the spikes the Medieval Archers used (the CIA ones were to be assembled from 2 pieces) and they do hurt infantry. Not all infantry carries all steel suits!
But still: such a pity the infantry guys seemed to have charged recklessly towards archers... :wall:
Agreed, this review doesn't have a clue... :no:Quote:
this is the same magazine that didn't actually review Rome Total War, they just presented a glorified press release with a 90%+ score at the end and made no real mention of problems with the game. They even said RTW had 'AI so great Hannibal could be in charge'. Which Hannibal are they talking about exactly? Some drunken unwashed tramp co-incidently called Hannibal who hasn't seen a bath in his life time, let alone a battlefield? PC Zone seem much like all the other games publications these days: full of over the top enthusiasm for games and developers they're in bed with.
How about carriage trebuchets? :2thumbsup:
I have no idea what the CIA did in Cuba, but it's hardly relevant to what English archers did 700 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
The longbowmen would make one wooden spike each which they would plant in the ground in front of their position. More than enough to deter a cavalry attack, but hardly an effective defence against infantry. The most such a wall of spikes would be likely to do was impede the movement of infantry as it tried to make its way through them.
Any allusion to justify CA's use of the spikes against infantry would please me so long as it meant the infantry didn't just blindly walk into spikes it could clearly see.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
So let's not arrogantly insult people for no reason. It is just not the nicest thing to do... Especially when I've done nothing to wrong you.
"What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end."
I'm worried. I've seen it before - hopeless ennemies refusing any peace deal. It was dull.
"We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city."
I'm happy. Hope they won't invade with all-peasant cannon-fodder armies, though.
"What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain."
Now I'm really worried. This guy compares AI with graphics, first of all. Secondly - if even him, most probably not a TW fan, notices a "naive" AI, then what should I expect?
As an obstacle, a spike wall would slow an inf advance but it wouldnt stop it. Nor would one expect to have too many men stupid enough to impale themselves on the pointy ends instead of clearing the obstacle. I wonder if CA have included the capability of inf to clear battlefield obstacles in MTW2?
Just a thought, because we haven't actually seen a screen shot of these 'spikes.' They may be concealed behind shrubbery or potentially hidden like a tiger trap. Infantry who thought they were just running through a hedge of shrubs accidentally impaling themselves on spears they couldn't see or falling into covered spike pits isn't, too out there as far as feasibility goes.
Though I'll admit, it's stretching it a little.
Check Gamespot for an image of archers using the spike ability.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ex.html?page=3
Image #58 (3rd image for Mar 17, 2006.) I agree that the spikes should only slow infantry down. It'd be hard to imagine an infantryman impaling themself on one of those spikes.
Most of you have been skeptical about this note, for good reason. Its one thing for the AI factions to declare alliances and refuse alliances with you. Its another thing entirely for them to actually work together to bring you down. Its not a very impressive or effective AI that will, upon the player obtaining a certain number of provinces, no longer accept alliances with him and more easily accept alliances with your enemies. A much more exciting and dangerous AI is one that will actually cooperate with its allies, support them financially, grant rights of passage, defend one another from invasion, and launch joint invasions on their mutual enemies. I haven't personally experienced that in any TW games I've played.Quote:
Originally Posted by the preview
I'm really happy to hear that. I think the naval AI was overall the weakest aspect of RTW. Enemy navies were certainly aggressive and numerous, but hardly intelligent. I remember many occassions in which an enemy faction would "lodge" large numbers of troops, including generals, inside their boats, which would sit idly on their shores for multiple turns, often without any other fleets nearby to protect them. Sinking one of these ships, and thereby destroying all the units inside, was far too simple.Quote:
We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city.
Has anybody played Knights of Honor?
The diplomacy system in that game is absolutely beautiful as far as what I would like and expect from a medieval game. If only CA would take a page from their book. :sweatdrop:
Yes, I have played Knights of Honour. The diplomacy is amazing, but the campaign and battle AI have a lot to be desired.
I think this is a gameplay vs realism thing. Ganging up on the leader may make for a more competitive game (because you are playing to the same objectives and now are one player against N others colluding). But it can't be a realistic as a rule because it assumes each AI faction has the goal is to stop other factions "winning the game" (or becoming too powerful). In reality, of course, countries have their own interests and these may or may not coincide with another power being dominant. For example, much of the world is currently content with a Pax Americana while others don't see it as in their interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Again, a realism vs playability thing. Personally, I'd find it more interesting to be able to cultivate a dependable ally, browbeat a weak faction or cut a nefarious deal (Molotov-Ribbentrop style) with the enemy of my enemy. Having the AI suddenly collectively turn pyscho on me if I get too big just breaks the immersion. But then I've always preferred turtling and going for limited GA goals to the exhausting (and ahistorical) goal of conquering the entire map (or 50 provinces etc).Quote:
I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.
I agree it is important to maintain the mid-game challenge. But perhaps this is better done by programming the game so that AI factions can rise in power and reach - just as the human does. The best TW game I ever played was when I stepped into a mid-game Almohad PBM, with half the map orange and the other half purple. The conflict with a powerful Byzantine was epic, especially when added to loyalty problems and re-emergent factions including the terminator style "I'll be back" Papacy
Infantry, even tightly-packed, heavily-armored infantry, are unlikely to impale themselves on anything. The idea of using a wall of stakes against footmen is pretty ridiculous, such that it would even look ridiculous in a computer game (raaaaaahhhh *splat*).
The whole point is that a horse is running at full tilt and can't turn quickly (have you ever tried to turn a horse? sometimes they just won't turn quickly if it's Tuesday, even if they're not at full tilt), and even then a lot of horses were smart enough to go 'hey, i don't want to impale myself, i think i'll rear up and stop really fast and throw my rider!' So they were a dodgy proposition even when they were used against cavalry.
I disagree. I think ganging up is a realistic mechanic, as I already stated. And it's certainly as realistic as the alternative. There are many examples in history where a bunch of powers got together to stop one power from growing too powerful. Heck, just look at the history of classical Greece - it's an object lesson in the strategy. The reason a Greek city-state never came to dominate the world like Rome was because Greece was a constantly changing flux of different alliances ensuring that one city could never come to dominate. Look, for example, at what happened to Athens when it tried to create an Athenian Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The history of Europe is much the same, and although I'm less familiar with other parts of the world I'm sure you'd find similar patterns over and over.
The fact that some powers come to dominate the world in any case is not proof that most countries like it this way - Empires usually come about for the simple reason that the other powers are not able to stop one great power from growing stronger.
I take your point regarding a GA game, but let's face it, it doesn't look like M2TW is going to have a GA campaign. And since it's going to be primarily about conquest, a "ganging up" mechanic is important to maintaining balance and challenge in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'd be very much against the idea of the AI being scripted to allow one power to rise above the rest along with the human player. I'd much rather have random effects from game to game, it would be pretty boring to know that one power or another is always going to be rising in power in tandem with you. It would also make it easy to focus your attentions on that one power in order to beat it.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Arguably though there could be some concessions made to diplomacy. So for example, if you had cultivated good relations with a power, its trigger for declaring war on you might be higher than for factions with whom you had a neutral or bad relationship.
It's admittedly a complicated issue, but for me the fundamental issue is gameplay and I'm more than willing to sacrifice some diplomatic nuances in order to ensure the game remains a real challenge right to the end.
Well I'd say it's not new but tweaked IMO The A.I. would eventually prefer to gang up on the human in all series and once you shared a border with them war was inevitableQuote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I wasn't saying scripted, I was saying make the ebb and flow of AI factions dynamic so that some factions could rise to prominence at a similar rate to the human. This is primarily a matter of tweaking the strategic AI so that it is aggressive enough. IIRC, Shogun had this - perhaps overly so (Hojo horde). In MTW, it was less marked but could still happen. Vanilla RTW out of the box was rather static, by contrast - the hallmark of a broken strategic AI (save and reload bug? poor naval AI?). But my impression is that the patches to RTW have made the AI situation more fluid ie the strategic map alters more over time regardless of what the human does. I still think more tweaks could be made here - even in war, large AI armies do sometimes seem to mill around with little purpose though and AI vs AI wars are often desultory affairs compared to human conquests. The Risk style map led to more cut throat strategic AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
On the realism of ganging up, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Quite often in history it seems that when faced with a rising power, countries decided if you can't beat em, join em. Organising a collective response is often very difficult and is one reason why large single powers can dominate areas that collectively could rival or bring them down.
You're probably right but that was one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of TW, IMO. It made the game too much a matter of unremitting war and led to very strange suicidal AI behaviour. I just went back to Civ4 recently and while the AI would invariably attack you opportunistically if you were weak, the behaviour of the AI factions was so much richer and more interesting than that in TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaty
Well, exactly. If you can't beat 'em. Thankyou for making my point ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Apart from that, I think there's an argument for a GA campaign where ganging up would not apply. I also think it would perhaps be nice to have some extra options, like "always war" or "always peace". There's really no reason why a range of different gamers' preferences couldn't be catered for in a game like this.
But the bottom line for me will always be - give me a challenge, please!
Apart from the flaws of the preview there're some nice features included.
I look forward to some.
The following is really nice, a lot of my empires had a very important capital.Quote:
Avid Total War fans will be happy to know that the assassination animations - brief cut-scenes, which chart the success or failure of a professional hit - are back after their disappearance in Medieval and Rome. "We have loads of these, so it's unlikely you'll ever see the same one twice," Roxburgh says. "There are different movies for all of the different targets you can kill, for successes, failures and even ones for when the target manages to escape," adds Mark Sutherns.
If the AI will try to destroy them, it could be a real challenge.
Quote:
"We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city. That's why all of the city fortifications you've built up for your main cities will become far more important this time around,"
Quote:
Dead bodies now stack up in horrific mounds
New feature? :inquisitive: Let's just hope the AI is up to it.Quote:
There'll be loads of new features in these battles that you'll have to take into account, like impassable terrain. The AI will look at that and think of how it can use it to its advantage,"
Would be nice to have the dead bodies as impassable terrain. :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Sounds to me like you're asking for a list of custom campaign options, similar to civ IV.
Now that you mention it, that's probably where I got the idea from ~:)
This has already been mentioned, but this probably means the French were under the control of the AI. :laugh4: Perhaps CA likes playing the AI this way, so they can win. The skilled TW players perhaps left the design team long ago, like in STW or MTW.:laugh4:Quote:
What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety,
Perhaps... :bigcry:
(I don't care for 3D piles of bodies piling up, use those resources to give the AI a few more loops...)
I'll amen that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
~:thumb: This would be great, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
w00tQuote:
Mercilessly slaughter the prisoners you capture during a battle (a feature reprised from the original Medieval) and your general's 'dread' rating will rocket, making enemies fearful on the battlefield and civilians more obedient within cities. And while showing mercy in war may make your generals a target for 'big girly girl' remarks from opposing armies, at least the people will love them should you order them to babysit a settlement. Unless of course they raid the fridge, invite over their girlfriend and leave sticky stains on the sofa, in which case, they could be faced with a revolution.
From the interview: "Battle number two is a desert skirmish. English crusaders battle the Egyptians, pounding the massed enemy ranks with mighty cannons."
This is tactical fantasy, and I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.
I think CA probably had the battles in mid-flow or just cut to the juicy bits.Quote:
I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.
hopefully
You mean the jucy bit of crusader cannon pounding infantry in a desert skirmish?Quote:
Originally Posted by zakalwe
Probably were lots of juicy bits afterwards anyway.
Nought wrong with giving crusaders cannons though. It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.
You're right about cannons in desert skirmishes though
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/ima..._screen001.jpg
Man.. Now I am starting not to care about the gameplay.. I just want to make movies of battles with that engine.. ~:eek:
Ohoh. This pic means that knights DO have a secondary weapon. And it seems that they even know how to use it.
You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakalwe
I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.
Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.
I mean no offense to you. I mean that Holly Wood is not very accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
I'm well aware of this, but with grass as high as it is in fallow fields, where it looks like much of the fighting in the screenshots takes place, it is a feasible concept.
I think you are overreacting just a bit. I mean, the flaming arrows in rome did hardly any damage at all against most troops. Generals die of old age in all the games, it won't be any different in this one. You start off with historical figures as generals in MTW, heck, I'm pretty sure that the English start with William the Conquerer and he dies off of old age almost immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Troops flying all over the place is no less realistic as the complete lack of blood and gore. Its rather fun to watch, too.