Dont know if its been posted
http://www.3dgamers.com/news/more/1096485429/
Printable View
Dont know if its been posted
http://www.3dgamers.com/news/more/1096485429/
Wow, these are some great pics! Nice to see more of the campaign map and interface instead of battles. Couple interesting things I noticed:
In the "convert to city" pic, it says that cities cannot produce missle units or cavalry. Obviously they're not aiming for 100% realism with this mechanic, but it kind of bothers me that the English won't be able to produce their longbowmen in cities. Historically, the reason they could field so many archers was because they required all men to practice with the longbow each week, wasn't it? So it seems kind of strange to make longbowmen a castle-only unit.
Constantinople's province is clearly only on one side of the Bosphorus, unlike in the original MTW. I like that. This might have been observable from earlier screenshots, but I never noticed it until now.
In the background of one of the battles, a city can be seen and it seems that pillars of smoke are rising from it. I assume this indicates that the city is under siege at the time the battle takes place. I think that's a really cool detail. :2thumbsup:
Infantry are clearly capable of moving through archers' stakes. There was some concern about this from a recent preview.
There was a thread about knights having secondary weapons instead of using lances all the time. These screenshots show armored horsemen with swords and maces, so I suppose that's sufficient evidence that they do.
Overall, the campaign map is more attractive and realistic looking. Middle-eastern cities look pretty nice in battle mode, too.
After peering at the screens I'm guessing years are a thing of the past? I wonder how turns will work out...
Each turn is 2 years, but characters will age 1 year every 2 turns. The campaign is 225 turns spanning the years 1080 to 1530.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masy
No it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Don't know why people keep on saying this when there is nothing that suggest this.
The turns doesn't equal any amount of time.
Each turn is half a year (summer and winter). Characters will age after 2 turns which is a year, however the game only has 225 turns to cover 500 years of history so people keep saying that each turn is two years.
One turn is soppoused to be half of the year (winter or summer). Two turns are one year. The problem is that efectivly game wouldn't last till 1530.
If there 225 turns that means 225/2=112,5 years and that means if they would implement suddenly years that your campaign would end on 1192AD with all events from timespan of 1080-1530 happened allready. They did this because rarely anyone sticked long enoug even to see 50BC and not to mention the birth of Christ, so they compressed the timeline but growing old of characters remained in hope that we wouldn't spot something is wrong.
Yes but it goes against what CA themself have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
I can understand that people are having trouble letting go of the feature that a turn equals a certain amount of time and with the character aging still I can understand that it is even harder.
Right now the 1 turn=2 years is just a theory which doesn't make sense since characters age 1 year/2 turns and kinda goes against what CA said.
I go by another theory which still doesn't make aging work but atleast it is closer to what CA have stated.
I posted this theory over at the .com so I will quote it.
Can point out in one of the early screen you could see what year and what turn you were on in the faction info screen.
Once again, like the 2 years/turn this is just a theory.Quote:
I don't think 1 turn=2 years, it will be more like 1 turn= what ever you did that turn.
In RTW we saw dynamic events, events that unlike MTW weren't based on what year it was but what you did. For example the Marius reforms. To get that reform you needed to get to a certain city level somewhere in Italy. Of course people complained that it happened way too early since in real life it happen alot later.
In M2TW we will see the same thing, events being triggered by buildings and such.
But with the turns you can now reach the "right" date.
Lets say, you advance to the late era. I can't remember which date historians considers to be that era but let's say 1200 AD(probably wrong but it is just a date).
Now you reach that era on turn 15 meaning you just went 120 years forward through time in 15 turns. The info where it says the date will now say instead of 1080 AD, 1200 AD.
Now let's say another person plays the game and he reach that era in 30 turns. He however will be at the same date as you even tho he took twice as long. Both accurate therefore 1 turn = how you play.
Of course character aging still makes no sense but it won't do that anyway so I stopped trying to figure that one out.
Unless CA will clarify how it works exactly which they won't because of CA-bashers, we will have to wait until the game is out to see how it works.
Bob Smith said the timescale is from 1080 to 1530. That's 450 years and we know that is covered in 225 turns. It's obvious that 1 turn = 2 years if the game really spans those years. If you forget about that and pretend that the medieval period was squashed into 112 years with 4x faster technological development, then 1 turn = 1/2 year.
Yes and Bob Smith also said, I quote
Note the word specific.Quote:
but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time
If a turn would equal 2 year then that is a specific amount of time which CA is clearly not doing thus 2 year/turn is right out.
Only way the 2 year/turn theory would be true would be if CA would abandon this and go back to the old system that it has used in the last games but I think you know that CA wouldn't do that~;)
I say again how it will work remains to be seen but right now I have only seen 3 theories and that is the 2 years/turn, my own or that the system will be like in the Civ series and right now mine and the Civ theory are the ones that are closest to what CA has actually said.
Then CA shouldn't say that characters age 1 year every 2 turns or that the campaign's timescale is 1080 to 1530.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
They should say a character lives an average of 120 turns, and that the campaign's timescale is 225 turns.
Yes they can say that.
Once again, read the quote
"but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time".
STW: 1 turn= 3 months(or was that 6 months too??)
M1TW: 1 turn= 1 year
RTW: 1 turn=6 months
M2TW: 1 turn=According to you 2 years
These are turns that equals a specific amount of time, 1 turn is always a constant move forward through time.
However this is not what CA is trying to do.
They are not removing dates which you could see in one of the screenshots.
In my theory the dates are merely visual things and that a turn doesn't push a date forward like it did before.
Instead the player's actions will.
Through progressing by building stuff you will reach events that will change the date but it will not be bound by the number of turns.
Like the Marius reforms in RTW, you reach that reform by building stuff, not by hitting a special turn.
Of course this made it not very historical but by changing the turn system then you hit the right historical date no matter how fast or slow you play.So let's say you get a event that happend in history at the date 1200 AD, the date counter will say 1200 AD and will say so no matter how many turns it took for you to get that event.
Thus turns represent a unspecific amount of time which is what the offical word says.
And as you can see when you try to make turns a specific amount like you just did, aging makes no sense since you would only have 2 character through the entire game.
I suggest you ignore the aging completely like I did since no matter how you twist and turn(no pun) it will never make sense.
Neither my theory, the Civ theory or 2 years/turn theory explains it.
Right now I'm not totally dismissing the 2 years theory but I'am however dismissing it as a fact which is what most people like yourself is trying to pass it off as even tho it goes against the only offical word we have and will ever have until the game is out.
So be a good sport and do like me and the guy that thought of the Civ thing and state it is a theory only will ya.
False facts serves no one.
B-b-but... Civ isn't in any way a historical game, you can have tanks while your opponents have coconut throwers. And conveniently enough, there are no characters in Civ. Your rulers will also need to be pretty durable lest your dynasty ends with its first ruler and son being dead. And will the Golden Horde appear on turn 31 in one game and turn 168 in another?
I believe that a game series like TW can't exist in a temporal vacuum, people will still think in historical and standard chronological terms. Even when I played Civ2 I automatically compared my technological advance with the relevant historical events, without any conscious effort.
I think that logic dictates that each turn will represent a certain amount of time, because if you strive for battlefield realism and immersion, then you can't easily come to terms that each round won't represent a specific time period. Else you should have different (random?) map movement speeds. I can't reach England from Constantinople in 5 turns every time I try to do so and still be unwilling to believe that this doesn't represent a standard amount of time.
Without wanting to go into too much detail I don't think that either the Civ theory our your thory TB666 will make it into the final game. It will either be like Puzz3D has said and most people have tried to figure out via mathematics, or they will abolish years for good and the current year is nowhere to be seen. You just start and after 225 turns you're finished (triggered events are finished anyways although you can play on), quite similar to the way it was done in Alexander, where your characters still aged but the game had no year reference at all.
That's just my bet though, wanted to state it for the record!
Nice screenshots by the way and great find to the OP, already looked at them earlier and besides the city/castle conversion thing there isn't much to be said about them, which doesn't keep me from enjoying them greatly!
Edit: Just saw L'Impressarios answer and want to add that he gives some of the reasons why I ruled out the first two theories
True true hence I'm not trying to pass my theory off as a fact which I don't think anyone should right now since it is feature we know nothing about and I doubt we will until the game is released.
That's the essence of what I'm trying to get to :laugh4: :sweatdrop:
Anyway this is all off-topic so let's get it back on topic.
What I find most interesting is how the AI is behaving.
I see the danes going big and destroying poland and seems to do battle with the french.
And I see Milan also going big but lost it all to the danes.
Also interesting is how it looks like maintain a large kingdom seems to be hard since in one shot a faction got a large area and then in another they lost half of it to rebels.
Maybe the bigger you get the more loyalty problems you have.
https://img393.imageshack.us/img393/...shotyr0.th.jpg
Have a look at this.
^^^^^^^
Yeah that thing confues me. What the hell is it? My guess is some kind of moral thing or something with the 66 men protecting it. Something along the lines of Screeching women or druids. Other than that great pics, and to throw my two cents in I think they will just abolish years because there is no way to have it make total sense and it doesn't really bother me at all.
It looks like a cross, probly carrying some kind of holy icon into battle for the crusaders.
I've noticed that Flanders has at least two cities: Bruges and Antwerp. I realy hope that CA will include Ghent as well as the city was at least as important as Bruges and probably more important than Antwerp.
Let's just wait till the game is released, ok?
I believe it is historically correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_678
As I mentioned in another thread, this is a carroccio and while its use was initially confined to Italy, it wouldn't be far fetched to have it as a crusader unit.
No Ghent? At the start of the game, Ghent was the second biggest city in Catholic Europe (of course, cities like Cordoba and Constantinople were far, far bigger) after Paris!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
So tell me, how can there be 225 turns taking 500 years if each turn is half a year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
Now, I must say the most interesting thing I have seen is the fortress towards city conversion. Brings in a whole new slew of strategic possibilities. I'll just cross my fingers and hope they'll make an AI capable of handling the 360° campaign map so that I can properly make use of these new features...
A turn is half a year only for certain things, 2 years for other things, some undertermined timespan for marching armies over land and yet a different undetermined timespan for sailing over the sea. In M2TW, a turn is no particular length of time. It no longer makes sense to think in terms of historical time within the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I only have one thing to say on that, then: they sure as hell better make sure it doesn't devolve into a chaotic morass. :no:
unless I'm mistaking the crusaders carried the "holy cross" into some battle against Saladin (horns of hattin ?). You can also see this wagon in the Kingdom of Heaven movie.Quote:
As I mentioned in another thread, this is a carroccio and while its use was initially confined to Italy, it wouldn't be far fetched to have it as a crusader unit.
It's good to see the UI, looking much more polished than earlier versions.
One of the shots I had not seen prompts a question, the "Convert to City" scroll... I wonder if one can convert back and forth between the two, or is it only a one-way event?
Nice detailed textures on the nile delta, someone apparently had fun with that.
On the Merchants Wharf, "Trade Fleets Available: 1" makes me think that one could (possibly) manage large-scale mercantile ventures?
Does anyone know what the little wax-sealed letter icon is, just to the left of the "Army" tab?
There are all sorts of UI points of interest on the battle screens --- that little control box to the left of the units at first made me think this is a replay, but with all the other UI showing, including groupings, that must not be the case. So just on there:
- there are two sets of +/-, one I assume for the battlemap, the other for the speed of the battle?
- pause button instead of relying on a keyboard control, I like it
- the infinity icon makes me very curious, perhaps it toggles no time limit on battles?
- very cool to see the prisoners icon and number, yay for prisoners!
Wow, lots to see and consider here, well sighted Templar!
Good that you ask after that wax scroll thing, it was actually mentioned in the PCGames preview and I forget to mention it in my summary. They say that with the Scroll-Button you can access your current missions and see their current status and stuff. Meaning the Pope's and Noble Council's missions that is.
I guess you can switch back and forth between cities and castles, it will probably become more and more costly though. I deduce that from the fact that it says that all castle-related buildings will be lost if you convert to a city, which means there had to be a castle there for those buildings to be there to begin with. Furthermore the city icon of Carnavaeron on the strat map looks like a castle to me. Probably you won't be able to change back after you have reached a certain level of castle/city, but in the lower levels you can switch back.
Cheers!
Ituralde
Well the True Cross wasn't like this for sure, according to the relevant descriptions.Quote:
unless I'm mistaking the crusaders carried the "holy cross" into some battle against Saladin (horns of hattin ?). You can also see this wagon in the Kingdom of Heaven movie.
Here's an excerpt from Thomas Asbridge's "The First Crusader", The Free Press 2004 - p. 322:
"Soon after the city's fall, stories began to circulate that a piece of the the True Cross, an artefact of extraordinary potency, was hidden somewhere in the city. The story of its discovery around 5 August is confused. Most contemporary sources agree that this relic - a rather battered silver and golden crucifix believed to contain a chunk of wood from the actual cross upon which Christ had died- had been concealed by ... "etc
It's definately more like a carroccio, although some features prolly had to be removed in order to allow its more extensive usage, like the city's banner (in Italy that is).
EDIT: The crusaders did carry tho the True Cross in Hattin, but it wasn't like this (it ended being held by Guy while he was in his tent).
http://images.3dgamers.com/screenima...tw2_0138_t.jpg
I know where this is. My money is on the defenders. :yes:
Well, its good to see other aspects of development besides battles - many of which shown in these released screen shots you will not see of this caliber playing single player.
Otherwise, the images look beautiful... now if only they could work backwards and take those pretty graphics and use the game engine and framework for Medieval Total War I.
Thanks, Templar Knight. It has been added to the screenshot topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight