The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - initial impressions from an English campaign

I've played a few hours of M2TW, running through a couple of dozen turns of a VH/VH English campaign.

The good:

1) The battles do seem more challenging than RTW and in a good, fair, way, not because the stats are skewed. So far, I am always getting significant casualties in battles - as I did in MTW and STW - not the minimal ones I tend to get even in RTR. I'm not quite sure what's caused this - a combination of the higher morale, the vulnerable cav, slow firing missiles and the AI not doing dumb things, I guess.

2) So far, I like the battlefield AI. I've heard about the passive AI bug, but I've not experienced it. So far, the AI comes on seriously, as if it means business.

A highlight so far was my abortive attempt to storm Caernarvon. First, the Welsh set fire to my ram and siege tower; then they rushed reinforcements from the ground to break my spears climbing the ladders; all the time, raining bodkin arrows down on me. A very active, effective defense and an ignominious defeat. Yay!

But more generally, the AI seems to use it missiles and cavalry cannily; and to go for good unit match ups. It is almost as if I am fighting an equal opponent. The only time I felt I outsmarted the AI was when I recklessly besieged some Flemish rebels, only to find they had a strong garrison that promptly sortied against me. Their armoured spears and pikes outclassed my spears and billmen, so I had to rely on cavalry and missile tactics to best them. It was fun giving pikemen the run around with cav, while shooting them down. But not particularly unrealistic and even then, I only won by a whisker (a general + 2 archers were all that was left of a half stack army).

3) The campaign also seems more challenging. That old feeling of threat that was so present in the STW/MTW risk maps may be back. I feel as if moving a defending army away from a frontier may induce the Scots or the French to strike.

4) The missions are decent - I like the Nobles telling me to boost border defences and the Pope telling me to build churches.

5) Graphically, the game is of course gorgeous on the battlemap - we've seen that in the demo. And with an upgraded video card, I can enjoy it.


The bad:

1) I still find the move speeds a little frenetic, as I did in the demo. I don't feel I am in control as much as I am in the RTW realism mods, let along STW/MTW.

2) The kill rates are sometimes very high: a unit of Flemish knights charging a unit of English spear militia led to the destruction of almost all the latter in a few seconds. I guess I goofed - the spears were not braced. Used properly, spears can mess up knights (e.g. if they catch them at rest).

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

5) Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.


The ugly:

1) I don't find the campaign map that great to look at. For some reason, I prefer that in RTR PE. Maybe I'm too zoomed in or something.

2) Some of the stats seem strange: the differences seem extremely large. Why is a billman attack 13 and total defence 3; a spear militia attack 5 and total defence 7; an armoured swordsman attack 13 and defence 22? Why does a crossbow have twice the missile attack of a longbow? I preferred the small range of stats in STW/MTW. But I guess the formula for kill rates has changed, as the units don't seem as extremely differentiated as the stats would suggest.

3) Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily. It seems a slight overcorrection for RTW. Archers often seem to get off only one volley before melee. A unit of hobilars lost half its men during a pursuit of some routers in a town (maybe they rallied, I don't know - that's the fast paced thing again). Knights seem to have paper armour, unless they are the general's (presumably 2HP) bodyguards, in which case they perform in a way I feel about right.

4) I've noticed the apparent bug whereby opposing units don't quickly connect, perhaps because they are trying to maintain some kind of unit cohesion. It can be frustrating, as it means a charge may not strike home with full impact.

5) Not really ugly, but M2TW does not blow me away in the way that RTW initially did (the one campaign I finished, before I got disillusioned and put it away until I found RTR). I guess that's a personal thing - I've played an awful lot of RTW mods and M2TW feels like more of the same. Plus I found the ancient setting more exotic (I had never even heard of Seleucia, for example.)


Bottomline: M2TW is a game that plays well out of the box. It probably is like MTW with RTW graphics. But somehow I feel a little underwhelmed - perhaps because I've experienced MTW and I've experienced RTW graphics. Perhaps because I've been spoilt by RTW mods such as RTR PE, EB and Goth's All factions BI mod.

Thanks for the review Econ. That was interesting and well said. Of course we all hate you who have yet to get the game, but, I wouldn't be here reading your review otherwise would I... !

Cheers,
Al Jabberwock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

---

Yeah, I tried to tell you guys the new recruitment system would probably make little if any difference. But you wouldn't listen to me back then... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Move speeds on the campaign map seem a little low - it's hard to get much done in a turn. It starts resembling Civ - endlessly clicking end-turn after a lot of little micromanagement.

---

That's very discouraging. I've long argued that the slow movement rates on the campaign map are one of the worst, most unrealistic features of the TW series. And it sounds as though the problem is getting worse rather than better! I'm disappointed to hear this, I hoped they had done at least something to improve it a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Archers shoot really slowly and cavalry die really easily.

---

Don't like the sound of these changes either, especially the slow shooting rate. I hope that turns out to be moddable.

"3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?"

I can't really remember the RTW way of doing things but I think its Brothels that let you train assassins in m2.

I thought brothels were for spy's?

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

Say for instance you can recruit peasants, spear militia, peasant archers, billmen and longbowmen in a settlement. You have a unit cap of 6 for the first lot, and 3/4 for the others, but once you've recruited those units, the unit replenishes so you can recruit them again.

Quote:

---

3) Maybe I am dumb, but I hate the building browser - I can't get it to tell me anything I want to know (e.g. what to build to get assassins). RTWs was perfect - why change it?

---

I think the City/Castle system resulted in the change. I find it very good to use, just select what kind of settlement you have(city or castle), then select the type of building and you'll see the different levels of that type of building on the left.

Quote:

---

4) I like the unit caps, but they seem so generous, they are not really binding. Gold is the constraint, not the caps.

---

They could do with being reduced a bit, as the Sicilans i have no problems fielding armies with large numbers of Norman Knights or Dismounted Norman Knights in them.

The trick to it I think is building up as many recruitment slots as possible, once you get it up a bit then you can start fielding big armies fast enough to not notice any real cap. The agent cap though is smart, makes sense in that how could there be more agents then facilities allow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Excuse me but would you guys mind explaining this unit cap thing as this is news to me? Since when does CA put a stupid unit cap in their games! Don't tell me this is gonna be like all the other strategy games now:gets boring cuz you can't build any more units.

---

Doubt it. The more and better settlements you have, the higher your cap goes. There is no "upper pop limit" on the cap, except when you have all the cities fully upgraded, and by then you've won.

So far I have only been playing custom battles, and I am dissapointed with the English.
Billmen are seriously weak. Their Defence is 5 and they die in droves and run away very easily. And the longbow men are useless for me so far. They shoot slowly and cause few casualties against any foe (so far they have failed dismally against heavy infantry, light infantry and fellow archers, 10 casulaties from a unit seems to be all I can expect). The only thing they have done for me is kill a French General is melee :yes:

About your calv dying fast..it's probably a very early year and you're in the crappiest of armor. you need to upgrade and later in the game when you get plated lance type knights they'll be a bull dozer.

I find you have to fight battles as the auto resolve ends in a loss every time.

Ah I see. So it isn't like "since you got 1 city you can have a max of 1000 soldiers" or anything stupid like that.

One more question:

In MTW 1 you could choose to play in early, mid, or high starting points. Depending on which you palyed as each empire would have different boundaries for each age. Can you choose which age you want to start at anymore or (like civil wars and titles) has this too been denied?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Ah I see. So it isn't like "since you got 1 city you can have a max of 1000 soldiers" or anything stupid like that.

One more question:

In MTW 1 you could choose to play in early, mid, or high starting points. Depending on which you palyed as each empire would have different boundaries for each age. Can you choose which age you want to start at anymore or (like civil wars and titles) has this too been denied?

---

The Era's aren't in the campaign. You can, however, select an era for MP or for a custom battle.

:balloon2:

Archers shoot slow? dont know man but my longbows are owning evrything against the french and the scots, my yeoman are winning me the battles right now on my campaing. I agree with the movement speeds and kill rates though still a bit to fast and high.

I just encountered the passive AI bug. I thought the bug was when the AI is out-gunned, but in this case, we had 700 men a piece but the Danes were definitely superior as they were almost all dismounted Feudals and Huscarls. I had a balanced force of spears, billmen, longbows and cav. The Danes just stood there and my 3 longbows, 1 archer + 1 crossbowmen killed 90% of them. Bows are definitely not underpowered, but the trick is getting the enemy to stand there and get shot. Their rate of fire is so slow, I am pretty sure they will only get a volley or two off before the enemy close. Thankfully, the AI obliged in that battle but am not confident it will in others (or after a patch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I just encountered the passive AI bug. I thought the bug was when the AI is out-gunned, but in this case, we had 700 men a piece but the Danes were definitely superior as they were almost all dismounted Feudals and Huscarls. I had a balanced force of spears, billmen, longbows and cav. The Danes just stood there and my 3 longbows, 1 archer + 1 crossbowmen killed 90% of them. Bows are definitely not underpowered, but the trick is getting the enemy to stand there and get shot. Their rate of fire is so slow, I am pretty sure they will only get a volley or two off before the enemy close. Thankfully, the AI obliged in that battle but am not confident it will in others (or after a patch).

---

Would you really prefer turkey shoots with missiles virtually winning the battles and melee type troops relegated to auxillaries?
Is it not more realistic and maybe more challenging for the emphasis to be placed on melee units to decide a battles out-come?
I know which I prefer, perhaps the rate of fire will be moddable so those that prefer arrow rain can play the game that way too.

In STW and MTW I relied on my archers to soften/decimate a large part of the AI's soldiers before they reached my battle line. This made most battles a bit too easy, repetetive and boring. Considering that many complaints were about the battles being too easy, I suggest that the slow rate of fire is not an oversight but is an intended design decision to make TW battles more challenging. Seems as though archers would be best used to skirmish on the flanks, and positioned to fire on the flanks and rear of pinned AI units. For those factions and players that rely on and/or prefer missile heavy armies, imo the slow rate of fire combined with the large battlefields does'nt create any problems, but merely sets the conditions for some very interesting, challenging and dare I say memorable battles.

As for the passive AI bug, that was also evident in RTW. {maybe because I modded missiles to fire from their max range) I hope the patch returns things to how the AI reacted in the original MTW, which if I remember correctly, the response was an immediate charge en masse. That required I drastically reduce the number of missile units in my attacking army and usually resulted in a very bloody and costly battle.

As I don't yet have the game, there are a couple of things I am keen to know. Does the AI still show their back sides to reform it's battle line? and What is the average ratio of inf/cav/missiles per AI stack?

I'm a little further with the campaign and am coming round to the archers. They remind me of MTW arbalesters - they seem slow firing, but they do kill. Playing as England they are my main edge over the AI. Cavalry can also provide another edge, although it's not something I rely on much. On reflection, I am happy with the balancing of cavalry and missiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceTorque

Does the AI still show their back sides to reform it's battle line?

---

Occaisionally, yes. But it's not so common, it bothers me.

Quote:

---

What is the average ratio of inf/cav/missiles per AI stack?

---

It varies a lot by faction and by army within a faction. The Danes came at me with an army almost exclusively made up of heavy inf (FK and Huscarls), and more generally tend to be almost all inf. I fought a French stack that was almost all cav, more often they are a mix. The Scots were also mixed. But in most cases, inf are the bulk of the mix.

To generalise, AI stacks seem mainly inf but with some cav and archers. Typically I'm fighting half stacks or so. They usually have one or two cav, and one or two missiles, sometimes more. They seem reasonable. I'm not seeing the "all archers" or "all peasant" type armies I recall from early France in MTW.

**********************************************************************

EDIT: Martok asked me how immersive M2TW was - whether it come match the atmosphere of STW; and whether you felt you were just playing a game. This is my reply:

M2TW has a bit more chrome than RTW and MTW, but does not have the striking style of STW. Some of the voicework on the campaign map is nice - the prisoners begging for their lives; even the cheesy foreign diplomatic voices are fine by me. The music does not grab me as much as any of the earlier titles. I identify a bit more with the characters than in earlier titles, but they still don't have distinctive "characters" in an RPG sense. The pre-battle speeches don't do much for me.

I think it's pretty close to MTW in the "feel". The campaign seems pretty tense and cerebral, so presently I am caught up in stuff like (a) trying to get my crusade to the Levant before it deserts or another faction; (b) trying to fend off all three neighbouring factions who are all out to get me;(c) trying to understand why the Pope hates me when I show him nothing but love; etc etc. It's very close to MTW, so far, to be honest. Not so immersive you forget you are playing a game (I'd need to play System Shock 2 or something for that); but a good game nonetheless.

so Econ, bottom line is, is STW better or M2TW better so far in your opinion?

Based on the dev blog, the pacing of battle now heavily depends on unit size selection. Normal sizes (40-70) the pacing feels similiar to RTW, but on Large (60-110) the pace feels quite a bit slower and positioning matters more as you cant get away with quick troop redeployements particularily in tight quarters on city streets.

Heres my good, bad, ugly

Good
I really like allot of the new features.
1. Castles and cities gives very interesting strategic implications. If you take a settlement far away with heavy units you will have difficulties retraining and defending if it remains a city. A castle will give you little money for it.

2. The ai are much better in both campaign and battle. This game is harder then all previous games, at least for me.

3. Allot more campignmap units. merchants give new dimensions to the game and needs to be handled with care. A merchant cost 550 and will generate 5-20 per turn. This can grow over time if he is kept alive. If you start loosing your merchants from competition it will be more costly to build than what they earn. Get a trained assassin in to help you.

4. sound and graphics is wonderful.

5. Killrates are perfect for me. they can be very high in a perfect charge and fairly slow in a head on infantry engagement.

6. Gunpowder from both canon and infantry is wonderfully to use (and look at) without being overpowered.

Bad
1. Cavalry! My greatest disappointment. Whats up with it. It is very difficult to perform a good charge even of you pull your horses away and reform. Often the animations look poor with twitching and slowmoving men. In close engagements you will lose many men against everyone. I charged a unit of rebel peasant archers with feudal knights and didnt lose any in arrowfire because the enemy unit was reforming and couldnt shoot. My knights didn't really charge but wandered in and started melee. I lost six knights before enemy routed.

2. sieges are better and worse. I got smacked really hard by a rebelsettlement in my first mtw2 battle. I was expecting rtwtactics to work but lost hard. You cant capture towers anymore and they can shoot fast in all directions. In the early game you must capture the only building you can, the gatehouse. Since ai have all infantry on walls you will suffer heavy casualties when on walls from towers. They say towers dont shoot when no ai units are near but they can be far away still the unstoppable towers machinegun you to death. Sieges are almost too hard. At least we should be able to stop the towers by conquest. This make me autoresolve most sieges.

3. placing units in cities is almost not possible. This is almost like a bug. The game wont allow you to place units around in streets. You can only place them in wide areas. This almost made me stop playing the game.

Ugly
1. I agree with econ21 that the campignmap doesnt look as good as the battlemap.

2. Twiching animations reduces the great feeling.

My bottom line is that even if the game have some problems it is a wonderful game that is a good mix from previous games and also new at the same time. I got blown away and will play it, mod it and enjoy it.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gustav II Adolf

3. placing units in cities is almost not possible. This is almost like a bug. The game wont allow you to place units around in streets. You can only place them in wide areas. This almost made me stop playing the game.

G

---

This can be annoying, but you can use hold down the rght mouse button to stretch the units out to 'fit' on the paved streets - it takes getting used to as there is a buffer zone that wasn't there in RTW. Admittedly, I've had some issues with placing cavalry units where I want them, but 99% of the time I can get them there or thereabouts.

One feature I really like in the new sieges is that routing infantry actually run away off the walls rather than standing there waiting to get whacked! This alone has improved my enjoyment of the game.

I also prefer the new system for towers and the town centre, where it seems to be based on the number of soldiers contesting the area as to who is deemed to be in control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zatoichi

This can be annoying, but you can use hold down the rght mouse button to stretch the units out to 'fit' on the paved streets - it takes getting used to as there is a buffer zone that wasn't there in RTW. Admittedly, I've had some issues with placing cavalry units where I want them, but 99% of the time I can get them there or thereabouts.

One feature I really like in the new sieges is that routing infantry actually run away off the walls rather than standing there waiting to get whacked! This alone has improved my enjoyment of the game.

I also prefer the new system for towers and the town centre, where it seems to be based on the number of soldiers contesting the area as to who is deemed to be in control.

---

I have had some real troubles with placing and find maneuvering very difficult. cant place them 90% of the time. Its huge difference compared with RTW.

G

Quote:

---

1. Cavalry! My greatest disappointment. Whats up with it. It is very difficult to perform a good charge even of you pull your horses away and reform. Often the animations look poor with twitching and slowmoving men. In close engagements you will lose many men against everyone. I charged a unit of rebel peasant archers with feudal knights and didnt lose any in arrowfire because the enemy unit was reforming and couldnt shoot. My knights didn't really charge but wandered in and started melee. I lost six knights before enemy routed.

---

You cannot use cavalry like you would in RTW. Do not double click to charge, single click so the cavalry advances to charging speed in its own time and it will lower its lances and keep formation much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blahblahblah

so Econ, bottom line is, is STW better or M2TW better so far in your opinion?

---

STW was never really "my thing" so I am not sure that's a suitable benchmark for me. I've never tried MP - which seems to be the focus of STWs greatest fans. And the SP game had a lot of charm, but was a little too battle-heavy for me. I preferred the variety and freedom of later TW titles.

So far, I'd say M2TW successfully combines many of the best things about MTW and RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gustav II Adolf

I have had some real troubles with placing and find maneuvering very difficult. cant place them 90% of the time. Its huge difference compared with RTW.

G

---

Hmmm, what unit size are you using? I have to play on medium at the moment due to my PC being less than stellar, so maybe it's worse for larger unit sizes?

After installing the game and playing casually for a an hour, just getting the feel of the game I'd like to add my initial impression of ugly:

The family member cards: seriously, after the great art in RTW (and MTW!) I just can't believe what CA thought when they made this. Come on, couldn't you do just a little better? I like to nurse and keep track of my family members and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I saw the the cards for the first time.

I even showed it to my wife, and she said like 'is that from your new game???'

There, now I said it. Now I'm back to playing this great game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggus Diccus

After installing the game and playing casually for a an hour, just getting the feel of the game I'd like to add my initial impression of ugly:

The family member cards: seriously, after the great art in RTW (and MTW!) I just can't believe what CA thought when they made this. Come on, couldn't you do just a little better? I like to nurse and keep track of my family members and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I saw the the cards for the first time.

I even showed it to my wife, and she said like 'is that from your new game???'

There, now I said it. Now I'm back to playing this great game.

---

:laugh4:

I somehow like the campaign map(I played it at someone, before I get my copy) but those characters on the map are ENORMOUS!!! Castles, armies, diplomats...everything. HUGE.

Just randonm thoughts based around Econ's comments mainly.

I get the impression guy's that the Unit size we play with will affect our preception of kill rates.

I know this was confirmed in a very technical post by one of the CA guy's some months ago...but I'd really like to find our what CA recommends as the default unit size to play with.

As for the unit capping comment Econ made ...could it be that at the moment in your early campaign when units are "cheaper" that this will rectify itself as base unit costs increase when the mid and later stages come around??

You could also be winning the *econ*omic war at the moment...terrible joke sorry.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

...I'd really like to find our what CA recommends as the default unit size to play with.

---

I'm playing with the default size and it is 75 for fodder infantry; 60 for the better stuff and missiles; I forget the cavalry - maybe 40? (Playing as English, I'm going light on cav. - trying to be economical. :laugh4: ) It feels like RTW on "large" - maybe I should try upping it next time, but I like the feel. I'm getting used to the kill rates - they seem fine.

Quote:

---

As for the unit capping comment Econ made ...could it be that at the moment in your early campaign when units are "cheaper" that this will rectify itself as base unit costs increase when the mid and later stages come around??

---

I'm still not sure what the function of the unit caps is. I really like them as a realism and disciplining device, but don't tend to bang my head against their limits. I guess I'm not playing in a blitzing style - after 3 days, I'm still just outside Paris.

Hi Econ,

Ok good to know about your feelings about the kill rates. I am worried about the slow fire rates of Longbowmen though.

I'm keenly interested in your start because I'll be playing English as my first faction when I get the game.

In general I just get the impression that everyone would best be served by being a little patient right now. There is so much of this game to work out, that it will really take time. Some very smart people have spent years programming this so there is a ton of material and thinking to observe and learn.

My comment about capping is that it might become more of a limit later in the game. Now that you have more money and relatively cheap units it is not an issue. As the later period "expensive" units and upgrade become available then the capping will keep your army roster balanced.

How much money do you have?

I'm happy with the longbowmen's rate of fire now, too. But that may be because I am encountering the passive AI bug more and more. :eyebrows: I usually seem to be able to shoot the AI to death. Maybe I'm just hitting my stride, but the battles are starting to resemble RTWs more now. I'm even starting to get some 10:1 casuality ratios. Then again, the AI has always struggled against missiles and missiles is what the English do well.

Just teched up enough to get Dismounted English Knights-these guys are very, very good-the ace in the hole of the English, I'd say. You're going to be relying on these guys more than anything else, as you don't really get any late period infantry.

They sound good BKS.

How many can you pump out? Is the capping working?

Econ,

Ahhh...if the Day 0 patch is going to solve passive battle AI, then...it will be over soon :beam:

what has changed about the "rate of fire" issue then?

Didn't the developers say that if it's being out classed by enemy archers the AI should charge? If there's a bug stopping this happening I can imagine it would make the AI alot more vulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Didn't the developers say that if it's being out classed by enemy archers the AI should charge? If there's a bug stopping this happening I can imagine it would make the AI alot more vulnerable.

---

That's what I read too Furious.

There seems to be a problem but it has been ID'd and is apparently going to resolved in the Day 0 patch release.

Day 0 should mean on the last official release date which is still a week away I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

what has changed about the "rate of fire" issue then?

---

Not sure - maybe early on, I was not so in control of things (the shock of the new and all that). I was a little freaked by the seemingly slow rate of fire, but did not take care to observe the effects. Now it reminds me of arbalests in MTW. Slow and deliberate, but rather nasty to receive. Feudal knights fall fairly easily to archery if exposed to it for long enough (as kats did to arbalests in MTW).

Also, my early fights seemed to be scrappy, bloody things where everything was a little hectic. I probably did not have enough of a shield of melee troops to protect my archers. The mid-game fights are more like the classic set piece battles and the AI seems to behave more passively, allowing itself to get shot to pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gustav II Adolf

Heres my good, bad, ugly

Good

1. Castles and cities gives very interesting strategic implications. If you take a settlement far away with heavy units you will have difficulties retraining G

---

Just to add to that.

Have you guys noticed that you can't prepare for a siege when you're sieged im a settlement?

You can if you have a general

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Not sure - maybe early on, I was not so in control of things (the shock of the new and all that). I was a little freaked by the seemingly slow rate of fire, but did not take care to observe the effects. Now it reminds me of arbalests in MTW. Slow and deliberate, but rather nasty to receive. Feudal knights fall fairly easily to archery if exposed to it for long enough (as kats did to arbalests in MTW).

Also, my early fights seemed to be scrappy, bloody things where everything was a little hectic. I probably did not have enough of a shield of melee troops to protect my archers. The mid-game fights are more like the classic set piece battles and the AI seems to behave more passively, allowing itself to get shot to pieces.

---

Hi Econ,

Ok thanks for the continued analysis. AI sitting around getting shot to pieces doesn't sound promising though. What happens when that is potentially solved in a 0 Day Patch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

AI sitting around getting shot to pieces doesn't sound promising though. What happens when that is potentially solved in a 0 Day Patch?

---

Cheap answer - we will get a better game. I'd be more worried about what will happen if it is not fixed. Slightly more thoughtful answer: I'm pretty relaxed about missiles now - they are fine, IMO. Ditto cavalry. Both take a little getting used to, but have their role and it is not at the expense of other arms.

Some unrelated observations on AI siege assaults as I lost my first settlement (Antwerp) to an AI assault:

In RTW/BI, the AI often does very badly at siege assaults - however big the horde, it usually brings only a ram, a tower and some ladders, so you can often set their equipment on fire - rams being the main target - and/or hold them off with a couple of decent heavy infantry (e.g. comitatenses) on the walls.

In my M2TW game, the Danes had two rams, one tower and a set of ladders. The two rams were curious, but then I realised that it might be smart, as both rams and towers are very flammable (as I'd learned the few times I've tried a siege assault). The AI kept the second ram behind the first almost like a backup - a tactic I might copy.

I knew as was in trouble as the AI had a lot of dismounted feudal knights and I'd been outmaneouvred on the campaign map, so the town had only 4 spear militia, 3 longbows and a general. I used the longbows to shoot fire arrows at the ram and tower. The tower caught fire just as it was touching the walls, but the ram did not. I just about contained the FKs coming up the ladders, but those coming through the game barrelled through my spears and general. The longbows on the walls (and the towers next to them) did ok, but without a melee shield, they were eventually routed.

One nice change I might have observed - as the AI took the town square and the 3 minute countdown started, I snuck a lone knight onto the square, hoping to reset the timer (an exploit I learnt from RTW). It did not reset and I promptly lost. Kudos to CA if they have stopped this exploit.

The lesson from all this is that you really need elite infantry (dismounted FKs etc) to either resist a siege assault or indeed carry one off effectively. I guess I already new this from RTW (when I said I needed a couple of decent heavy infantry). Relying on a city's free militia won't cut it - as indeed it should not. A better test of the AI will be if they attack a properly defended city - that would be fun.

I have been playing as the English as well and here are my initial impressions:

The Good:

AI – Much better all around. The battle map AI is better than any I have seen before. I still win almost all the time (playing on VH) but I need a proper army, proper tactics, and proper preparation beforehand. You can win consistently, but you have to earn them with skill. I have also had my butt handed to me twice by intelligent AI rather than stupid player. This has never happened to me before. Brief descriptions of the losses:

The first was a combination of the second and third battles of the game, during which I expected to completely eliminate Scotland. They attacked me with two small armies to relieve the siege of Edinburgh. Even combined they were smaller than me and I had a good defensive position on a hilltop so I put my main line facing the army I thought would arrive first and put two spears to hold the other army until the first was done. Unfortunately, the AI coordinated the armies and struck at the exact same moment. On top of that the main army broke half my line in the initial charge. I eventually rallied and won, but lost half my army in the process. Still on the AI turn, Scotland moved a 3/4 stack into the attack. I could have held it off with my full army, but with the huge losses from before it was hopeless. I lost my entire northern army and it took me about 10-15 more turns to finish Scotland.

The second was assaulting rebel held Bruge. I assaulted with 5 siege towers and a ram with about 10-12 units of spears ready to climb the walls. Unfortunately, the rebels had 4-5 very decent infantry units on the walls along with crossbowmen. They burned 2 siege towers and the ram, leaving me with only 3 assault points on the walls. They moved their heavy infantry to those spots and proceeded to assault my units on the walls from both sides. I kept feeding new spears into the fight (siege tower climbing is not slow anymore) but with heavy infantry on both sides of the assault points, it was a losing battle of attrition. I eventually withdrew with 2/3 of my army dead.

Diplomacy/Pope – Playing on H campaign, the diplomacy is very reasonable. Enemies know when they are beaten and offer truces and even pay for a ceasefire when they need it desperately. Allies do not betray you without cause (so far at least). The Pope is easy to figure out and the College of Cardinals is excellent! With proper planning, you can stack the College with your own countrymen, guaranteeing the next Pope will be from your nation or at least friendly to you.

Castle/City System – Works beautifully and requires you to think hard about what you want to do with a settlement. It is very costly to switch a well-developed Castle to a City, and tough luck if you suddenly need a castle in a region, but only have large cities which cannot be turned into them.

Missions – The huge variety of missions is wonderful. You can get missions from your Council of Nobles, from the Pope, and even from your allies. They can be very creative too, such as the Nobles asking you to increase the number of defensive units on a hostile border. The best one I have had so far was the heir to the throne of the HRE (my ally) asking me to assassinate his father for him so that he could become Emperor!

Castle Sieges – These are the most impressive things I have ever seen in a game, visually and tactically. The AI properly defends castles and multi-ring castles can be a major pain to take down. Once the AI loses one ring of wall, it will always retreat to the next ring, making you do it all over again. With the 3 ring citadel, this can make for an extremely costly attack. The only citadel I have managed to take by force so far required a full stack with 3 trebuchet units (6 trebuchets) and even then I barely had enough stones to make all the necessary breaches, forcing me to leave most of the towers intact. The days of the baggage train are back… any army that is going to be assaulting a Castle, Fortress, or Citadel absolutely must be carrying siege engines. Towers and ladders work on cities, but the game will not even let you bother trying to take a fortress without some kind of catapult or cannon. You cannot even begin the assault. Oh, and the sight of trebuchets slinging stones at a fortress is possibly the most graphically impressive part of the game IMO.

Settlement Development – Massive number of buildings to construct. The days of having perfect settlements are gone.

Movies – The assassin, spy, heresy, wedding movies are great. The assassin and spy movies in particular are lovely as they are incredibly varied and you never know whether you are going to succeed or not until about halfway through the movie. Even after 3 days of constant playing, I do not think I have seen them all yet.

Animations – Kill moves and more varied combat animations make watching the fighting close up actually interesting. It looks like an actual war now close up as well as from afar.

The Bad

Turns/Date – The lack of a date on the campaign map is annoying. I do not care that it is the 68th turn, I want to know the year. Why do I have to look elsewhere for that? Also, 2 years per turn? What happened to 2 turns per year?!

Crusades – They take a long time to get anywhere if you are in Western/Northern Europe. Even with the extra movement, your army will get stuck from the zone of control issue and lose all movement several times along the way. Given 2 years per turn, it takes a crusade 20 years to get anywhere, possibly 30 to get the job done. I have also seen French and Spanish crusades taking boats from the Atlantic coast, sailing to the North Sea, and then landing and embarking each turn until the Crusade finishes, at which point they walk home.

Campaign map movement – I agree with others, seems way too slow given some of the distances between settlements and considering that each turn is 2 years.

Delayed death reporting – The game does not count a man as dead until after his death animation is finished. Some death animations can take 4-5 seconds, which can make you scratch your head in frustration wondering why your massive cavalry charge did not kill anyone. This will probably be ok once I get used to it though… just remember that man count on units represent approximately 5 seconds ago, not the present situation.

Deployment in streets – You now cannot deploy in the area outside the roads, even if it looks clear. Again, this will probably just take getting used to, but for now it causes some aggravation in setup and when attacking settlement.

The Ugly

Passive AI – When it happens, it sucks and brings back memories of incompetent Rome AI. Let us hope the patch is out soon.

Attack reluctance – Sometimes, for reasons I cannot figure out, men will dribble into an attack rather than move as a group. Unit responsiveness also seems to be decreased sometimes.

Heir – You cannot pick your heir! My current heir is a wrathful slob who does not deserve a crown, but I cannot pick his intelligent and chivalrous brother over him. Given time, I might shift this to the “Good” category if it increases difficulty (and realism) but for now, I hate it.

Traits – Maybe it is just me, but the trait and ability system is a lot less colorful and informative than in previous games. With a few exceptions I do not feel like I have gotten many family members with personalities.


Overall – Best TW game I have ever played (I have never played STW). The idea of what this game will be with mods on top of the excellent base is exciting beyond belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Heir – You cannot pick your heir! My current heir is a wrathful slob who does not deserve a crown, but I cannot pick his intelligent and chivalrous brother over him. Given time, I might shift this to the “Good” category if it increases difficulty (and realism) but for now, I hate it.

---

Ehm...
I haven't played RTW (PC couldn't handle it and now that I've upgraded I'll skip it for MTW2), but in MTW all you need to do to "pick" your heir is find a bunch of suitably powerful rebels. I don't get your point here. Can't you do this in MTW2?

True, I suppose you can, but it's a step backwards from RTW which did allow you to pick the heir. Considering how ridiculous we all thought it was in MTW to have to suicide an idiot prince into a Mongol horde, it seems similarly ridiculous to remove the feature that fixed this annoyance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

ITowers and ladders work on cities, but the game will not even let you bother trying to take a fortress without some kind of catapult or cannon. You cannot even begin the assault.

Turns/Date – The lack of a date on the campaign map is annoying. I do not care that it is the 68th turn, I want to know the year. Why do I have to look elsewhere for that? Also, 2 years per turn? What happened to 2 turns per year?!

---

I think the first is due to inner walls... Ladders, towers and such are only good for the outer walls (or only wall in the case of a city). It is the same as if you run out of Siege engine ammo before all the rings are breached (in which case it is battle over, you lose)... Or so I have read on this forum...

There is already a way to mod this back to 2 turns a year if you can handle the thought of nearly 1000 turns! And the debate is raging as to whether or not to simple increase the build times by x4 in this case...

Thanks for your review by the way, it was very encouraging for those of us picking it up tomorrow... :2thumbsup:

Why can't you save spare ladder units (or drop ladders and return to pick them up), to climb up inner walls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsyrow1

Why can't you save spare ladder units (or drop ladders and return to pick them up), to climb up inner walls?

---

Well, mine was a guess...

but maybe the game simply does not allow you to manouver them through the gates or breaches...

Could someone test this out? Historically I can't think of any sieges of massive castles that were done by ladders alone, but if we could have an option in this regard, it'd be better.

As far as I can tell, no siege equipment of any kind can get through a gate. I haven't tried a wall breach, but I assume it's the same. Essentially you need trebuchets or long range gunpowder artillery in order to be able to hit the third wall of a citadel. I found 3 units of trebuchets were just barely enough to breach all 3 walls before running out of ammo. 4-5 would be necessary if you wanted more than a single breach in each wall plus disabled towers. Perhaps gunpowder units are more effective, but I have yet to try them.

You know there's a difference between light cavalry and heavy cavalry. Light cavalry are not chargers, that's not their intention. If youse them to break front ranks... Well they won't. Think of them as skirmishers that don't use javelins. In fact, use them as yo uwould use a military cavalry.

My two penneth worth.

The English

Longbows - They still seem to be a little underpowered and slow to me to start with anyway. Later on I get the feeling they get too strong as infantry. I have got Retinue Longbowmen and they are nearly as good as any unit as infantry. I know they charged in at Agincourt and all that, but that was in very partcular circumstances. I would've prefered slightly more powerful bows and more fragile bowmen, that would've made you think harder about your deployments. To achieve their best results fire arrows seem to be best. Not becasue they kill more but because they seem to have greater morale effect than in RTW - at least for several units of longbows.

Infantry- forget about them in the early game, they have strong attack values but very low armour ones. Considering these are the blokes that are supposed to have fought it out with the French that got through the arrows they are seriously underpowered. THe ones in the game just can't stand still and take an attack. Attacking with them still results in very heavy casualties becassue of their low armour values. Later in the game they are available as free upkeep troops in cities and they aren't too shabby. The only infantry worth diddly-squat tot he English are the dismounted knights/armoured swordsmen etc.. available later on. But then I think everyone else gets these so nothing unique there.

The English don't seem to get anything that can stand up to cavalry per se. The billment no longer have that attribute. The only unit you have is are the militia spearmen armour upgraded.

Crusades - Can be difficult for England (and other N Europeans) when called randomly by the Pope. As someone has pointed out getting to the target is a major obstacle. However, the solution is to influence the Pope yourself and ask for a crusade against an opponent that suits you at a time that suits. So, send some ships with load of troops into the Med and then call on the Pope to declare a crusade.

Pope - Really does help if you can get on his good side. The best way to do this is to consider all the religious buildings and send your priests off to be missionaries. For the English send them to Russia. Preaching in non catholic lands really puts the piety quotients up, which in turn makes your priests eligible for promotion to cardinal and on to pope.

Campaign map - Not the prettiest, specially when zoomed out - it looks a bit "grainy". Zoomed in it's OK, though the casstles look silly.

AI- Seems to be improved and battles deinitely take longer than in RTW. Siege equipment seems to work better as well, towers and ladders are much quicker to use. Also, there doesn't seem to be the option to have a gatling gun fitted to the top of your towers to clear the walls anymore as in RTW.

Overall, I 'd say it is excellent but he English are not the most interesting faction.

I have only played custom battles with the english, but I really find the billmen and crossbowmen disapointing. especialy compared to other factions similar units.

I mean, billmen fail miserably against knights, while (hre) halberd militia in spearwal chops them to pieces, even one on one.

likewise, longbows seem to have no edge on most crossbows, and get decimated pretty quickly by all gunners and al the "special" crossbows like the milanese. the ongbows real-life advantage over these units, the ability to crate a huge volum of fire in a short time, seems to be nonexistent. also, their misslie attack rating is no larger tha that of other archers above peasant level.

its not that i expect the english infantry to be unbeatable, but they should be better than this.

Ditto on troops "reluctantly" charging. It really is fustrating seeing dribbles of 150 spearmen attact a flank with so many standing at the back doing nothing. I also seem to find that unless troops are formed into a well organised formation, they will simply run into enemy troops without even raising their weapons or shields. It does look pretty awkward. Also I agree concerning the Pope's impossible Crusade demands. Otherwise a fine addition to TW Franchise :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

True, I suppose you can, but it's a step backwards from RTW which did allow you to pick the heir.

---

It's historically accurate ~:)

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son's bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother's sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

It\'s historically accurate ~:)

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son\'s bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother\'s sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

---

It is historically accurate for the heir to be chosen based on hereditary ranking by the computer immediately upon the crowning of a new King. It is NOT historically accurate for this to be unchangable. There were many situations in which hereditary rules were tossed out the window at the convenience of various nations. The War of Spanish Succession and the Glorious Revolution spring immediately to mind. If you want to be historically accurate, give a major loyalty drop to the disinherited family member and perhaps even an increase in unrest in all settlement and a decrease in relations with foreign powers. However, simply forbidding the choice altogether is NOT historically accurate.

If you want concrete proof of why it is not, consider the following:

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome. His heir, Prince Flacid, inherits, but is not yet married and does not have a son. The game automatically makes the now King Flacid\'s eldest brother, Prince Windfall the heir. King Flacid then marries the foreign Princess Viagratia and they produce a son, Prince Thoughtunlikely. The game will now prevent Prince Thoughtunlikely from inheriting his rightful throne and his uncle Prince Windfall will become the next king, even though he would have been instantly removed as heir in any medieval European monarchy.

All in all, the option should be there in some form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bones58

Ditto on troops "reluctantly" charging. It really is fustrating seeing dribbles of 150 spearmen attact a flank with so many standing at the back doing nothing. I also seem to find that unless troops are formed into a well organised formation, they will simply run into enemy troops without even raising their weapons or shields. It does look pretty awkward. Also I agree concerning the Pope's impossible Crusade demands. Otherwise a fine addition to TW Franchise :2thumbsup:

---

I have started to order my unit to run behind the enemy unit I want to attack, ordering to attack when most of the men are on top of the enemy unit. A little messy, but it is the only way to have the men engage properly. Cavalry is another story of course.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome.

---

Ehm, in all probability his ailment would've been acute rather than chronic :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

It's historically accurate ~:)

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son's bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother's sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

---

So, how long do we have to wait for the frogbeastegg guide?:juggle2:



:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

King Postmortem dies at a relatively youthful age due to Chronic Sword Through Heart Syndrome. His heir, Prince Flacid, inherits, but is not yet married and does not have a son. The game automatically makes the now King Flacid\'s eldest brother, Prince Windfall the heir. King Flacid then marries the foreign Princess Viagratia and they produce a son, Prince Thoughtunlikely. The game will now prevent Prince Thoughtunlikely from inheriting his rightful throne and his uncle Prince Windfall will become the next king, even though he would have been instantly removed as heir in any medieval European monarchy.
.

---

As someone who works in software suport this is not a word I use lightly but... bug?

I liked Froggy's explaination but think that in the circumstances you stated that the heir should autochange to the eldest son when he is old enough to be a general...

Thinking futher, Faction Heir is a trait is it not? Perhapes this will be modable if CA elect to not change it...

Just updated my guide to England with the unit stats:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...09&postcount=7

Still work in progress though.

Excellent econ.

I'm giong to have to print that out and make some notes when I start my English Campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Just updated my guide to England with the unit stats:

---

Excellent Econ21, thanks. I have a few observations to make from my England campaign. Played a 100 turns or so in a Scottish campaign first on Hard/Hard and then have got 100 turns (both at 1 year = 1 turn btw) into an English one at Medium/Hard).

Comparing the two factions:

Firstly, I really like the way Scotland and England play differently, despite reaching in effect the same position after the opening (both conquered the British Isles). The Scots start with a much worse economy, so their early game conquests took longer, which meant other factions (France, Milan, Denmark) were more developed when we came into conflict around Caen.

Econ21 has noted the poor infantry for England as well as some possible partial solutions (nice find about the mercenary spearmen, never thought about them). The Scots on the other hand have poor missile troops but good pikemen. This not only leads to different battles but has knock on effects on your campaign strategy too: the Scots can have Cities as decent troop producers whereas England has to rely on Castles. Maybe historical accuracy takes a blow here but the gameplay is enhanced by this: kudos to CA for the whole City/Castle concept.

Both factions have poor cavalry compared to other ones but as Econ21 says, handling cavalry in M2TW may be more about finessing them on the battlefield than stats (you want decisive charges, maybe multiple ones, into flanks or rear rather than overpowering opponents in a slugfest).

Crusades

Both British factions have similar problems. If you sail to the Holy Land you'll suffer desertions when going south to Gibralter because it isn't heading closer to the target :no: or else enemy ships in the Med will hunt you down. If you go by land you'll get regularly blocked by ZOC collisions and even worse, if the target gets captured your crusade army becomes a normal one and you can expect a war with whoever's territory it is in (and trying to get it back home can be a nightmare).

Being so far away from the Holy land crusades are a real problem for these two factions. Even if you want to capture the target you aren't often going to be first to arrive. I've experimented with taking the hit in standing with the Pope or else keeping some units around after battles without retraining them as a crusade reserve (you need a minimum of 8 units plus general for a crusade but the units can just have a few men in each as far as I know). Then I can disband the crusading army later if it proves an embarrassment. The latter approach seems better.

A note on crusade generals: I put one 55 year old in charge of one crusade. He died in mid France and I got a message that I had one turn to get a general there or the crusade would disband. I had one just close enough but should have saved and replayed to see what one turn means there; would it have disbanded next turn or the one after. Note that for missions, "1 turn" remaining means do it this turn or it's too late.

Battles

Fix their line with infantry set on Guard then flank with cavalry. I've had mixed success with getting cavalry to charge rather than march/run into units. Getting them to run into position in 2 or 3 ranks then single clicking on the target unit has been most productive but I cannot get it to work consistently. Sometimes double clicking has been ok too. The initial position about two unit depths (maybe more) away from the target seems best but trials needed (or a rethink of the whole system CA :beam: ).

Usually the AI lets me away with this flanking but I wonder if the fix-the-standing-around-AI patch will change that?

Unit Stats

Great work Econ21. Can't remember if you noted that, unlike earlier TW games, upgrades to troop producing buildings won't necessarily produce better troops. The English in particular have some real shockers from later City militia buildings, so much so that I wondered if it was just the help screens that were wrong (go to building browser, right click on the last building in the series and then right click on the lines for the units it produces).

Also, in many cases older units with armour upgrades are as good as later ones. This is because of the different way armour upgrades are done. The troops associated with each Blacksmith/Armoursmith/whatever get that armour by default so the bronze/silver/gold shield doesn't appear. Earlier troops that you upgrade do get the shield when retrained and that often raises them to the same or only slightly worse than the more expensive next level unit.

Agents

Never liked agents much in the TW series. Geishas, yuck. Micromanaging, yuck. Agent spamming by the AI, ditto.

Merchants hardly seem worth the bother. If you are lucky (find a good resource, don't get bumped off it, merchant lives long enough) you can make a small profit on your 500 investment. If you are lucky.

I've had two missions to marry princesses to Generals. One as Scotland went fine, the other as England (Beatrice to Prince John) didn't. Selected princess then hovering pointer over John it says no eligible husbands in this stack or similar. Right click and no option to marry. Go to family tree and he has no wife and he later appears as a possible husband for foreign princesses when I'm negociating with them. Must report in the bugs thread.

I hate assassins. Always have mind you, which is why I modded them out of MTW. When I had 2 territories in mainland Europe, at one stage I had 5 French/Danish assassins round one and 4 round the other, every turn trying to assassinate my generals, and sometimes succeeding. They got replaced soon when they died but I've noticed that assassins with low % of success don't die during the mission as often as in earlier TW games. "Misses target" happens a lot more often that it used to.

I do hope the assassin spamming doesn't get any worse. :thumbsdown:

Summary

I'm having great fun with M2TW. Of course, the first few days are almost always like that with a new, keenly anticipated game; I even enjoyed Master of Orion III until the glaring awfulness of it hit home. But I still think there's enough here that M2TW might at the very least hit the level of STW if not overtake it. Can't speak for the graphics since I'm running everything on low but they are good enough for me. The battles are testing enough and I look forward to slightly slower movement in a mod (killing speeds are close enough to fine as it is).

The big surprise for me so far is the campaign game. For the first few hours I was disappointed that both campaign & battles were closer to RTW than I was expecting but I've come round now to believing that to be a superficial view. It plays differently.

By the way, what camera view is everyone using?

What is the view from RTW in M2TW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

By the way, what camera view is everyone using?

What is the view from RTW in M2TW?

---

I've always used the Total War setup for camera, controls, UI, everything. So far, I haven't noticed any differences in these: M2TW seems to do everything like RTW.

Hi Lord of the Isles,

So which camera is the same as Rome? There are 3 options.

Lord, I'm pretty sure with crusader armies it means "get a new general this coming turn or the army disbands". In my Byzantium game, the first jihad army to arrive at Constantinople was Turkish, led by a single general. That general died in the sally (ballista towers my butt! Those are BOMBARD towers!) and the army retreated all the way to the bridge over the river west of Sofia(!). It sat there one turn and then vanished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

It's historically accurate ~:)

The Romans selected, sometimes even adopted, their heirs. Most cultures during the middle ages determined inheritance by bloodlines. Most Western areas used Salic law (no female inheritance, and all land to go to the eldest son) or semi-Salic (all land goes to the eldest son, or if he is dead to his eldest surviving son. If there is no continuation of the eldest son's bloodline then it passes to his next eldest brother, then that brother's sons in order of age, and so on until you run out of males, at which point the female who is the closest heir (e.g. daughter of the deceased) inherited).

So RTW was accurate for its time, and M2TW for its. I like that.

---

Actually, the process of primogeniture was by no means a hard and fast rule throughout most of the medieval ages. Also, Henry 1 tried to choose his heir by getting the barons to agree to Matilda as his successor. And again, Stephen who contested her right to the thrown although he wass a nephew he wasn't an eldest son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles

I even enjoyed Master of Orion III until the glaring awfulness of it hit home.

---

You actually enjoyed MOO3 for even a little time???? Now I know can't trust anything you write in your post :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles

The big surprise for me so far is the campaign game. For the first few hours I was disappointed that both campaign & battles were closer to RTW than I was expecting but I've come round now to believing that to be a superficial view. It plays differently.

---

Yes, I agree. I'm at around turn 60 or so (my rate of play is really slowing down now BTW - it can take a couple of hours to play a turn; shades of MTW/STW). And the VH/VH campaign still feels admirably tight. As I said in my OP, it reminds me of the Risk map from STW and MTW. That's quite an achievement, given how much more open the M2TW/RTW map is and so how much harder it is to program the AI. Remember there used to be that "cheat" whereby if you vacated a province, the AI would "see" your supposedly simultaneous move and march into it? Well, I am afraid to set off for Hamburg, because enemies from the south may well march into the power vacuum in Flanders. Similarly, I am hesitant to go all out to eliminate France, because Spain may march into my northern French territories. And it is hard to even start thinking about Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the battles are feeling more like RTW and less like the shock I first encountered. I guess I am more used to it and am also tending to fight with full stacks, so often outnumbering the AI. On the plus side, 10:1 loss ratios are still rare - I suffer significant losses in most battles, as I know I did in MTW from looking at my old PBM screenshots. After 2-3 battles, even my full stack army starts to look vulnerable. And storming a settlement is a very expensive proposition - better to starve them out, but then what if the Pope intervenes before it falls? As I say, admirably tight.

Hi,

I just want to add my 2 cents:

I have bought the game last week and have been playing all weekend.

The first three games as the HRE where annoying, since all my neighbors attacked me after a couple of turns, so I played as the English.

I really love the game, but there are some issues I dont like too much:

- in sieges, I found it difficult to stop even one or two rams/towers, even I have the biggest city/castle with cannontowers and lots of archers. Ladders I found unstoppable, you cant even push them back, making ladders better then towers :(. Or trying to set fire to a ram with 10 archer units.. duh! Somehow I have the feeling that there is a bug, because sometimes a siegeequipment takes damage to a certain percentage and then simply stays at this value even it continues to take fire

- I think it is to easy to breach the walls with selfmade siege equipment. Where are hot sand/water/oil, where are the moats (even boiling oil was in MTW1)

- architects who place the castle in a slope! :furious3: I HATE it when you have cannontowers and you cannot shoot at the siegeequimpent because you are sitting in a friggin' hole :wall:

- where are the sappers (they were in RTW)?

- the walltowers seem to target always the least important targets. Instead of shooting on the ram or tower (which they usually miss), they fire on some unit running around

- why are archers on walls so ineffective? Why cant they be placed on the towers?

- why cant missileunits shoot directly down the wall? Instead of that they fire in a very high ballistic angle, which looks really stupid when using flame arrows and they fire nearly straight in the air

- I find infantryspeed is still too fast, I dont know how they walk and run so fast with armor and weapons. You can get hardy two rounds of fire off your missileunits when the AI attacks you (IF they attack you)

- Elite cavalry is too weak (=dies too fast). Maybe this has mostly to do with the chargebug, but I dont think that weak peasants should be able to kill a lot of elite knights after they made contact. As I said, this may be have to do with the bug (my cav stops before the enemy or doesnt lower their lances).

- Units on gamemap: I miss some filters, really. I hate it to search for heretics or enemy units when the map is cluttered with other agent type units. Some "remove own/enemy/rebel" unit filters would have been nice.

- the agents interface sorting options suck. I mean I can sort by name, wow. Agent type/skill would have been better ;)

- the movementspeed of ships is laughable. I need half the game to ship an unit from England to the Med- the system is somehow flawed I think.


To the siege issues I have to say the following: I think it is wrong that you can put whole armies into castles/cities. A better concept would have been (IMHO) to make have to fight the real army before you can lay siege to a city/castle. The defenders would then have to relay on a garrision which would have much lower numbers then the current field armies.

What I dont lik is the fact that sieges are now field army vs. field army behind walls battles. I would rather like to see a field army vs. strong defences (depending on the fortification level) with a numeric weaker garrision. In a kind of way this was solved better in STW and MTW when the fortifications had a cap of how much units they could shelter.

In short: heavy fortifications with fixed garrisions make more interesting and balanced sieges possible. As the attacker you would have to make sure that you have enough troops to fight off enemy armies who try to replenish the besieged stronghold.

Ok, enough for now, thanks for listening :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zort

- in sieges, I found it difficult to stop even one or two rams/towers, even I have the biggest city/castle with cannontowers and lots of archers. Ladders I found unstoppable, you cant even push them back, making ladders better then towers :(. Or trying to set fire to a ram with 10 archer units.. duh! Somehow I have the feeling that there is a bug, because sometimes a siegeequipment takes damage to a certain percentage and then simply stays at this value even it continues to take fire

- I think it is to easy to breach the walls with selfmade siege equipment. Where are hot sand/water/oil, where are the moats (even boiling oil was in MTW1)

- why are archers on walls so ineffective? Why cant they be placed on the towers?

- why cant missileunits shoot directly down the wall? Instead of that they fire in a very high ballistic angle, which looks really stupid when using flame arrows and they fire nearly straight in the air

---

Got to agree with you there. Siege equipment seems to be far too effective. I haven't yet managed to damage a tower or stop ladders yet. The towers and archers seem pretty much useless. Though the retinue longbowmen are fine to resist ladders due to their high armour/defense rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist

Got to agree with you there. Siege equipment seems to be far too effective. I haven't yet managed to damage a tower or stop ladders yet. The towers and archers seem pretty much useless.

---

Not sure about that. At least on VH, the AI is routinely burning my towers and rams. I used to take one each for a small settlement - now I want to bring backups (as does the AI). I have burned the only AI tower I've encountered. The ram got by me though.

Towers and archers have their uses: the three longbowmen in Wales wrecked my assaulting army.

One thing I think may be new from RTW (or maybe I am just clueless for not trying it before): your sieging archers can now shoot at the enemies on the walls. It's useful for the archer heavy English when facing tough enemies on the walls, like dismounted FKs.

Could be right. I am having a bit of a thing with the Danes right now. They have assaulted Antwerp 3 times now, each time with 4 battering rams (all going for one gate), 2 towers and 3 ladders! Maybe it is no wonder my archers are a bit over stretched. The only way I seem to be able to deal with this is to charge the siege equipment with cavalry nder cover of the archers.

One thing I have noticed though, is that if I do charge the rams and ladders, they are dropped. Invariably though, one of the towers and a set of ladders make it. As soon as that happens all the troops who were pushing the rams and the other tower and ladders drop them (or don't pick them up again) and run to the equipment that has made it to the walls. This makes them somewhat easy to rout with the cavalry.

I'll say it again gentlemen,

YOU NEED TO ID your difficulty before complaining / making statements.

It seems quite clear that unlike the other TW games this AI has been programmed to "ACT" smarter at the higher settings.

This is opposed to the "easier" concept used before of just making the AI "ACT" the same on all levels BUT giving it artificial statistical bonuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I'll say it again gentlemen,

YOU NEED TO ID your difficulty before complaining / making statements.

It seems quite clear that unlike the other TW games this AI has been programmed to "ACT" smarter at the higher settings.

This is opposed to the "easier" concept used before of just making the AI "ACT" the same on all levels BUT giving it artificial statistical bonuses.

---

I guess the difficultlevel has nothing to do with most of the points I listed. Or do I get some filters at VH ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist

The only way I seem to be able to deal with this is to charge the siege equipment with cavalry nder cover of the archers.

---

I was impressed to see the AI try the same tactic against me.

With the Danes, I concluded it's probably better to sally out - with their oodles of heavy infantry, English bows may do better in a stand up fight, at least while the passive AI bug exists.

BTW, apropos nothing, I was a little shocked to find castles only have one gate. Entirely logical, but it made sallying out in front of massed Genovese crossbowmen unexpectedly hairy. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zort

I guess the difficultlevel has nothing to do with most of the points I listed. Or do I get some filters at VH ;)

---

Your right zort, it wasn't entirely directed at you. The charge issue would be related though.

So...what are your difficulty settings? :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Your right zort, it wasn't entirely directed at you. The charge issue would be related though.

So...what are your difficulty settings? :2thumbsup:

---

The easiest available :shame:

Honestly, I first try to get the mechanics right before I dive into the slugfest