Things you miss about MTW.

Ok, this isn't a gripe session to start off the discussion! I consider MTW and MTW2 apples and oranges, so this isn't the place for comparison and contrast.

I miss the regional units, like the special archers in Genoa and such. I felt that they added a lot more value to certain areas than just land strips with a settlement on top.

I also kind of miss Flanders. Antwerp and Bruges just don't have the same feel anymore. I still remember raking in upwards of around five thousand florins a turn off of just flanders. :)

Anyone else?

I miss the gameplay

.......Orda

Regional units are still somewhat present in the form of mercenaries, but I agree that there's not enough of them, especially in western Europe where it's 90% vanilla crossbow + vanilla spearman. Easy to mod back in though. I miss historical bonuses though (ie +1 valor to such and such units trained in this region)

I also miss catapult bounce. Silly, but sooo funny when one boulder bounced precisely smack in the middle of 3 or 4 different units in a row :laugh4:

Titles, of course. Nothing like making a general who's never seen the sea in his whole life a Grand Admiral of the Fleet.

Malta :shame:

I miss the superior gameplay, the battle AI, dismounting cavalry and many other little things. Recently I installed MTW and was suprised that I lost two custom battles to AI in a row. Years of playing RTW and now MTW2 have made me weak tactician. MTW is healthy for your brain.

I deffinatly miss the regional units i always made switzerland a priority territory to capture in M:TW. I Also miss the way reinforcements worked i realy dont like the way it works now it was far better being able to select which unit you wanted as a reinforcement and being able to set a rally point. I also miss the way you could have 3 stacks in one for cruesadeing armies and the way you could pass through a different territtory and get loads of different types of units from different factions (deffinatly more realistic). TBH i think the whole cruesading eliment in M2:TW is a massive set backwards compared to M:TW which is a shame really.

As ive stated in another thread gameplay wise M:TW was a massivley supperior game IMO there was so much more to the tacticks. The thing that saves M2:TW is the grahpics though its like watching one of the big battles in lord of the rings there that good. And this is coming from someone that isnt a graphics junkie i'd always take gameplay over graphics in any game but there just awesome in M2:TW.

I miss Flanders too! :laugh4: That place was a gold mine!

Main thing I miss....the MTW unit roster. MTW2 seems very much- spear militia, spearmen, elite spearmen...peasant archers, militia archers, elite archers etc etc...in other words- not as interesting...for the most part.

Region specific troops also (is there a way to mod that back in?)

I also miss the ceremonial varangian guard...they might not have been realistic, but damn they were cool!

Titles!

I agree, it is the regional units that I miss most. Switzerland, Ireland, and Iberian provinces I thought were best. Then after VI came out Swabia and Moldavia were nice too in the early game.

I have always thought that in this period that units should be mostly regional rather than national...nationalisam was only present in England at the time and that was restricted to the English, not any Continental possessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I miss the gameplay

.......Orda

---

I auto resolve a number of my battles, which I never used to do.

The campaign map part is great in M2TW, but the battle portion is not nearly as addicting as MTW was this soon after it was released.

Regional units, emerging/re-emerging factions, higher chevron limit, factionleader influences your national economy, chance of eliminating spies/assassin using watchtowers, framing a general, spying to uncover secret traits to make them worse traits, murdering your own generals/family members, murdering your leader!

All those things I miss from MTW

I miss the Moroccan delivery service I had when I played MTW. I always ordered from them when I was playing long nights and they often delivered after they offcially closed.

That was the best couscous in the world, best tajine too.
Lamb, almonds and plum sauce, piece of Moroccan bread with sesame seeds, full bodied red Bordeaux or light Gerouanne rosé .....MMMMmmmmMMM...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I miss the gameplay
.......Orda

---

Lol, you naughty you!

I miss dismounting units, in fact IMO all cav units should be ordered to dismount when needed. I miss choosing my own heir. I miss not being able to increase my pop or being able to control the rate of growth in a better way. When I first heard about the castles/ settlements arrangement I thought wow, now I can build castles in strategic location but errh, no. Would have been cool if you could build a castle where ever you wanted wouldn´t it?!

I second the dismounting units.
I totally forgot about those, but I've been missing them since RTW already.
I mean what's so tough to make a feudal knight a dismounted feudal knight? You'd have less already! :)
Just the remounting might be tough heh

I agree with most of the comments so far...

MTW2 thrashes MTW to death in the looks dept....but on the battlefield gameplay wise...MTW is the better game..by some way. (at the moment)

I miss titles...for people..
Dismounting units..
Assassinating your own people
Regional troops/Variety
Diplomacy was better in MTW too..
Deeper gameplay and better tactics

In fact I rate MTW on gameplay alone as the best TW game to date...sure it looks a bit old hat now...but it really did play very well indeed.

Eye candy cannot cover up the weak points in MTW2...I hope the address some of the issues if not all of the above...

If CA had done the eye candy to MTW and kept the tasty elements I would have been happy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

I miss choosing my own heir.

---

I actually think that was a good idea. After all, in those days, it was always the eldest son who got the crown. Even if he was a scritzophenic, insane, backstabbing murderer. So it was actually histroically accurate.

I miss decisive battles. You would fight a battle for the territory, not for fighting them.

Battles were major and very important, unlike in Rome and M2.

The only things I really miss are titles and regional units. Other things like reveling secret traits and killing off family members were cool but not that important.
On the other hand from a campaign perspective MTW2 has taken two steps forwards (religion is a lot better, and a proper map (though RTW had that)). However it has taken one step back (titles and regional units.), MTW2 is a better game but if they had kept some things from MTW it would be amazing rather than just another good game to distract me for a couple of months at the start and then for a month or two next year when some good mods have come out.

I only miss titles.

There lots not to like about MTW. Most of it is gone from M2TW.

Dismounting troops.

Seriously, get of your damn horse and drink your milk.

I havent come across the uber-badass english assasin Guy of gisbourne yet. It was nice in MTW to have a lv5 assassin from the start!

I have very few complaints about M2:TW. The battles look stunning, i think the troop effectiveness is about where it should be. cavalry dominate the early game in my campaigns. I love the differences between castles and cities and i think they have gotten the general feel of most of the nations bang on.

Some of the things that are missing and i think would be fantastic are regional units, either able to be produced or availiable as mercenaries, Regional bonuses, to encourage you to take territories for the bonuses they will give your troops and agents. As has been already pointed out, taking territory is more just taking a piece of land rather than a valuable region that you can use.

I hated civil wars, they always happened at the worst possible time, and i think it would be great if they were brought back in some capacity, having armies turn rebel for no reason is no substitute, civil wars should be regional, and national bloodbaths.

As has already been said it would be nice to build castles anywhere you wanted, as opposed to settlements these would give no bonus to income, they could be upgraded, but would decay in the same way as forts, say give them 5 possible levels, and the decay 1 level/turn they are empty. europe is chok full of castles of all shapes and sizes.

Des[it all the things that it would be nice to have, the game is still fantastic fun, and still worth playing as is, any changes they introduce can only improve the game

Regards

I miss Quintus Scipii.
That guy one every battle I ever auto-resolved with him in command. He lived to be 67 then got stuck in the wrong province during a plauge outbreak.

I beleive I razed a good portion of the Middle East in revenge.

I miss dismounting knights so that all of my army could take part in sieges. They should add it back in for M2TW, it would make knights really versatile.

I miss arquebusiers for Byzantium.

I miss faction-specific bodyguards and uber 9-valor katatanks lead by former princes.

I miss the chessboard campaign map and the ability to travel all the way across the map by sea in one turn.

I miss how your ruler's authority gave bonuses or penalties to loyalty and public order.

I miss how you could really mess up your royal family with questionable marriage arrangements.

dismounting - great feature
regional troops (fingers crossed for modders)
any sort of campaign challenge as england
any sort of campaign challenge
any sort of challenge...

Quote:

---

Lamb, almonds and plum sauce, piece of Moroccan bread with sesame seeds, full bodied red Bordeaux or light Gerouanne rosé .....MMMMmmmmMMM...

---

Never had it back then but I miss it now!

I hate the fancy map in mtw2 it takes too long to move anywhere. plus you have to wait an age while the animations nod at at each town. I find mtw2 tedious to play. They should have streamlined it as it is the only game I know that takes 11g of disk space and comes on 2 dvds.

Titles. I wish they'd found a way to put them in.

As for dismounting units, I miss that too, but I think they had a good reason for doing it. It makes game balance all but impossible.

Think of how many different types of mounted units there are in M2TW, and then think of what they'd all dismount to. You wouldn't ever really have to train dismounted units or build barracks/armories -- you'd just build whatever it took to get the knights and dismount them as you needed them. I can't think of a way around that problem.

Forgot about titles.

Titles were FUN.

Not a huge thing, not particularly abusable or unbalancing, just basic fun to play around with and added a little bit of self-determination and personal involvement to ones "realm".

It would be nice to once again be able to actually bestow a title on your favoured general rather than accepting the whim of random hidden rolls.

The more I think about it the more I miss them.

Don't shoot me but I never liked the region specific units... If I could only produce a unit from one specific territory I just never produced it. What the heck would be the point? I can only produce one per turn, and never reinforce them at the front? Useless.

Now if you wanted to say that taking a specific territory would allow you to produce a given troop anywhere, that would be fine.

Mostly I miss the variety in bodyguards... The uber Boyar bodyguard squads in particular...

I agree with the vast majority of the suggestions here, especially stuff like regional units, but above all I agree with Molinaargh:

Quote:

---

I miss decisive battles.

---

This is my biggest problem with M2. Unlike Medieval, I can't play M2 for hours at a time because it just gets boring after a while to fight battle after battle and feel like you're making zero progress. In MTW, you could destroy a faction's entire military power in a single battle. You could conquer an area like Britain in 3 or 4 turns. Battles had a much more "there's a lot at stake here" feeling to them, which I don't get at all in M2, because the AI fields 100000 stacks of troops to my 2 or 3, and it's nigh-impossible to make any progress late game because you just can't wade through them all.

M2's greatest flaw in the campaign is that battles are so common they get old. In MTW, I specifically remember in my Turkish campaign going for 150 turns without a SINGLE battle. I conquered all of North After, Const, Britain, and Scandinavia with naval power and just sat all my armies on my front lines and camped out for a century and a half teching and econo-ing up. And still, it was fun.

That brings to mind another thing - the building system in MTW was much better. I think the unit requirement system was much better in MTW, where each unit required 2 or 3 buildings in order to be trained, and sometimes this even forced you to make strategic decisions. For example, to get Janissaries as the Turks, you had to build a military academy, which you can only have one of per faction, so you really had to choose wisely where you built it so you could get the Janissaries to the front quickly. Some provinces also gave valor bonuses to certain units, which was an ingenious addition. I don't like how M2 is just a simple "climb up the tech tree" sort of deal, where one building lets you get to the next tier. In MTW, yes there were tiers, but some buildings gave you units, while others granted valor, weapon, and armor upgrades and such. Sigh. I miss that training system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Think of how many different types of mounted units there are in M2TW, and then think of what they'd all dismount to. You wouldn't ever really have to train dismounted units or build barracks/armories -- you'd just build whatever it took to get the knights and dismount them as you needed them. I can't think of a way around that problem.

---

Barracks would still be needed because:
Mounted units come in smaller batches than dismounted ones, therefore you'll have less dismounted mounted troops.
Mounted units cost a lot more to train and to upkeep.
You can't re-mount in battle.

I had forgotten how much I loved MTW.

*scampers off to install on my new PC*

There's not one thing people in this thread mention missing that i do not ALSO MISS! OMG there were a lot of cool things stripped from the game! :wall:

Many of the things people miss have to do with the strategic map changes... it makes all the diference. Regional units, pace of conquest, local bonuses and the iron-swordsmith thing, all were made possible with the previous map, and apparently are harder to implement with this one... I do miss them and i think they make the games that much different, and the new one not necessarily better in many aspects.

I miss the regional units and regional bonuses as well.

I'm of the reverse opinion on the battles, however. There's more field battles. In the original MTW, the opponent would retreat to the castle frequently and it's siege after siege, which sucks. The battles against brigands gets old very quickly in MTW2, though. I just bring a group of 3 family members and autoresolve. It bogs down the mid to endgame too much, otherwise.

Why couldn't they just keep the orignal content of the MTW and slap nice graphics on them. Why did they rework everything, why change what works? I mean people loved everything about MTW escept the graphics, so the only logical change should have been the visuals.

I also badly miss the titles (much much better system than the curernt governers), but most of all I think I miss the re-emergence of factions.

In my current game, Spain went out early. Skip forward a hundred years or so, and half of Iberia has gone rebel (I love spies + assassins + sabotage). In MTW Spain would've re-emerged out of the rebel provinces, which would've been really cool. Now if a faction is destroyed, that's it... end of faction.

I also miss the old style crusades, and the regional units, and the region specific bonuses... they gave different regions so much more character, and although the topography of the map in M2TW provides some individuality to a specific region it's not the same as having local units and abilities. A lot of the things in this version (provinces, tech trees, mercenaries especially) seem very uniform and generic.

I don't know that the importance of the battles has changed too much.. I've still had decisive fights with the future of whole faction sresting on them in M2TW, although I agree the bandits become a pain rather than a menace in the mid to end game.

the efficient REINFORCEMENT system...not impose a burden of additional system source to use it in battle map. simple and convient.

it is very pity that current dev concept focuses just on improvement of gorgeous graphic rather than strategical one.

What I miss:
The Titles always helped add that personal touch to my Realm.

The Ability to move an army from one end of the map to the other if you had ship on each area. (Two years now to go from Dover to Calais.:laugh4: )

The Fact that I actually started to get the jist of LATIN
-Open Fire! (Taylar Ententete!)
-Stop! (Comstat!)
And hearing the foreign languages of the Muslims on the battlefield. Sounded exotic! :yes: And that they really were a foriegn enemy.

Regional Specific Troop recuitment. Like highlanders for their nutty Highland Charge attack bonus and Swiss Pikemen protecting my Nails Longbowmen. Regions became a necessity for what it provided instead of just another notch for the victory conditions.

The Ability to organise my reinforcements prior to battle instead of now just making do with what comes onto the Map. It made it far more strategic!

Factions re-emerging

Might be just me, but I felt like there were far more open field battles instead of what now feels like loads of repetitive city/castle assaults.

And finally the glum/dark medieval music with the Lute and the random wind rain and church bell in the background.:laugh4: It ALWAYS made me want to wear a fleece!

I happen to miss a few things that many people hated at the time of MTW: civil wars and re-emerging factions. Yes I hated it too when e.g. the Almohads would re-emerge in Finland, but if it could be confined to a faction's historical homelands it is a great feature. However, in my M2TW campaigns up to now, most AI factions seem to survive a long time and are doing much better than they would have in MTW or RTW.

I also miss civil wars. In MTW you always had to check a character's loyalty regularly. In RTW/M2TW it doesn't seem to matter much.

In a way, I also miss the vices&virtues system from MTW. In RTW/M2TW characters can get a lot of traits very quickly and it becomes too cumbersome to check them all.

My list:

- re-emerging factions
- civil war
- exploding/collapsing siege engines and cannons
- titles

Titles
Civil Wars
Reemerging factions
Area specific troops and bonuses

i loved the loyalty element and how u had to play around with titles to keep u empire intact. i loved how when the king died and his heir took over all his brothers loyalty dropped and he had to gain influence fast to bring loyalty up. sucession had an impact in gameplay so if u king died at the wrong time it could affect your game. whereas now i dont even know where my king is lol

hes just anther gov raking money for the warmachine.

man jut writing here has made me miss those disloyal bastards more lol

Am I the only one who liked Glorious Achievements? I didn't always go that route, but it felt more realistic than trying to conquer the known world with a Medieval army; also gave the game some variety.

I also miss the 'darker' atmosphere of the original. That tolling bell; the bedraggled character portraits; the stark building and unit portraits (though they got more cartoony in VI); even the creepy singing when you played a Muslim faction. Even the intro was darker; the knight with the ice-cold blue eyes looking up at you after he pulps the scorpion with his dagger and the narrator's hoarse voice grinding out "Meeeed... EEEEvilllll... TOW-tal War!" (That's my best attempt at phonetic British English, sorry...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackboots

Am I the only one who liked Glorious Achievements? I didn't always go that route, but it felt more realistic than trying to conquer the known world with a Medieval army; also gave the game some variety.

---

Seconded. There was so much right with MTW that didn't need changing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackboots

Am I the only one who liked Glorious Achievements? I didn't always go that route, but it felt more realistic than trying to conquer the known world with a Medieval army; also gave the game some variety.

---

I can't believe I forgot to mention that! Yes, glorious achievements were great because they often required you to do more than just conquer. They didn't always work correctly though.

What I miss f.e.:
- the fewer but longer main battles
- regional troops
- dismounting
- titles

The only reason I would never go back to MTW is the campaign map.

But when I have found EB 0.8 a few days ago feelings of missing something had decreased rapidly.:laugh4:

I miss Border Forts so that I wouldn't have to be worrying about the 46 French spies surrounding each of my cities trying to kill my royalty.

I miss a battlefield AI. Last night I had a battle of my 1300 men versus their 1300 men. I lost 13 men and killed every one of theirs. And this is only my first campaign and I haven't played RTW in years. I miss a challenge!

I miss Medmod 4.0! How is Wes doing these days?

The only things I really miss are titles and regional units. Other things like reveling secret traits and killing off family members were cool but not that important.
On the other hand from a campaign perspective MTW2 has taken two steps forwards (religion is a lot better, and a proper map (though RTW had that)). However it has taken one step back (titles and regional units.), MTW2 is a better game but if they had kept some things from MTW it would be amazing rather than just another good game to distract me for a couple of months at the start and then for a month or two next year when some good mods have come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackboots

Am I the only one who liked Glorious Achievements? I didn't always go that route, but it felt more realistic than trying to conquer the known world with a Medieval army; also gave the game some variety.

---

I, too, absolutely loved GA mode. In fact, I never played a regular domination game in vanilla or with a mod. :laugh4:

But the new system of the councils and Pope and guilds giving you missions is not bad, but I think it ought to be ramped up. The missions are so infrequent (other than "take this rebel town", which, while fun, gets boring)that they are of little consquence. In short, there needs to be more missions and more types of missions. Hopefully, some of the mods will address that.

i miss:

epic battles - when your one army stack fought against a force 3 or 4 times stronger

titles - it really made the differerence and if you roleplayed it, then your really strong generals got the titles

unit diversity - too much vanilla for my taste, the mtw1 factions were a lot more different

flow of time - 2 years/turn??? even if you mod it to 0.5, armies don't advance fast enough, while building cities is much to fast in comparison

spear/pike defense efficiency - that whole vanilla stuff is just fodder

counterintelligence - too many assassins and no good way to actively deal with them

mercs - current selections is boring and I as well miss the regional units (where are my SAP and swiss halberdiers!?!)

historical tidbits - all those small information bits about the origins of the hashishin, byzantine coup d'etats and the magna charta...

vanilla - the game is just that, way too much vanilla in animations, movies, gameplay... where is the diversity?!

but there are some things I like in MTW2:
- more complexity in diplomatic dealings
- much more interesting strategic map/game
- vices and virtues not as random
- looks and animations on tactical map
- mapsize

Provincial bonuses to particular units, remember the +1 valour to >insert unit name here< bonuses? Not to mention the regional specialist troops, like Woodsmen in eastern Europe and Steppe Cavalry in the Russian regions. I dunno maybe I'm just sentimental but I was really hoping to see this stuff again. :sad:

I miss being able to move an army a *reasonable* distance in a TWO YEAR PERIOD!!!!:furious3:

I cant get from Denmark to the closest German province in two years?!?!? yea right

:: No sarcasm is intended here ::

I honestly find this thread fascinating! A week and a half (give or take) ago I created a topic asking what does MTW:2 do better than MTW and the concensus opinion seemed to be "everything!"

Battles are more epic. The strategy map is important. Crusades and Jihads are implemented better....etc.

And now it seems that in that space of time the list has almost completely reversed itself.

I have no point here other than stating how remarkable I find it. I'll still be play 2 when I get it and I expect I'll enjoy it. Sounds like I'll be keeping M:TW installed too now though. ;)

I miss needing to use tactics. In MTW battles were about morale, and secondarily about causing casualties. Now as far as I can tell even lowly units take about 75% casualties before they think about routing, turning battles into slugfests.

The strategic game does seem a lot better but I am not sure that compensates.

I may well reload MTW to remind myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JFC

The Ability to move an army from one end of the map to the other if you had ship on each area. (Two years now to go from Dover to Calais.:laugh4: )

---

It would be nice if:

Ships moved 500 a turn instead of 150.

Blockading a port prevented ships inside from leaving.

The reason for the cap on ship move speeds is because otherwise there would be no way to intercept an invasion fleet before it reached the target. But if blockading would stop the enemy's ships from leaving, then you could do what the Royal Navy did and keep the enemy buttoned up in their harbors.

I miss the actual desire to play past the first 30 turns of a campaign. After you've secured a position in M2TW, none of the AI factions can touch you. In battle, the huge epic ones, the AI has no chance! In MTW, I lost battles like that on Easy. Granted, i just started the TW games, but still.
In fact, if M2TW had JUST upgraded graphics and done the new campaign map thing. (and gotten rid of inns--required for mercs thing), I'd like it alot more then I do now.

I am still playing MTW and RTW a bit..but have to say that it is hard to go back to them..even though I liked them a lot..after playing MTW2...

MTW looks ancient..even RTW looks a bit barren..and maybe too fast in the battles.

CA are so close to hitting most of the right spots..if only they give us the patch! lol....

On a serious note..I would like to see some of the requested ideas here put into the game..sure not all will make it..but titles etc..and making turns into years isnt hard to do...

I also miss the great achievements campaign also....

Let's hope CA take this onboard..and add something more than just fixes...

Apart from the things already mentioned, i'd have to say the unpredictability of the campaign. Especially with the mods that add more factions.
You could be suffering at the hands of a specific faction and then BAM, civil war for them, their lands are carved up by other, smaller factions, and another one takes the opportunity to reemerge. All this sparking off new wars and alliances and angering the pope.
Egypt could conquer the British isles, Ireland could swell into a super empire, it made every campaign new and interesting.
I find M2 severely lacking in this department...

Especially the more extensive unit roster of MTW (where are Urban Militia, Militia Sergeants, the whole sword-armed Men-at-Arms line? Not to mention the regional units), the extensive building tree (multiple buildings required for advanced units) the individual characters of the unit commanders, historical figures (my favourite was Jeanne d&#180;Arc heading a unit of Swiss Armoured Pikes in one French campaign), titles, re-emergences, a rational rebel system (i.e. one tied to provincial happiness), dismounting, Glorious Achievements, a battle AI paying close attention to terrain (the "rush for the hill"), recording my campaign battles...

However, I do like some things in MTW2 (and RTW, for that matter), namely the improved diplomacy (especially, or so it seems to me, in MTW2), the campaign map to determine the strategic outset for a battle, multiple stack battles instead of three hours waiting for the enemies&#180; reinforcements running out (yes, I had that happen), Spies and assassins that actually can do more than die, the new recruitment system (it would work so well with regional units). One thing I very much like about MTW 2 is the way the city defenses are handled now, no more auto-firing turrets when the defenders are a puny ten peasants huddled in the central square. That&#180;s a major - and long overdue - improvement. Now, if my system only allowed me to play sieges as fluently as field battles...

I&#180;m not yet decided whether the castle/city system is better or worse, at least it&#180;s different.

I think part of the problem is, by using 2 years/turn and slowed movement across the map, they are trying to make the game last longer by pacing us... instead of making the AI more challenging (perhaps they weren't able to).

All of these assume the various things like towers and shields are fixed.

Things that should return
-Glorious Achievements
-Regional Units/Bonuses (tie it to settlements if you got to)
-Routing Faster/Rallying SLOWER (8 guys left decide to rally once their around my flank? That's just stupid. And cheap.)
-Faction Re-emergence. And Emergence! Anybody seen a Swiss faction??
-Civil Wars
-Internal Assassinations
-More distinctive unit advantages/disadvantages
-More specialist units
-Dismounting!
-1 year/turn
-Change of religion (from other TW games)

Things that should stay
-Diplomacy
-Reasonable Papal/Cardinal System (well, mostly.)
-Campaign map (nice being able to force the type of battlefield)
-Castle/City defense/income differences (could even be amplified)

Things that need to go
-Castle/City recruitment differences (The settlements still represent whole regions, not just their own walls. The unit difference feels forced.)

Things still missing
-Protestant Reformation (With change of religion and faction emergences, makes a GREAT late game complication when you'd thought it was won...)

Quote:

---

-Castle/City recruitment differences (The settlements still represent whole regions, not just their own walls. The unit difference feels forced.)

---

If you did that there would be no point in having castles as you would just use all cities as they make more cash.

I liked the system MTW had for tracking your agents. Remeber the agent scroll?

If the agent was on a mission he/she was highlighted in red and it gave the location. You could click on that agent and the map would take you right to him/her. In M2TW I have to search all over the map to find them. I know you have the arrows you can click to browse through all your agents and generals, but it doesn't list them which makes a big difference.

I miss the ability of any Christian faction to call a crusade if you had advanced far enough in the tech tree. I had all but two crosses filled for Pope support. I requested a crusade and it got disapproved. THat's BS. Especially in light of the fact the Pope never allows me to take more than one Catholic city before telling me to cease hostilities. If I could crusade on my own I would rarely if ever attack the other Catholic nations.

I miss the Holy Roman Empire of MTW. It was fun. You were guaranteed to fight at least one huge civil war as HRE in MTW. It just added another dimension to the challenge. This is completely absent in M2TW.

I miss the Varangian Guard of MTW. I know everyone has their own opinion of who the best units are, but my Varangian dominated every opponent they took on in every battle. I loved my MTW Varangian. That's just not the way it is in M2TW.

I miss the Florins in MTW. I'm on my first campaign still in M2TW and maybe I just don't have the economics of this game figured out. But I made bucket loads of money in MTW. (By the way if someone could help me out with that in M2TW. I own all of the British Isles, all of France, half of Germany, Denmark, 2/3 of Spain, Jerusalem, Acre, Gaza, Alexandria and Cairo and at most can only come up with 12,000 florins per turn. Any advice or a link to a thread that already lays this out would be appreciated).

I miss the Mongols. Again, I'm on the first campaign still, but the Mongols came on the scene and conquered maybe 5 or 6 of the eastern provinces and sputtered out. Whereas in MTW they'd conquer almost all of the NE portion of the map and a lot of Asia Minor (unless I was playing as the Turks in which case I'd stop them).




ON THE FLIP SIDE; I THINK TO BE FAIR WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT WHAT ASPECTS OF M2TW WE ARE GLAD THEY ADDED.

First, I like the 3D map and the movement of the agents and armies on the board. That's a keeper in my book.

I do like the selection of crusading units when you do undertake a crusade.

I love the guilds. Holy Cow someone should get a big 30 foot diameter cookie for that addition.

The merchants are a good addition (not great, but good). I'd like to see them generate more quid. Again, maybe I just haven't figured out how to really use them.

I like the operation of the artillery. Last night I assaulted Cordona and had a mortar, a ribault and a bombard in my army. It was a full stack army. The Spaniards had about a 3/4 stack in garrison with elite troops. That mortar had those bastages two stepping all up and down the walls. I brought the wall down in two places and by the end game statistical count my 3 artillery pieces had killed ~300 people. Most of those died falling down with the walls. I never had a battle like that in MTW. Happened a couple times in RTW, but my siege machines never killed that many.

Naval units are better even though Naval play hasn't changed.

The fortresses and cities are much more detailed and realistic. Sometimes during a battle I just coast the streets with the camera admiring the handy work.

The stakes the archers emplace before a battle are a great idea. I love that. I use that feature like crazy. The rotten cow carcass firing Trebuchets were intriguing at first, but I'm over it and relatively unimpressed by that feature.

The black plague. Can I get another 30 foot diameter Chocolate Chip cookie with sprinkles for CA on that. I hate this event because since it has occured I have -12,000 florins in the bank and Marseille, Bruges and Caernervon have all revolted (right in the middle of my war with Spain and Denmark). But it, like the civil wars in MTW, add another dimension to the challenge. Now, imagine playing as HRE in MTW and a civil war breaking out. THen all of a sudden the plague hits. Man, I hope someone mods that.

I'm sure there's other things, but I figure none of you are reading this anymore so I'll just stop typing and post this thing already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Especially the more extensive unit roster of MTW (where are Urban Militia, Militia Sergeants, the whole sword-armed Men-at-Arms line? Not to mention the regional units),

---

M2TW has at least as extensive a unit roster as MTW did. Take England, for example. Urban militia and militia sergeants are covered by town militia and heavy bill militia, while sword-armed MAAs are covered by dismounted feudal knights and armoured swordsmen. Plus this time you can recruit dismounted knights in the SP game. And of course, there are many more kinds of English archers in M2TW. Indeed, M2TW has more unique units for each faction and leads to less generic ("Catholic") armies.


Going back to the OP, I don't miss much from MTW. Better spears would be the big one, I guess. But I am hopeful that will come with the next patch.

Mods, this may not be an appropriate posting. I apologize if it isn't. But we are basically talking about what we want to see in M2TW so this does fit in that spirit. And sorry for the double post.

But what I want to ask the assembled is have any of you played Europa Universalis 1 or 2? I love the historical events and how they effect the gameplay. I would love to see a lot of that in any future mod for M2TW.

For those who haven't played either of those games I'll highlight a couple things that were in that game that could definitely be in this game.

The first one that comes to mind and the one I"d most like to see implemented is the Religious preference screen.

In Europa Universalis there's a screen that lists all the religions involved in the game. Catholic, Protestant, Reformed Catholic, Moslem, Orthodox and I think there were a couple others. Beside each religion was a slider. You had 100 points to share between all the religions. You could support one religion 100% meaning you supported the other religions not at all.

Basically, if the population of your territories were 20% moslem and you supported Catholic 100% you'd have 20% of the population ready to rebel. And its likely that 20% Moslem population was all in one or two provinces. Meaning that if you didn't take some action (move in an army or change religious preferences) they'd rebel very soon. But you could choose to support Catholicism say 75% and Islam 25%. That might quell the Moslem dissent a bit. I'd love to see this feature in M2TW.

Also, in EU when you went to war, you received a message asking you if you'd like to request your allies to support you in this war. If you wanted all the glory for yourself you could refuse and suffer no penalty. If you wanted help you say yes and your allies either refuse to enter the war with you or they don't. If they don't, they violate the alliance and you get a limited term casus belli against them under which premise you could war against them without a hit to your reputation.

I'd love to see these features in M2TW.

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread, so most (all?) of these will probably have cropped up already, but here's what I miss from the original MTW:

- Titles - they made your governors feel "special" and waaay cooler than they are now.
- Realistic Movement speeds :charge:
- Regional Troops and Bonuses - this can quite easily be modded via hidden_resources
- the huge unit variety - Factions just feel too similar as it is...
- more impact on battle performance by fatigue, weather, terrain, etc.
- units staying in formation for more than 3 seconds when running
- Light Cav being significantly faster than Heavy Cav
- different starting dates!!!!!

I've probably forgotten some more, but you catch my drift: there's loads missing... :no: Still an ok game, though. :yes:

Starting dates for me. It's nice to be able to begin with the top end units whereas in M2TW chances are your campaign is over or at least you're in an undefeatable position by the time gunpowder and the top end units become trainable.

This may just be me... Is is possible to execute prisoners while you're on the battlefield anymore? I can't figure out how to do it, and it's really annoying when I use a to do raids on full stacked armies with some cavalry to kill off their artillery and archers. As soon as you charge them they route so you end up capturing them all, but as you can't win the battle they all get released again. Ultimately your cavalry just loose a few horses and gain some experience.

Honestly, most of the things I miss from MTW have already been mentioned. Nevertheless, I miss:

* Glorious Achievements--The system of missions helps ease that loss, though

* Titles--I loved poring over my generals trying to figure out who the new Duke of Northumberland (or wherever) should be

* Civil Wars--For an era where rebellions by generals and other members of the royal family were so prevalent, it's a shame that the game portraying that era should have lost this

* General sense of immersion--I liked little details like the parchment scrolls that all the information was displayed upon. The new game is very slick and well-laid out. That's great, but it looks a bit modern for my taste. The whole turns vs. years and strange aging of generals REALLY wrecks the sense of immersion for me. I really wish CA could have come up with another solution for that.

* For me, the jury is still out on the campaign map. My gut reaction is that I don't much like it but, after logging more gametime, I might change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

If you did that there would be no point in having castles as you would just use all cities as they make more cash.

---

Not really, because castles are stronger defensive positions. That's why I earlier mentioned increasing the difference. And these things only represent the seat of power in a region... all of these regions had far, far more cities and castles than we are looking at.

Currently, castles are lackluster defensive positions, but thats just a bug. Anyway, it's a bit silly to act like you have to use a castle to have any nobility in the area to recruit.

My idea would be to sacrifice a small amount of income over a city to have a better defensive position... that's all. It isn't all that's possible in a territory, just what center of power and defense is. I'd also bet it will lead to more interesting AI armies too...

Starting dates and titles.

That's it, I think. Oh, and working AI. :P

M2TW is much more fun than MTW. It's part of human nature to whine and refer back to the good old days, in this case Shogun and Medieval 1. Even with the faults M2 has, and oh good lord they are many, and that Rome had, each TW game has always been an improvement. But nostalgia is strong and clouds ones judgement.

Europa Universalis - great games. Part 3 is out and should be in stores later this week or next week, depending on where you live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seneschal.the

Even with the faults M2 has, and oh good lord they are many, and that Rome had, each TW game has always been an improvement.

---

I think this is a matter of personal preference. Of course, the graphics have certainly improved over the years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the game itself is "better"! I care a great deal about immersion, and even with it's far inferior graphics, MTW managed to captivate me more than the eye-candy of M2TW. The titles, the huge variety in different units, the option to win the campaign via Glorious Achievements (see, I knew I'd forgotten something... :laugh4: ) instead of rather dull "capture X provinces" objectives - it all advanced the game to a level of immersion M2TW can't even dream of reaching, IMHO. A game isn't only about graphics, it takes much more than that to make it "great".

As someone with MTW still installed, a lot of you are over romanticising how difficult the campaigns were or how hard the battles were. The AI wasn't better, it's just that we were all newer and less experienced.

I miss: regional units, dismounting units before battle.

Two neat things that made the game slightly more complex, and thus slightly better!:yes:

I don't really miss titles all that much, TBH. It was fun at the beginning but later on I just couldn't be bothered.

I also don't miss re-emerging factions at all. Many people have fond memories of them, but that's because it was the only part of the game that was actually challenging, due to the AI's inability to build tough armies on it's own. It was a silly and gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone. Factions should be stronger *before* they are eliminated, not magically 10x more powerful.

I vastly prefer the new campaign map to the old map: at least now you can choose your defensive positions.

MTW2 also seems to have a more expansive unit roster.

Seiges in MTW just looked horrible. In RTW and on they are awe inspiring (barring AI mishaps)

Oh yea....

And being able to sail accross the Med (the short way) in less than a decade

SHEEESH! :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seneschal.the

Starting dates and titles.
M2TW is much more fun than MTW. It's part of human nature to whine and refer back to the good old days, in this case Shogun and Medieval 1. Even with the faults M2 has, and oh good lord they are many, and that Rome had, each TW game has always been an improvement. But nostalgia is strong and clouds ones judgement.

---

I couldn't agree more.

As for what I miss in MTW1... I miss the regional units, and the ability to do the whole treason thing with spies. Great fun assassinating family members. I also miss the ease with which you could stop a naval invasion. In MTW2 it's too easy to sneak an entire stack of troops past the enemy, no matter how impressive their navy. Civil wars were also rather cool. Most of all I think I miss Glorious Achievements. I really prefered that style of play to just taking over the world.

In a sense I miss the epic battles too. But on the other hand, they were too epic in the late game in MTW. In MTW2 I still find the end game fun, while in MTW it really became a grind of endless epic games lasting hours. And I HATED the reinforcement system in MTW. It got a bit better once you could pick the order, but the system of changing the reinforcement order was frustrating and time consuming.

But many of the comments here I don't understand. People complaining about all the factions being the same now? Total rubish. MTW1 was far more bland in that respect, with virtually all the catholic factions being the same. Spears on the front, men at arms on the side and archers at the back. Yawn. I find myself having a far more varied army now in MTW

And also people complaining about the new mercs? I love how they're regional now. They were totally screwed in MTW. You'd end up getting all kinds of crazy troops from all the way across the globe which were totally out of place. And you'd always get advanced siege equipment and gunpowder weapons available a century before gunpowder was even "invented"!

Likewise I hated the titles in MTW. I usually ended up giving them to some random unit with good acumen and then forget about them. It was such a pain stripping people of their title too, if you wanted to change it. Much prefer how it works now.

And just to list one thing I HATED about MTW1. Sea trade. I hated how trade between your own provinces made sod all money. So if you had no friends you were screwed. Vastly improved now.

Overall I think MTW2 is a pretty hefty improvement over MTW1. It just needs a bit of patching and maybe a few features added (Glorious Achievements!) and it would certainly be the star of the series in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

M2TW has at least as extensive a unit roster as MTW did. Take England, for example. Urban militia and militia sergeants are covered by town militia and heavy bill militia, while sword-armed MAAs are covered by dismounted feudal knights and armoured swordsmen. Plus this time you can recruit dismounted knights in the SP game. And of course, there are many more kinds of English archers in M2TW. Indeed, M2TW has more unique units for each faction and leads to less generic ("Catholic") armies.

---

You´re right, in a way. However, I would have much more preferred if I could get Dismounted Knights by dismounting on the battlefield and have a non-knightly sword infantry to kill enemy spears. I know a lot of people nowadays hate it, but I do like the rock-scissor-stone principle of MTW, where spears beat Cavalry, Swords beat spears and Cavalry beat Swords.
My battles so far (turn 60 with the HRE) have mostly been fought by spear infantry forming the center of my formation, pinning the enemy infantry down for being charged in the flanks by my Knights. It feels a bit like a game of Warhammer with the Bretonians, as a matter of fact, just that the Knights are a bit less impetuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ciaran

My battles so far (turn 60 with the HRE) have mostly been fought by spear infantry forming the center of my formation, pinning the enemy infantry down for being charged in the flanks by my Knights. It feels a bit like a game of Warhammer with the Bretonians, as a matter of fact, just that the Knights are a bit less impetuous.

---

As a Bretonian player, I see the analogy - it's good one. Rubbish infantry and uber cavalry. I find M2TW swordsmen do ok for what they are supposed to do - cut through spears and assault walls. It's the spears that seem weak in M2TW. It's the one thing I mentioned currently missing from MTW: decent spears. Fixing the shield bug may solve it.

I can accept the current M2TW game as offering one model of Medieval combat - that of the all powerful knight. I don't really subscribe to that model, but I can see it has its advocates. My contentment is undermined, however, by the discovery that in part it may be due to a bug in the handling of the shield stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Fitzgerald

I agree with most of the comments so far...

MTW2 thrashes MTW to death in the looks dept....but on the battlefield gameplay wise...MTW is the better game..by some way. (at the moment)

I miss titles...for people..
Dismounting units..
Assassinating your own people
Regional troops/Variety
Diplomacy was better in MTW too..
Deeper gameplay and better tactics

In fact I rate MTW on gameplay alone as the best TW game to date...sure it looks a bit old hat now...but it really did play very well indeed.

Eye candy cannot cover up the weak points in MTW2...I hope the address some of the issues if not all of the above...

If CA had done the eye candy to MTW and kept the tasty elements I would have been happy....

---

Oh that would be a dream come true, MTW gameplay fused with the M2TW game engine (or should I say RTW game engine) or even better a whole new spanking game engine1:)

Another aspect of titles which I loved over having present governors now is how a region would have greater public order if the lord/baron of that region had a particularly high level of dread. They didn't even have to be physically in that region but if it was given to say Baron William, the Butcher and Maimer you'd find the people there to be pretty quiet and content with their miserable peasant lives.

Also, great was how much the unity of an empire were held by the name of a great King and when he died there was always a chance for rebellion as someone beside the heir thought themselves more deserving of rulership. It made you watch more carefully the cultivation of family members and you had to make plans for the continuity of your empire lest it split in two.

Regional units were also great and made particular regions more valuable than simply another town to churn money or produce identical troops. Some of my favorites were the Gallowglasses from Ireland, the Huscarles from Scandanavian, Swiss Armored Pikemen, Spanish Jinettes, and Welsh longbows.

I miss the huge stacks that the Mongols brought in MTW 1. I would have to prepare like 20 stacks and the ensuing battle would take a very long time. That was fun.

I miss choosing my own heir.

I miss the greater range of navies but how realistic was it to have at least one ship in every waterway?

Not that the Mongols are easy by any means, but they should still arrive with about 20+ stacks in MTW 2 IMO. Or at least 10. :laugh4:

Just my 2 florins worth.

I'm with Orda:p

And if I'm to list...:

- what I was talkin' with a friend last evening over a beer - when the ai was moving his dang formation and the archers(who we know move faster) reached his infantry line, they'd stop and wait to reenter formation. No more sweeping of the archers in 1 charge when they're miles in front of everything else;
- I miss him actually defending his missile troops(I just come from a battle where his cannons were happily butcherin' me while his line advanced, only to go around his line and charge his cannons... needless to say the ai couldn't care less... he kept advancing, despite his cav. being close enough to intercept me)
- dismout was cool;
- the speed! Anyone remembers that it was needed something more then going at him and making "boo hoo" for 15-20 secs. in order to make him rout(and that's on vh, mind you)?!
Anyone remembers how they almost didn't rout when you were playing on vh? And all those 10s of thousands of lines which learnt the poor ai to support his overwhelmed unit were actually used, since actually infantry could actually reach the bashed flank before his unit routed?
- roosters were 10 times better; I'm sick and tired of dismounted feudal knights, mailed knights and spear militia right, left and center. They even all have same stats... how fun is that?!
Wth, they all got their armour from M&S? Was globalization present back then and I missed that part of history?
- regional units, even if not extremely useful(as musashi pointed out). But since you could actually move in that game(not like now, when it takes years to reach the neighbouring region) you could reinforce them easier then it might sound.
Btw... why is all of W Europe full of merc. crossbowmen?! Heck, I could make an empire with merc. crossbowmen... talk about imagination in design...
- reemerging factions; now, if you blitzed the guy next door, you know one of your flanks is forever safe... how nice... not!;
- a decent building system!
- the fact I could actually run out of cash even after the 1st 40 turns!!!! IMAGINE... the miracle right there! Which now it's impossible, bar playing Russia. Ah, right, that would be the most important... since all of the above(mostly the reemerging thing and no cash flood) the game wasn't over after the 1st 40 turns..
- the fact that vh meant vh! Not starting with less florins and the ai trying to zerg you in such a laughable way it's hardly medium... The fact that vh in battle meant vh, even if he was cheating with his morale... couldn't care less, at least it was challenging, not like now... Making new customers is great, but how about caring about the old ones too?

ah, right... and the fact that you didn't have to waste hours upon hours when you got the game in order to... actually convince pikemen to use pikes, actually make spears useful against cav., trying to decide what option is better to adopt in order to make a shield work, read about who fixed the 2handers and in the end search around through the work of some poor sobs(who prolly spent hours on testing and to whom I didn't thank enough) who did CAs job of actually balancing prices after all the above fixes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by castle

I hate the fancy map in mtw2 it takes too long to move anywhere. plus you have to wait an age while the animations nod at at each town. I find mtw2 tedious to play. They should have streamlined it as it is the only game I know that takes 11g of disk space and comes on 2 dvds.

---

vanguard takes almost 20 gigs :/

What I liked about MTW:

Titles - you can make any average joe general into a pretty good one with these, but mostly I liked them because it immersed me more deeply into the game. It just made me appreciate fights more when instead of being commanded by General ho-hum, my army is commanded by Duke ho-hum of Constantinople, Grand Admiral of the Fleet or whatnot :2thumbsup:

Travel by sea - I am getting tired of spending years sailing across the MEDITERRANEAN. The boats in MTW2 sail at the speed fingernails grow. Although travelling to any port on the map shouldn't take more than a year, since MTW was based on 1 year turns you can't really complain about that other than to say you want them to make more turns in a year.

Dismounting - Would probably ruin gameplay but the option would still be nice. Its really up to the player whether one would play historically or not.

Civil wars - Because you'll get to the point in your campaign where the only challenge is to fight......yourself :laugh4:

Regional units - Gives more flavor to the game, plus gives you incentive to take specific provinces for specific troops or bonuses, thereby making the game more strategic.

Re-emerging factions - These were great because they would pop out with some pretty decent armies you can fight. The only thing I didn't like about this was they could re-emerge anywhere on the map, I agree with whoever said they should have limited it to traditional provinces.

Eras - I liked how no matter how fast you teched up you can't have late units roaming around the map in early. MTW2 killed a part of the historical aspect without adding this in.

What I like about MTW2 over MTW:

non-immortal characters - With MTW, by the time I hit high period, Almost all of my generals commanding armies had 8-9 stars. By late period, I had more Jedi generals than Yoda :dizzy2:

Mongols - Not as many stacks come out, but they're a lot better than the MTW Mongols. With MTW, I used to remember using 1 stack of Janissary Turks to wipe all 25,000 Mongols from the map (that 1 stack has to be my best army and it is practically destroyed in this 1 battle) whereas in MTW2.... well, lets just say they're tough customers :laugh4:

Campaign map - With MTW map, you can hold entire provinces as chokepoints that anyone attacking you will have to go through. I don't like this as much as being able to go through an unguarded pass or bridge and outflank the AI armies, making them attack you before you hit their city. More choices for strategy = good :yes:

Castles/cities - Great system, but I wish every province can have both a castle and a city, the placement of each on the campaign map will have a significant effect on which way to attack certain provinces.

Unit formation - not so much that I like the unit formations in MTW2 (which for some units are a real problem), but stretching your heavy infantry types into two-deep line formation and having it do better than a block formation in a cavalry charge is weird for me (even though it made sense as far as pure gameplay).

Archers don't shoot friendlies - I remember in MTW and RTW, I'd kill more of my own guys than the enemy would kill due to friendly fire. Not so much a problem in MTW2.

Morale - I like that fact that playing on a harder level just increases the effect of morale instead of giving the AI a higher morale.

And so:

I'm more of a "historical" player as far as TW series, and I missed the changes in MTW that immersed you into the historical aspects of the game. Likewise, I like features in MTW2 that give you the same effect.

I just wish 1 turn equaled something like 3 months or something (with respective changes to construction and recruiting times as well as movement points per turn for both land and sea forces).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chosun

I miss the huge stacks that the Mongols brought in MTW 1. I would have to prepare like 20 stacks and the ensuing battle would take a very long time. That was fun.

---

Those three-hours battles? Thanks, but no thanks, I found them tedious, I like the multi-stack battles much more.

Quote:

---

I miss choosing my own heir.

---

That&#180;s RTW. In MTW your oldest son is the heir, no choosing. And yes, I&#180;m sure of that, I&#180;ve played MTW1 just a couple of hours back.

Quote:

---

Morale - I like that fact that playing on a harder level just increases the effect of morale instead of giving the AI a higher morale.

---

Interesting, that might explain why on Medium my mercenary spears and spear militias always fight to the last man while even Dismounted Knights rout at only a few losses when under AI control.
What I miss from MTW 1 are the battles where your whole army already is routing, but you still can manage to rally them and turn the tide. I&#180;ve never had that happen in RTW or MTW 2, once a unit is routing it&#180;s basically gone (not to mention that there&#180;s usally not muc left of the unit in question worthwile to rally anyways).

And I miss the building tree. Getting the high-tier units is way too simple, when considering what you have to do in order to get even Feudal Knights in MTW 1. It makes getting those units feel like a real achievement (although some units have way over-the-top building requirements). In this aspect MTW 2 is even inferior to RTW, where at least you had first to upgrade the city and then the building class. In MTW 2? Uprade your castle and you&#180;re done. YOu don&#180;t even really have to build the stables/barracks, all they give you is a somewhat bigger recruitment pool, which you can&#180;t deplete in one turn in the first place and refereshes every turn anyways. Plus the fact that battles actually affect the infrastructure of a region by really destroying buildings. Constant warfare can reduce a region to unproductive wasteland. In MTW2 and RTW all you have to do is click on "repair" and all damage is dealt with.