EB comments on Medieval 2

I am curious what EB players opinions are on Medieval 2 are. ( being the Total War connoisseurs you are!) Have you bought it? Is it holding your interest in it's current form? Are you intrigued with the modding possibilities? I'd like to stress that this thread is not intended to bash CA. Please, only constructive comments.

I bought it but it's not holding my interest in it's current form. I don't find it as addictive as Rome. I can't entirely put my finger on why. This isn't a knock as Rome 1.5 and 1.6 is an entirely better game that it was when it first came out. It might also be that I find the time-frame less compelling than Rome. I'm hoping to come back to it with further patches and I'm looking forward to seeing what the mod community does with it. Until then EB all the way!

Some things I like:

1) The new recruitment system. ( This system would be really awesome in a Rome mod)

2) The princess and merchant characters. They need some work but they definitely add to the game.

3) I think the castle/town option adds to the game

4) The beautiful new models and animations. ( It makes my mouth water to think what some of the EB modders could do with that engine on a Rome mod)

5) I actually like the cavalry changes although it still needs tweaking ( even post-patch)

the things that bother me the most:

1) It is very strange that, most of the time, a very small percentage of a unit
actually fights when they meet another on the field. It looks weird and unrealistic when 10 or 12 guys are fighting on the front line and the rest of the guys are just standing around. Has anyone else noticed that?

2) In addition to that some units are weirdly unresponsive to commands on the battlefield. Also some units stop right before meeting the enemy when they are charging. Very odd to watch a unit charge and then walk the last three yards into the enemy :dizzy2:

3) I was really hoping that there would be a giant step forward with the diplomacy AI in the new game. But despite the screen makeover, it just didn't happen. You still end up at war with everyone. The AI still attacks you even if it's in a helpless position. And diplomatic overtures are rejected no matter how sweet they are. The screen is cool though. Hopeful modders or future patches will improve the situation.

Haven't bought it or played it personally.

As for diplomacy, it was pretty clear that the only real changes were in revealing more to you that was happening with diplomacy - not changing it any. That seemed evident a while back when they released screenshots. Still, revealing more about the process is better than leaving it as is with RTW.

I think the game is a great improvement!

but fighting Romans in castles? I wouldnt want to play that if it's hardcoded

Diplomacy is much better, when you win great victories, your opponent recognizes that and would accept a ceasfire. The AI has improved, maybe their dumb in your game because of VH VH settings.

The AI still can be beaten by a human but will still give you spectacular battles( the French falling back to the 2nd wall when I took the 1st).

Another time, I had an army of even numbers against the French, I clumsily repositioned my army and the French saw their opportunity and attacked, I was amazed and cuaght totaly off guard!

I was just angry about the map, Europe is the only place that got attention and CA moved away a little from the Mid East.

In its vanilla form? Unplayable.

the map, units, and AI are utterly ridiculous. On the other hand, map graphics improvements and battlefield enviroments are very nice, as well as city and castle layouts using terrain.


Moddability? Good possibilities. EB2 will be great, once it gets going..

So much negativity. The game has better improvements from RTW.

Also, I don't want to fight Greek and Roman castles! if thats not moddable then thats a serious dent in gameplay and history.

It would be cool to see if we could get citadels in EB2: much like Syracuse.

Ok then maybe citidels for some factions. But you can't build them, only repair.

I just hope that EB 2 will be significantly more than a graphics update - as it's already beautiful. And I wonder if anything would be lost... is there something that medieval 2 _can't_ do as well as RTW?

Castles no....But maybe fortresses. MASSADA!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danest

I just hope that EB 2 will be significantly more than a graphics update - as it's already beautiful. And I wonder if anything would be lost... is there something that medieval 2 _can't_ do as well as RTW?

---

I'm not sure what we can do about the pike phalanx. Unfortunatle I only managed to run the game once. It's not unplayable but I get the sense Rome's engine is really gimped and trying to expand it for MII just threw up more bugs.

The latest one involes shield bonuses nerfing melee combat.

Currently, Medieval TW is not playable by any reasonable standard, there's just too many bugs (shields defensive stat subtracting from defense while in melee, units at lower elevation having the advantage over those at higher elevation instead of visa versa like in reality, and other glaring issues).

It's a shame because other wise it is a great game (where else can you have a Scottish crusade that "liberates" the holy land just in time to have to save it from the ENTIRE Mongol horde! Just where IS clan McCloud when you need them, eh?), but I just cant bring myself to enjoy it as is.

So, i'll just content myself with EB until its fixed.

I feel the same way... I want to love it but at the moment, because of all the problems, it just doesn't have that "just one more turn" quality.

I like it for the most part . It has alot of things in it that would be valuable to EB if you made an EB . From what can be told it has moddable AI.

I find lusted lands to conquor helped, but meh, it's still no EB. Too buggy, really stupid bugs that shouldn't have made the final version.

I wonder why they let it get so buggy? I haven't bought it yet but I want to, however if it is that bad I'm not so sure...

Of course it's worth having. And it will be patched up and modded into shape.

In my opinion you could use the cities/castles system as governments of one sort of another. It probably will not be possible to add more than two, however.

I plan on switching back to EB as soon as v0.81 is out, not sure how well I will cope with the downgrade in graphics(I play MTW2 on max and I don't understand why some people say the difference between RTW and MTW2 is slight)

I am hoping the depth/immersive history that EB offers and the fact that I think I prefer EB's period will soon suck me in, also the really decent amount of unit variation makes the mod so good.

The bugs in MTW2 have worn me down to the point that I don't want to play it until it is reasonably well sorted.
Issues like Pikemen that grab their secondry weapon far to soon, firelock units which drift backwards and out of line, missing units(interestingly the Gothic foot knights were missing from the original MTW), the 2 handed problem, etc

Shame that EB2 is so horribly far away, it would be nice if at some point they knock up a really nice skin like a Seleucid elite inf, just as a wee taster.

Vanilla Med: Unplayable
Road to Jerusalem mod: Fun, but little flaws and bugs still really frustrate. Little roleplay value eg. you can't set faction heir, thus some unknown adopted son becomes faction leader rather than the true bloodline.

Why is the ability to adopt even in med anyway? It should be hire a new general, which doesn't get added to the family tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

So much negativity. The game has better improvements from RTW.

---

There are nice battlefield graphics. Thats it. I didnt really believed it as i bought it: that I should like to play vanilla rome so much more. I played for hours trying to convince myself I would actually like it. Tried really hard. Impossible task it turned out. Just the map. The unit icons. The battlefield AI. And the way the new features like merchants (didnt) work. Disappointment of the year next to EU III.

I like RTW too. In M2TW, It's so anoying to succeed in conquering far east europa with western faction or other:freak: . But it's more realistic with roman, macedonian, seleucid, carthage, egypte...etcetera.

(Glory to EB team~:cheers: )

I was actually reading this thread and making up answers and comments, when I realized that people were talking about long-fixed bugs, and then I looked at the date and then I went

~:eek:

1 year and 3 months!

It's so far the worst case of necromancy I've encountered.
Anyway, now that I'm here: M2 will be fine for EB2, I'm sure. High moddability, even the castles I can imagine to be very useful. The agents might offer great possibilities too.

Necro!!! Anyway, MTW2 had me hooked for about 3 weeks until I realised it was actaully quite a boring game.

same here. I got through one game as the HRE before i called it quits. It probably had something to do with the fact that my computer isnt really strong enough to run M2TW, so its really laggy with anything but the lowest graphic settings. Even then, I usually end up auto-resolving battles after only fighting one or two. As interesting as Kingdoms sounded, i knew i would only play it for a week or two, so i ended up rediscovering my love for EB.

M2TW was alright, but it could have been so much more. Bugs, messed up combat and (again) messed up diplomacy weren't exactly the great step from Rome that I personally expected to see.
All the same, it had good mods, such as Stainless Steel, which extended the map, added factions and units and made the game feel more like an EB of Medieval (not that THAT feeling lasted long either)

Great game, especially with retrofit plus grand unit, or BC.

Of course i can't play RTW now that eb 1.1 completly destroyed my rome total war, so that even efter reinstalling and repatching Rome five times the install still wont work, so Med II's all i've got.

Actually i think SS is less fun than vanilla, and about five times less historically accurate than say, BC. (someone over at SS seems to think that the Hagia Sophia was built in 1200ad)

It's an improvement in many fields: graphics, diplomacy, and AI Are indeed far superior. but the way the battles unfold is not an improvement: units die too quick in my opinion, and formations becaome messy even by historical standards.

I think that M2TW was okay. Not good, not bad, just okay. The graphics are way better than in RTW, and the varied apperance of soldiers add to the feeling, but there are a lot of bugs that ruin everything. Without patches, the battle AI was worthless. Sometimes, an enemy army walks up to you and stops in front of your army.
Then they wait.

And wait.

And wait.

Until the time is up, or you have shot them all dead with your archers.
With the patches, it got better, but still, the battle AI was, in my opinion, better in RTW.
Kingdoms helped a bit, but there is still a long way to go to perfection. (Okay, perfection might be pushing it a bit to far, but you get my point.)
Campaign AI, on the other hand, does reasonably well. They use naval landings, and the classical "siege, no siege, siege, no siege"-problem, is almost nonexistent.
So all in all, M2TW is... adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

I think that M2TW was okay. Not good, not bad, just okay. The graphics are way better than in RTW, and the varied apperance of soldiers add to the feeling, but there are a lot of bugs that ruin everything. Without patches, the battle AI was worthless. Sometimes, an enemy army walks up to you and stops in front of your army.
Then they wait.

And wait.

And wait.

Until the time is up, or you have shot them all dead with your archers.
With the patches, it got better, but still, the battle AI was, in my opinion, better in RTW.
Kingdoms helped a bit, but there is still a long way to go to perfection. (Okay, perfection might be pushing it a bit to far, but you get my point.)
Campaign AI, on the other hand, does reasonably well. They use naval landings, and the classical "siege, no siege, siege, no siege"-problem, is almost nonexistent.
So all in all, M2TW is... adequate.

---

RTW AI is a puke....garbage at best...and since its not moddable (because the engine was new and CA hardcoded the hell of it) the AI in EB is still a joke....
M2TW AI on teh other hand is moddable thus EBII AI will be lightyears ahead EB1....

Honestly, I had a LOT more fun with Kingdoms than with Eol Med 2. Kingdoms really took a lot of cues fomr the modding comminity and did things right.

I'm ecstatic that EB2 is going to be for kingdoms. really looking forward too it. I will probably have to get a new computer to run EB2 on this, actually.

I LOVE EB 1.1 - the AI is really improved etc.
I HATE MTW II because of - it's utterly ugly map!
Once you are in fighting modus it's really a beauty, especially castles and the environment, but unfortunately you can't fight all the time.
Kingdoms is pretty cool, but the map is a real emetic.
So, I'm happy with 1.1 till EB II will come out of its closet :)))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

I am curious what EB players opinions are on Medieval 2 are. ( being the Total War connoisseurs you are!) Have you bought it? Is it holding your interest in it's current form? Are you intrigued with the modding possibilities? I'd like to stress that this thread is not intended to bash CA. Please, only constructive comments.

I bought it but it's not holding my interest in it's current form. I don't find it as addictive as Rome. I can't entirely put my finger on why. This isn't a knock as Rome 1.5 and 1.6 is an entirely better game that it was when it first came out. It might also be that I find the time-frame less compelling than Rome. I'm hoping to come back to it with further patches and I'm looking forward to seeing what the mod community does with it. Until then EB all the way!

---

M2TW = shit

I played the vanilla even less than RTW (which I played for a week). However, Broken Crescent mod is pretty nice, I've been playing that every now and then for a few months now (I play all games pretty irregularly atm, time's a bit stretched, and with the good weather, I prefer friends' company over solitude-gaming. :P)

What makes it shit? Bugs, unhistorical things, campaign (I just didn't like the setting for some reason, even though I liked the MTW one...), and lots of small things.

However, the engine itself is very good, the battles look awesome, and so on. I mean, M2TW's RTW taken a step further - even more soulless, yet with an even better engine, imho. What's awesome is that they made it very moddable, or at least that's what everyone says, which, well, as I say, is awesome. I'm very much waiting for EB2, even though there are certain challenges ahead (pike formations, castles, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

1) The new recruitment system. ( This system would be really awesome in a Rome mod)

---

The recruitment system is cool, to my mind. Not only does it take less time to build up an army (which seems a realistic thing), but it also means that the system can be used to prevent elite-spamming, by the AI and the non-RP'ing/realistically-playing players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

2) The princess and merchant characters. They need some work but they definitely add to the game.

---

Don't know how the princesses will work, but the merchants should fit in pretty well, I'd think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

3) I think the castle/town option adds to the game

---

Ugh, nope. I really don't want to see medieval-style castles in the timeframe of EB, and possibly only a few special already-in-place fortifications (Syracuse?) and that more cannot be build. I trust the EB team, tho', so I'm not worried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

4) The beautiful new models and animations. ( It makes my mouth water to think what some of the EB modders could do with that engine on a Rome mod)

---

*Drools*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

5) I actually like the cavalry changes although it still needs tweaking ( even post-patch)

---

Actual working cavalry charges? Whee. In EB, I dislike how my heavy cavalry seems to always hit the wall when charging, failing to penetrate even skirmisher formations, ie, two units of heavy Iberian lancers fail to rout a unit of cheap skirmishers, and instead end up being the ones getting killed, even when not left to melee after the charge is over... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

1) It is very strange that, most of the time, a very small percentage of a unit
actually fights when they meet another on the field. It looks weird and unrealistic when 10 or 12 guys are fighting on the front line and the rest of the guys are just standing around. Has anyone else noticed that?

---

Ugh, wot?

This is quite realistic, formations tended up to be at least several (5-12) men deep, and sometimes deeper, all the way to being actually squares, like the phalanx 16-by-16-formation. What for?

The push.

Perhaps one of the most famous "pushes" was that of the Thebans at the Battle of Leuctra, where, to quote 'pedia:

In a major break with tradition, Epaminondas massed his cavalry and a fifty-deep column of Theban infantry on his left wing, and sent forward this body against the Spartan right. His shallower and weaker center and right wing columns were drawn up so that they were progressively further to the right and rear of the proceeding column, in the so-called Echelon formation. The footsoldiers engaged, and the Spartans' twelve-deep formation on their right wing could not sustain the heavy impact of their opponents' 50-deep column. A brief pushing match ensued, wherein the Spartans attempted to hold back the gigantic mass of the Thebans and the Sacred Band until they were literally run over by the enormous column. The Spartan right was hurled back with a loss of about 1,000 men, of whom 400 were Spartan citizens, including the king Cleombrotus I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

2) In addition to that some units are weirdly unresponsive to commands on the battlefield. Also some units stop right before meeting the enemy when they are charging. Very odd to watch a unit charge and then walk the last three yards into the enemy :dizzy2:

---

Same happens with RTW and EB, sometimes units, if they're too close to the enemy, don't even charge at all, but rather sloooowly advance towards the enemy in ready-position... :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtiaan72

3) I was really hoping that there would be a giant step forward with the diplomacy AI in the new game. But despite the screen makeover, it just didn't happen. You still end up at war with everyone. The AI still attacks you even if it's in a helpless position. And diplomatic overtures are rejected no matter how sweet they are. The screen is cool though. Hopeful modders or future patches will improve the situation.

---

From what I've heard, the AI of M2TW is much more moddable than RTW's AI, so with some work, it should be possibly to improve the AI.

I nmy Opinion, you don'nt need the merchants. They are very bad to handle (you always have to watch them, cause armies can move them away from their resources), and you can substitute it by markets and trade rights.

Quote:

---

Actually i think SS is less fun than vanilla, and about five times less historically accurate than say, BC. (someone over at SS seems to think that the Hagia Sophia was built in 1200ad)

---

Um, what are SS and BC? :sweatdrop:

Stainless Steel and Broken Crescent?

MTW2 Good and Bad

Good-

1. Improved graphics, and the end of Total War clone wars

2. Much better diplomacy

3. Better menu system especialy the tech tree

4. easier to recruite armys

Bad-

1. historical mistakes

2. mediocer vocales

3. The :furious3: advisors (Thank God you can turn them off).

4. many other minor things.


I give MTW2 an B+. It's a vast improvement over RTW and its flaws don't really bug me. I also like the time period despite the Roman one being 10X cooler.

The vanilla version is annoying, but I have played some interesting mods - especially "The sicilian vespers".

I prefere Deus lo vult... But its for shure that MTW2 has its advantages!

There are some great mods that improve MTW2, and I for one love that game (current mod is Darthages). Still, my computer has always been Laggy, and the battles are not as much fun as they should be given the super slow frame rate, so I have recently been enjoying EB 1.1 a lot since the battles are actually fun. The modding possibilities for MTW2 are impressive, and I am eager to see what EB2 does with the generally improved capabilities of Kingdoms. Overall, MTW2 is a great game with a poor reputation, and I hope that EB2 shows how much depth is possible in this total war generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020

Still, my computer has always been Laggy, and the battles are not as much fun as they should be given the super slow frame rate, so I have recently been enjoying EB 1.1 a lot since the battles are actually fun.

---

Yeah my computer cant play it very well either :shame:

but, I'm getting a new one soon :beam: so I'll hopefully be able to play M2TW at its fullest.

*Advertises Broken Crescent*

At least for all those interested in the East; the map spans from Greece to India, and I, as probably most players, didn't really know too much about about that region during Middle Ages (besides the Byzantine Empire, Seljuks, Salahudin, etc).

Although, has to be said, they aren't quite-as-EB as EB is - on some issues, they've gone with what seemed best gameplay-wise, but it is still a very entertaining mod, and definitely faster than EB(1). I've liked it.

Also, if you like cavalry... M2TW/BC is your friend (although they've said they intend to strengthen infantry in future versions). :wiseguy:

BC has sexy cavalry units; especially, the Byzantine and Kharmazid kataphraktoi.

I lost interest in vanilla M2TW pretty quickly but once i picked up BC I started having a blast. I think this game is all about the mods. I look forward to what EB does with it. I haven't played Kingdoms yet but it looks like Ill have to buy if for nothing else but to play EB's mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

I prefere Deus lo vult... But its for shure that MTW2 has its advantages!

---

Lol! This is quite an old thread... DLV rules agreed. Makes MTW2 what it should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffSteel

Currently, Medieval TW is not playable by any reasonable standard, there's just too many bugs (shields defensive stat subtracting from defense while in melee, units at lower elevation having the advantage over those at higher elevation instead of visa versa like in reality, and other glaring issues).

It's a shame because other wise it is a great game (where else can you have a Scottish crusade that "liberates" the holy land just in time to have to save it from the ENTIRE Mongol horde! Just where IS clan McCloud when you need them, eh?), but I just cant bring myself to enjoy it as is.

So, i'll just content myself with EB until its fixed.

---

Since when have you ever experienced a unit on lower ground having an advantage over a unit on higher ground?

I had a unit of armored sergeants completely devastated by a downhill cavalry charge by the Byzantine Cataphracts. Units are at a SEVERE disadvantage fighting uphill, even if they greatly outclass the other unit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephos

Since when have you ever experienced a unit on lower ground having an advantage over a unit on higher ground?

I had a unit of armored sergeants completely devastated by a downhill cavalry charge by the Byzantine Cataphracts. Units are at a SEVERE disadvantage fighting uphill, even if they greatly outclass the other unit!

---

You do realise that JeffSteel made that post on Januaray 28th last year, right? That may well have been a bug that was fixed in the same patch that fixed the shield bug... Or it could have been just a freak thing...

Either way, JS made that post over a year ago, so I fail to see how it's relevant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Trek

You do realise that JeffSteel made that post on Januaray 28th last year, right? That may well have been a bug that was fixed in the same patch that fixed the shield bug... Or it could have been just a freak thing...

Either way, JS made that post over a year ago, so I fail to see how it's relevant...

---

I still didn't get used to the forum system here, so telling which year a post has been made is a bit difficult :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephos

I still didn't get used to the forum system here, so telling which year a post has been made is a bit difficult :dizzy2:

---

Say what? The top left corner of each post is quite clearly marked with when exactly it was posted...

One thing in MTW2 that really made me laugh was the voice-work, if it can be called that. Everybody sounds like an over-the-top stereotype of his or hers nationality, the Germans sounds like they´ve been taken from a Monthy Python movie about the Nazi´s, the and the rest have just about the same realism in them. Except of course the Danes and I think Poland, who sounds just like the Russians. Oh the Welsh sounds just like the English, and the Irish like the Scotts. Ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

One thing in MTW2 that really made me laugh was the voice-work, if it can be called that. Everybody sounds like an over-the-top stereotype of his or hers nationality, the Germans sounds like they´ve been taken from a Monthy Python movie about the Nazi´s, the and the rest have just about the same realism in them. Except of course the Danes and I think Poland, who sounds just like the Russians. Oh the Welsh sounds just like the English, and the Irish like the Scotts. Ridiculous.

---

That's historical accuracy for you.. :laugh4:

M2TW engine has great possibilities, but until now nobody has fully exploited them IMO.

SS and BC are great fun, but SS units are not enough historically accurate yet.

Playing DLV is simply masochism. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

One thing in MTW2 that really made me laugh was the voice-work, if it can be called that. Everybody sounds like an over-the-top stereotype of his or hers nationality, the Germans sounds like they´ve been taken from a Monthy Python movie about the Nazi´s, the and the rest have just about the same realism in them. Except of course the Danes and I think Poland, who sounds just like the Russians. Oh the Welsh sounds just like the English, and the Irish like the Scotts. Ridiculous.

---

I didn't have a problem because it was clearly supposed to be "cartoonish" - not saying that to put the game down, and "representational" is likely a closer word, but you just need to look to the movies and the bright, candy-colored units to give you the tone of the game. It was never supposed to be historically accurate; it was a game that allowed you to recreate huge battles using "miniatures" with medieval trappings. I generally feel that attacking M2TW (or RTW for that matter) on the basis of inaccuracy is like attacking Star Wars for not accurately representing space combat.

For me, M2TW only needs to be consistent within its own context - for example, I would be annoyed if it had da Vinci-based airplane units that could bomb your troops, because that is a science fiction trapping, not a medieval trapping.

I don't like M2 because it's boring. The lack of detail makes the campaign boring. It's got no life to it.

The battles arenot only boring, because the generic units are bland, but also frustraiting, because the units don't do anything right. Don't they teach soldiers how to advance in formation in "how not to die in battle 101"? At least after a few battles, you'd think they'd learn something. How about "How to use a pike" or "How to charge the enemy in unison"?

Yeah, that's the thing. M2TW has no content. The campaign is very boring and boring in the exact same way, no matter which faction you play as. And since the Ai is so bad, you don't even get the feeling that you're playing against an opponent. Ai is just there waiting to be defeated. That's the problem. Medieval history is extremely fascinating and full of stuff they could've used to create a great game. But they chose to leave all that wealth out of the game. Why, I don't know.

Well, they let all the glory for the mods!
And that is great for us.

The base Medieval 2 is far too basic for my liking, however has several improvements that should make it a Nirvana for modders.

Marriage alliances at least in the later patches seem to hold very, very well. In DLV 4.0PE I had 3 marriage alliances, with Hungary, Poland and France. None of them attacked me for a period up to about 1230AD (I started a new game with them as allies still) despite poorly held frontiers in many cases. Since I was playing the HRE whom everyone enjoys attacking that should say something about the strength of alliances.

My gut feeling is that general alliances (non marriage) also hold much better. Diplomacy is so vastly improved that it should make EBII worth playing for a much longer timescale than EB1 which has all the massive diplomatic problems we know and love from RTW. I understand that moddability of diplomacy is good also (from Ludens comments).

The most obvious improvement is graphics, much harder for modders I imagine, however check some of the units from Broken Crescent to see exactly what can be achieved :2thumbsup:

AI is still substandard, however I note that DLV and BC both manage to have AI that manages a few clever strikes with cavalry etc at times. No worse than RTW in my opinion, possibly even a little better. Naval landings by AI are FAR superior in every possible way. Despite the stick they took on release (justified) from the fanbase, I think CA really did listen and make some improvements within the engines limitations.

Really, really looking forward to EBII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perturabo

The base Medieval 2 is far too basic for my liking, however has several improvements that should make it a Nirvana for modders.

Marriage alliances at least in the later patches seem to hold very, very well. In DLV 4.0PE I had 3 marriage alliances, with Hungary, Poland and France. None of them attacked me for a period up to about 1230AD (I started a new game with them as allies still) despite poorly held frontiers in many cases. Since I was playing the HRE whom everyone enjoys attacking that should say something about the strength of alliances.

My gut feeling is that general alliances (non marriage) also hold much better. Diplomacy is so vastly improved that it should make EBII worth playing for a much longer timescale than EB1 which has all the massive diplomatic problems we know and love from RTW. I understand that moddability of diplomacy is good also (from Ludens comments).

The most obvious improvement is graphics, much harder for modders I imagine, however check some of the units from Broken Crescent to see exactly what can be achieved :2thumbsup:

AI is still substandard, however I note that DLV and BC both manage to have AI that manages a few clever strikes with cavalry etc at times. No worse than RTW in my opinion, possibly even a little better. Naval landings by AI are FAR superior in every possible way. Despite the stick they took on release (justified) from the fanbase, I think CA really did listen and make some improvements within the engines limitations.

Really, really looking forward to EBII.

---

Very true.... This is a very old thread and much of the comments on this thread are pretty obsolete at this point considered the amazing mods that are out for it now. SS and DLV pretty much address the 'Depth' issues. The diplomacy and the skins really rock in the mods and EBII is going to be amazing... In the meantime I encourage people to give one of the excellent mods for Medieval a chance... If for no other reason that to see what is now actually possible for EBII gameplay.

I've not played Medieval 2 myself but my brother bought it and got Kingdoms too and he says that while the graphics are better the AI is still poor - plus it has recurring crashes which end your campaign sooner or later with 'unspecified error' messages and that these make it not worth playing since, as you don't even get told what the error is, there's no way you can fix it - and that Kingdoms doesnt sort these.

So (despite any improvements on RTW) since M2 and Kingdoms are so full of bugs that you can't finish campaigns in them it seems to me it wouldnt be worth the effort of modding either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dunadd

I've not played Medieval 2 myself but my brother bought it and got Kingdoms too and he says that while the graphics are better the AI is still poor - plus it has recurring crashes which end your campaign sooner or later with 'unspecified error' messages and that these make it not worth playing since, as you don't even get told what the error is, there's no way you can fix it - and that Kingdoms doesnt sort these.

So (despite any improvements on RTW) since M2 and Kingdoms are so full of bugs that you can't finish campaigns in them it seems to me it wouldnt be worth the effort of modding either of them.

---

RTW had far more bugs when it launched...The AI is no better or worse than vanilla RTW ( it's the same engine basically after all) I find unmodded MTW2 unplayable personally......But I also find vanilla RTW unplayable and equally as stupid...

If your brother hasn't modded up MTW2, he's missing out...Perhaps it's the higher system specs that are causing him problems.