New M2TW Player: The (mostly) Good, The (limited) Bad, and the (limited) Ugly

[Prussian1]

Just started playing this game after years of dedication to MTW. I’ve compiled a quick list of first impressions.

THE GOOD
1. Forts now serve an actual strategic value. Want to know why the Alps are such a great military barrier? Well now you know.
2. Diplomacy – and marriages now serve a purpose. I like the structure of the negotiating protocol.
3. The battles are much more visually interesting. Even on my Paleolithic Laptop, the look fantastic.
4. Cavalry availability. The whole underlying unit of measure in feudal society – a man with a horse – is represented early.
5. Militia units with no upkeep as a garrison unit. If you want to take your police force into the field, it’ll cost you.
6. Cities versus Castles. I like having to balance economic production and viability with military strength.
7. The Battle Controls seem much easier to master than in MTW. Maybe it’s just me.
8. Lots and lots of Rebel Settlements on the map – and intertwined with existing controlled settlements. Definitely a “target rich environment”

THE BAD
1. I love the Strategic Map, but I don’t know where anything is! It took me like 10 turns to make contact with a French unit and they’re right next door, For God’s Sake! Great, send me out to take Stettin. At least give me a HINT as to where it might be, eh?
2. It takes Freakin’ FOREVER to run the AI Strategic Turn. I could conquer Europe In Real Life in that time!

THE UGLY
1. Not having enough generals to run my settlements. I don’t actually see anything happening in auto-managed settlements.
2. What’s with the Brigands running around in my provinces every other turn?

[FactionHeir]

If you get a mission, there is an icon you can click to show you the target location.
You can speed up AI turns by clicking, pressing space, and turning off whos AI moves.
Conquer more and it won't be a problem.
Defeat them.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

1. Not having enough generals to run my settlements. I don’t actually see anything happening in auto-managed settlements.

You can set it so you can manage settlements yourself without a general present. Uncheck auto-manage settlements at the start of a campaign. Additionally, the game tends to try and provide you with enough generals to govern all settlements (ie, heirs only being born or adoption candidates only being offered when you have more settlements than generals).

[predaturd]

if it takes you forever to run an AI turn then you need a better computer, it takes 5-10 seconds to run a turn early on and maximum of 20 later on when the whole map is moving.
learn the map and its not so bad, if you get a mission theres a magnifying glass on the scroll to take you to the target
build forts and you have less brigands running around, forts act as a policing area you didnt see many birgands near castles in them times did you? you dont see them near forts either.
attack people with captains and get them promoted to generals or simply change the options so you dont need generals to make buildings.

ok ive just picked apart your bad and ugly, and made the game look better to myself :D

[PBI]

Also make sure you have "show AI moves" turned off, the game will alert you if you are attacked anyway, no need to watch every last AI agent meandering back and forth.

[TevashSzat]

As for finding your neighbors, just follow the roads. They will always eventually lead to the city of the province and are usually built by the beginning of the game

[Adrian II]

Nice summary, Prussian1.

I have played Shogun:Total War to death. I loved Medieval Total War, but I stopped short of buying Rome: Total War. Instead I recently bought M2TW. And once again I find myself fascinated by a TW game. I know that there has been a lot of criticism of this TW and that most of it is valid, as with all all previous TW games. But it shouldn't detract from the joy and amazement of playing another brilliant simulation game of a kind that seemed unthinkable only fifteen years or so ago.

Things I love

1. I love the campaign map, the detailed landscape coupled with the ability to chose where to do battle (instead of always getting the same spot; I still know every inch of that hill in Shinano).

2. I also love many of the new strategic features, such as the specific uses of castles and cities, the free upkeep for militia, better diplomacy, trade coming into its own through 'merchant wars', etcetera.

3. I do watch the AI turns at a slow pace because it shows where enemy troops are hiding in the bushes, where enemy spies and assassins are going (and hiding), and because the AI sometimes leaves a coloured trail on the map that shows where a unit will be moving on subsequent turns.

On the downside I have two major complaints. I have no idea how to remedy these issues and I can only hope they will be addressed in future games.

4. The first is the fact that on Hard and Very Hard, the AI throws everything it can find at you. This renders diplomacy obsolete. It is no use concluding alliances, ceasefires etcetera, let alone build up an alliance system based on marriage, if the other parties will all be coming after you on the very next turn. The AI seems to be programmed with the sense that 'Hard' means 'more of the same': more enemies, more betrayal, more invasions. Whereas I think the 'hardness' should be in the economic conditions, the cost of raising troops, etcetera, not in a Hobbesian war of all against all. Oh, I can win my battles on Very Hard alright - but it's no fun if you can' t work out a long-term strategy involving a combination of armies, fleets, diplomacy, carefully planned moves and devious back-stabbing.

5. The battle AI stinks. I would put it differently if I could, but I honestly can't. It's bad enough if the AI runs armies consisting of only crossbowmen or ballistas, but to have them attack or lay siege to a vastly superior force of yours for no strategic reason at all is ridiculous. Furthermore the AI almost never tries to gain (or hold) the high ground. And God forbid that you should ever attack with two armies, one of which is under AI control. I remember one battle as the French against the Milanese. I won my part of the engagement, only to watch the AI brainlessly squander my other army. It was my favourite French army with the choicest, most experienced troops in a perfect composition. Yet the AI let them just stand there on a hill, exposed and motionless, while they were slaughtered from afar by the Milanese crossbowmen. After they had been shot to pieces and the Italian infantry had mopped up the remainder, there were only a handful left... The contrast with the Shogun:TW AI is immense. I recall marvels of AI tactics from that game. The MTW AI wasn't bad either, particularly if it controlled horsey armies like the Turks, the Mongols or the Spanish.

Redemption

That huge and hugely rewarding one battle I fought as the English near Metz. My ally the Pope had sent an army to reinforce my siege of the city while the opposition, the Milanese, were trying to reinforce their garrison with heavy siege equipment, all this in one turn. The Pope's army was weak and needed protection from me against the sallying Milanese, while at the same time I had to detach some badly-needed units to intercept the Milanese reinforcements. I hung on for dear life for over half an hour, but I took the city and made sure His Holiness (he was my Pope since he was English and the next one was surely going to be Milanese) survived. This is the stuff that boy's books were made of. And like I said, technically speaking, it is the stuff that we could only dream of fifteen years ago.

To compensate for the problems noted in 4 and 5, I now make up my own 'rules of engagement'. I play Medium campaigns with Very Hard battles. To compensate for the softer campaign rules I make things harder for myself, for instance by not using assassins at all, or by using them only on enemy assassins. I have developed a whole set of such rules, including for instance the rule that a leader should always be accompanied by a unit of peasants for protection in the field, which is 'historically accurate'. I also avoid all exploits or short-cuts, such as quick-saving before important moves. In short I have adapted the game to my own need and views.

I know there is a lot to be criticised in EA, Sega and all those logo's and their lack of service and gaming nouse. But it is obvious that at least some developers have, once again, worked on this game to their best ability, with great expertise and with true love for the genre.

Thanks, developers.

[sassbarman]

"I know every inch of that hill in shanano". LOL

[Proserpine]

I agree with every single word AII wrote, I also played Shogun and MTW and missed out on Rome. One great battle wipes out a hundred poor ones.

[Adrian II]

What’s with the Brigands running around in my provinces every other turn?

I forgot to explain. The brigands are opportunities. In the 'old' MTW you had to occupy rebellious provinces (like Portugal, Scotland, Croatia) and move your younger general there to let them gain command stars and traits in fights against the unruly populace. In M2TW they come to your very doorstep. You can either fight them with a general to let him gain stars, or with a captain to have a 'Man of the Hour' occurrence and gain a new family member.

It's the same thing with the heretics and witches. You have them burnt by your priests to raise their piety and make them eligible for the college of cardinals. Heretics and witches can be a real pest though if they have high piety (six or above) in which case an assassin may get rid of them quicker and prevent havoc in your province.

[Ethelred Unread]

5. The battle AI stinks. I would put it differently if I could, but I honestly can't. It's bad enough if the AI runs armies consisting of only crossbowmen or ballistas, but to have them attack or lay siege to a vastly superior force of yours for no strategic reason at all is ridiculous. Furthermore the AI almost never tries to gain (or hold) the high ground. And God forbid that you should ever attack with two armies, one of which is under AI control. I remember one battle as the French against the Milanese. I won my part of the engagement, only to watch the AI brainlessly squander my other army. It was my favourite French army with the choicest, most experienced troops in a perfect composition. Yet the AI let them just stand there on a hill, exposed and motionless, while they were slaughtered from afar by the Milanese crossbowmen. After they had been shot to pieces and the Italian infantry had mopped up the remainder, there were only a handful left... The contrast with the Shogun:TW AI is immense. I recall marvels of AI tactics from that game. The MTW AI wasn't bad either, particularly if it controlled horsey armies like the Turks, the Mongols or the Spanish.

Lusted's campaign AI and battle AI might help you there - i think you can download it from his profile page somewhere.

There's also a AI overhaul being done in the other place (.net) by a member called xeryx - I use this one with my Stainless Steel mod and the AI behaves much better f'rinstance:

- retreats to the square once you've taken the walls.
- flanks
- doesn't charge generals or any horses into stakes

You'd have to check compatability with whatever you're running though (e.g. mods etc)

Good Luck!