Medieval II: Total War Official Thread

**Leet Eriksson** · 01-21-2006, 13:47

Ok i brainstormed a bit and i need some CA employees to answer these questions:

1.Why no norwegians? the only scandinavian country is denmark

2.Why the Americas, how about the far east too just for the heck of it? (i.e China, and probably japan, you all know Shogun is still in ours hearts)

3.If the Timurids are in, that means you'd have to map out persia, might sound interesting, but before them were the Ilkhanids and Khawarizmians, i wonder how they will work it out if they cut 2 important factions.

4.Also the entire "global" crusade thing is a bit gimmicky, what will CA plan for orthodox factions? (muslims will probably get jihad again, and a global jihad[?])

also about the aztecs, i do believe their units are competent enough against the spanish, but CA need to think this our very well and make the aztecs fun.

**TB666** · 01-21-2006, 14:26

Originally Posted by faisal

1.Why no norwegians? the only scandinavian country is denmark

Because the danes were the strongest faction in scandinavia during medieval times.
I would love nothing more then to see Sweden there but if they have to pick one then even I would say danes.

**Paul Peru** · 01-21-2006, 15:22

Dropping of jaws, soiling of pants etc...
This looks awesome. Hoping for decent AI and heaps of moddability.
The vegetation looks a bit better, though it does not feature too prominently in the screenies.

As for Scandinavia, the power balance could have swung different ways from the early stages on, but historically Denmark would be the best choice as they ended up being top dog most of the time, and they had the best odds as well. Norway was almost always weakened by civil wars, seceding earls and turbulent priests. Sweden hardly existed as such in 1080. (it teleported in a bit later).

**Crian** · 01-21-2006, 15:53

Wow ... but then I remember how I felt after hearing about RTW...

Apparently nowadays, improving games graphically is really the "easier" thing to do. You can almost always expect new games to have vastly improved graphics so I'm hardly moved.

I really really hope they do something with the AI!!!!! I NEVER had a truly epic or interesting battle that lasted more than 30 minutes in RTW. NEVER in RTW did I fight a campaign battle against more than 1 faction, nor did I ever fight alongside an ally. I guess the new campaign map complicates this from happening but it NEVER happened to me at all!!! I hardly ever bothered with diplomacy in RTW because in the long run, you'll almost always win anyway!

Don't get me wrong, I'm a slave of CA and I will DEFINITELY buy this when it comes out (or at least until I get a PC that can run it, I'm currently forced to play RTW at around mid-settings). I just wish I don't start browsing online for mods or patches after a couple of weeks.

**Leet Eriksson** · 01-21-2006, 16:56

Originally Posted by TB666

Because the danes were the strongest faction in scandinavia during medieval times.
I would love nothing more then to see Sweden there but if they have to pick one then even I would say danes.

Norway had a fair bit of land between 1220-1319 i beleive. Also weren't the Rus the swedish vikings? (they made kiev and novgorod?)

**KukriKhan** · 01-21-2006, 15:02

Originally Posted by faisal

...also about the aztecs, i do believe their units are competent enough against the spanish, but CA need to think this our very well and make the aztecs fun.

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

And of course, nothing says that it MUST be the Spanish battling the Aztecs, in-game. Just as Egyptian camels never wandered the streets of London in actual history, they can and do in our Medi-I games. So it could be seen that Polish Retainers, or the Golden Hoarde might encounter the americans in Medi-II.

Great fun, I think. Looking forward to it.

**Hambut_bulge** · 01-21-2006, 16:11

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

Possibly, but more likely I think will be a separate map for Central America. You couldn't really place the New World closer to Europe, because everyone knew it had taken Columbus six months (or whatever it was to get there). Everyone knew the distances involved were vast. In order to travel to the New World in MTW2 I think it'll be a case of moving a fleet 'off' the western edge of the world, and then on the next turn it'll arrive somewhere in the Caribbean. And there'll be a button to switch between the two maps.

Been having a little think about about what I'd like to see in MTW2 and coming top of the list at the moment (aside from an improved AI of course) would be an improved inheritance system. Its hugely annoying in MTW to lose a game because your King failed in his royal duties. I'd like to see it so that a nephew, or second-cousin, or even (gasp!) a daughter could take the throne. Obviously there should be problems (especially in the latter case) of disloyalty etc. But the historical precedents are there.

And also, it always struck me as bit odd in MTW that you could have Catholic factions forming alliances with Muslim ones. I mean the Pope's just said "go and kill the evil heretics", so surely any Catholic faction that formed such an alliance really should be getting some severe diplomatic penalties?

**Leet Eriksson** · 01-21-2006, 16:16

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm thinking: since they're having video cut-scenes for assassinations, they may also use such a trick to segue to the americas as they were comprehended at the time. In other words, not a modern-type map, but a much earlier, incomplete representation of what the euro explorers thought/hoped was eastern India. Such a landmass could be placed much closer to the european continent on the campaign map.

And of course, nothing says that it MUST be the Spanish battling the Aztecs, in-game. Just as Egyptian camels never wandered the streets of London in actual history, they can and do in our Medi-I games. So it could be seen that Polish Retainers, or the Golden Hoarde might encounter the americans in Medi-II.

Great fun, I think. Looking forward to it.

Good points.

There is one thing irking me about the game...

the aztecs didn't have cavalry.. how will they balance it out for MP?

**The_Doctor** · 01-21-2006, 16:28

Build through six levels of settlement ranging from humble villages to vast cities and wooden forts to mighty stone fortress. Develop your faction as a feudal aristocracy using you castles to keep the peasants in check whilst conquering your enemies with your powerful armies. Or build cities to develop a wealthy urban society, and battle your foes with diplomacy, bribery, assassination and armies of mercenaries.

This interests me. It sounds like towns and castles are seperate things. If you look at the screenshots the towns don't contain keeps.

Maybe you train knights from castles and there is a limit to the number you can have.