Medieval II: Total War Official Thread

[x-dANGEr]

Your argument is contradictory. They besieged Constantinople many times, yet repeatedly failed - was their faith-inspired-bravery any the less the previous times? Or was it that when Constantinople finally fell that the Byzantine Empire was on its last legs, that the Ottoman Empire was on the rise, that they were led by highly talented and ambitious young man, and that they had a great big cannon with which to knock down the walls.

You need to look at things a bit more objectively. For every Islamic victory that you claim was won by their religious zeal, the good folks here at the Org can name you 2 defeats.

I don't know where you can find that, it's a matter of miss-understanding what's written I believe (Or miss-clarification). As Kraxis just cut all the words I said putting it in one word, determination. I don't know what has got me their, but it surely has got nothing to do with morale. And really, what's the point of this "For every Islamic victory that you claim was won by their religious zeal, the good folks here at the Org can name you 2 defeats." What need I understand from it? And if that really happened, then Islam wouldn't have gone where it has, would it? Islamic nation kept going well till the late turkish govermont started increasing taxes more and more.. Pushing the people to a rebellion, allied with UK + France, of course, UK + France had betrayed the treaty and shared the Arabic countries among them (Along with Italy maybe) till rebellions repelled them one by one, and till UK gave Palestine to Jews and leaving us apart. No offence intended, just some bad feelings to those who 'support' those actions.

[econ21]

Islamic nation kept going well till the late turkish govermont started increasing taxes more and more.. Pushing the people to a rebellion, allied with UK + France, of course, UK + France had betrayed the treaty and shared the Arabic countries among them (Along with Italy maybe) till rebellions repelled them one by one, and till UK gave Palestine to Jews and leaving us apart. No offence intended, just some bad feelings to those who 'support' those actions.

I am very keen that this forum include historical information and debate about the period covered by MTW2, but the above is more like Backroom material. Please don't bring "bad feelings" in this forum - in here, we are all friendly gamers (or at least friendly would-be gamers waiting impatiently for MTW2).

[Mount Suribachi]

And really, what's the point of this "For every Islamic victory that you claim was won by their religious zeal, the good folks here at the Org can name you 2 defeats." What need I understand from it? And if that really happened, then Islam wouldn't have gone where it has, would it? Islamic nation kept going well

The point is that you come across as something of an Islamic fan-boy who seems to think that your boys can do (and have done) no wrong. From the posts you've made around the Org you seem to have a very narrow, biased knowledge of history - to the extent that you were unaware of the Moors & Timurids.

And you keep talking about the "Islamic nation" as if the Muslim world was one unified empire, which was, and is, quite clearly not true. After the initial 2 centuries where Islamic armies where near unbeatable followed a period of consolidation which many would describe as the high point of Islam, as personified by the Moors, followed by a gradual decline (with the exception of the Ottomans) as European civilisation flourished following the renaissance (sp?).

I just get a little wound up when fan-boys come along and start complaing about how [insert country of origin here] aren't some uber-powerful faction that can conquer everyone in sight, an omission they take as some kind of racial slur. It doesn't have to be Islamic, I've seen it with Scots, Danes, Swedes, Hungarians, Poles....

I mentioned the good people of the Org cos there are some incredibly knowledgable people here, people who know 100x more than me. And allied to that knowledge is a sense of perspective and objectivity. They don't attribute "their" countries victories to some inherent racial or religious superiority, and they don't make excuses for "their" sides defeats. They see the reasons on all sides, cause and effect, rationally and without predjudice. Mouzapherre and Faisal fall into this category.

[Azi Tohak]

On units, how exactly does CA do its research? Do they have a historical department devoted to finding what troops were where and when? It seems to me that many members of the Org know a great deal about various units and methods, which escapes (or seems to) CA much of the time. Does CA just pull stuff out?

I figure I might as well put this in the "Official thread" too. I'm worried about AI. MTW has very good AI. As in it can actually beat you. RTW has AI roughly analogus to my sister's Shih Tzu. Which is it going to be here?

Azi

[Leet Eriksson]

Mount Suribachi

Minor thing, Mehmet is the turkish version fo Mohammed. I believe we need a turk member to confirm it though.

[Arcanum]

Jesus christ... *cough*
Look at the unbelievable looking walls! Look at the walls!
So I'll end my post by saying:
"Tear down this wall Mr. Gorbatschov, tear down this wall! Reagan Smash! Reagan Smash!"

[gardibolt]

On historically accurate sites, I'm hoping that they do right by Acre in particular, though Jerusalem is obviously important.

Since they are using the RTW engine, papal missions seem like a natural progression. "Assault the Spanish and seize Aragon, and you will be richly rewarded with a mass said in your honor."

[LeftEyeNine]

Mount Suribachi

Minor thing, Mehmet is the turkish version fo Mohammed. I believe we need a turk member to confirm it though.

"Mehmet" (or Mehmed, though words do not end with letter "d" in modern Turkish) consists of the letters "m" "h" "m" and "d" in Arabic. And it is traditionally pronounced as "Muhammed" in Arabic. However, it is just convenient (especially regarding the structure of Turkish) for a non-Arabic speaker to spell the name as Mehmet (m,h,m,t letters remain the same as you see..).

Hope this helps, master Faisal

[Kraxis]

Mt. Suri, I'm in agreement regarding the Almohads. Strong early on (damn I still remember the first time their AUM handed my Templars' rears to them) and weak later.

But I think the implementation was wrong. It wasn't as if the Moors were stagnant. They were politically unstable, had civil wars, did fall behind technologically and a host of other factors for making them 'weak'. Yet like the Byzantines they held out for ca. 200 years more than they should have.

Determination and defense of the home could be attributed to this... *ahem* success... But also because they were not that far behind their opponents regarding equipment.
If I'm not mistaken they made plenty use of crossbows, lamellar armour and to an extent knightly styled cavalry (thunderous charge). Sadly, none of this is reflected in MTW. They should not be keeping up with the Spanish, but they should also progress, if not as well as the catholic factions. That would in my mind reflect their true position, instead of fighting with something that can be equated to Dark Age troops.

[x-dANGEr]

Now I'm lost.. Who do you exactly mean by Ottomans?

@Suri: I'm 13 years old, played M: TW when I was 9 years old, and their isn't much that I remember.. All I can get back is my cav being crushed VS Khawarezmian cav..

[x-dANGEr]

The point is that you come across as something of an Islamic fan-boy who seems to think that your boys can do (and have done) no wrong. From the posts you've made around the Org you seem to have a very narrow, biased knowledge of history - to the extent that you were unaware of the Moors & Timurids.

Yea surely I was unaware of Moors and Timurids, but surely I know them in Arabic. Sorry, but we don't study our history in english.

And you keep talking about the "Islamic nation" as if the Muslim world was one unified empire, which was, and is, quite clearly not true. After the initial 2 centuries where Islamic armies where near unbeatable followed a period of consolidation which many would describe as the high point of Islam, as personified by the Moors, followed by a gradual decline (with the exception of the Ottomans) as European civilisation flourished following the renaissance (sp?).

It once was and I hope it becomes so again.

I just get a little wound up when fan-boys come along and start complaing about how [insert country of origin here] aren't some uber-powerful faction that can conquer everyone in sight, an omission they take as some kind of racial slur. It doesn't have to be Islamic, I've seen it with Scots, Danes, Swedes, Hungarians, Poles....

Well, you do agree the muslims (Almohads) were down-graded in M: TW, don't you?

I mentioned the good people of the Org cos there are some incredibly knowledgable people here, people who know 100x more than me. And allied to that knowledge is a sense of perspective and objectivity. They don't attribute "their" countries victories to some inherent racial or religious superiority, and they don't make excuses for "their" sides defeats. They see the reasons on all sides, cause and effect, rationally and without predjudice. Mouzapherre and Faisal fall into this category.

Well, I salute such people, and you can always look forward to such men. I realise I got a little carried away, and I really do apologize for that.

[Mount Suribachi]

Yea surely I was unaware of Moors and Timurids, but surely I know them in Arabic. Sorry, but we don't study our history in english.

OK, sorry, I misunderstood you. Your English is very good, which has probably caused some misunderstanding on my behalf whereby, because it is so good, I take what you write at face value, whereas with someone whose English clearly wasn't as good I would be more cautious to check understanding

Well, you do agree the muslims (Almohads) were down-graded in M: TW, don't you?

Yes and no. I'll repost what I said in Faisals unit thread


"I know what you're saying though about the weak Almohad roster in the later game, I always interpreted this as CAs attempt to reflect the decline of the Moors in Spain - they did the same with the Byzantines."

AUMs are possibly the best unit in the game in Early - cheap, easily available, +1 Valour in Granada, Iron easily available in nearby provinces for weapon upgrades...The Elmos also have the excellent Desert Cav. Its very easy to win with them in Early. But they do suffer from their lack of decent Spears and Heavy Cav, especially once you get to high and late, but like I said, I attribute this to CAs attempt to reflict the decline of the Moors

The Egyptians - I've never actually played them, I find their roster and starting position to be a bit meh

The Turks - have an excellent spread of units through the game. Saracen Inf are a decent entry level unit, and we all know Jannisary Heavy Inf are one of the best units in the game, period. And they get better as the game progresses; again I see this as CAs attempt to reflect the rising strength of the Ottomans.

I think if MTW started several hundred years earlier and their relative strength was the same they would definately be underpowered, but as it is I see what CA was trying to do. Now, as to whether their units are historically accurate.....well I'll leave that to Faisal But every faction suffers from innacuracy to a lesser or greater extent.

Well, I salute such people, and you can always look forward to such men. I realise I got a little carried away, and I really do apologize for that.

Hehe, thats OK. I just sit in awe at the knowledge and ettiquette and fair-mindedness of some of the folks here (as long as we stay out the backroom ). Shadeswolf, Simon Appleton...

Now, back to MTW2...