Medieval2 ~:cheers:

[Salazar]

I hope that this is just an overly enthusiastic way to say that combat moves will be put together more fluently, which would be good.
If not...

[Antagonist]

....Do I take it then that I am the only person who thinks that the fusion of Total War and Soul Calibur is an idea with extraordinary, near-limitless potential, and that correctly implemented could quite possibly result in the Best Game Ever?

........

[Salazar]

After having read up what soul calibur is (never had much to do with consoles, though i thin i might buy that game if it would be for pc and relatively cheap), i must say it could be fun to be one of the fighters, as long as you aren't overpowered.
Imagine it as a mmo game, one player is the commander, 5000 others are soldiers ^^
But seriously i dont think that would be too practical, as it might only distract from the core game, the tactics.

[jebes]

After having read up what soul calibur is (never had much to do with consoles, though i thin i might buy that game if it would be for pc and relatively cheap), i must say it could be fun to be one of the fighters, as long as you aren't overpowered.
Imagine it as a mmo game, one player is the commander, 5000 others are soldiers ^^
But seriously i dont think that would be too practical, as it might only distract from the core game, the tactics.

Dynasty Warriors

That is basically what you are talking about. a mix between soul caliber and STW, heavy on the Soul caliber part.

Kessen III Is the opposite, you control the units like the total war series, but you can take over fighting for any particular unit in the battle, or just watch the whole thing take place as commander. It is more like STW than sould claiber, but still a mix.

[RandyKapp]

After having read up what soul calibur is (never had much to do with consoles, though i thin i might buy that game if it would be for pc and relatively cheap), i must say it could be fun to be one of the fighters, as long as you aren't overpowered.
Imagine it as a mmo game, one player is the commander, 5000 others are soldiers ^^
But seriously i dont think that would be too practical, as it might only distract from the core game, the tactics.

I think this is what your looking for old chap

http://www.roma-victor.com/

[Seydlitz]

Well, I've read that this game has been in production for 7 years already!! Which probably explains why RTW was so buggy They were busy working on this while they were at it!

Looks spectacular though!! Units get bloodier and muddier as the battle progresses, each soldier in a unit looks different from the other. It's probably not going to be terribly historically accurate, but by golly it looks like a shitload of fun! I know I can't wait.

And yeah, it's a beefed up RTW engine. You can tell in the screenshots at (They also say in the summary): http://www.sega-europe.com/en/Game/262.htm

Wonder what the campaign map will be like though?

Either way, I can't wait

[Dayve]

I just hope i'll be able to play it with at least large unit sizes with my setup...

[Kralizec]

Religion certainly played a major role in the medieval period and subsequently the religious system in Medieval 2 has more depth than previous Total War games. One aspect of this involves the Priest characters you'll control on the Campaign Map. Priests can be used to spread your religion in their surrounding areas. However, they may turn heretic, in which case they fall under AI control and spread heresy instead, undermining the established religion. If you are deemed to have a problem with heresy in your lands, the Pope may send out an Inquisitor to deal with the situation. As well as reducing heresy, these characters may also denounce nearby characters, and have them tried and executed. Senior Catholic priests can become Cardinals, giving the player influence in the Papacy, and they can even get elected Pope, improving their original faction's standing with the Papal States.

Now this just sounds awesome.

Notice how I said sounds awesome.

[the_handsome_viking]

It looks like a fun game and its pretty darned likely that everyone here will buy it when it comes out.

Whatever flaws are found in the game will eventually be corrected through mods.

[Ypoknons]

Doesn't it have non-uniform units? EB could really have used that for the barbarians, and the difference would be far more pronounced than during MTW's timeframe - it'd make the Roman uniformity of equipment much more shocking.

One improvement in historical accuracy is getting rid of Italy and making it Venice and Milan.

Give it a chance- without CA, we would have no Total War. Whatever they do to make it better only benefits us, and the units themselves are quite artistically beautiful.

[Wardo]

Looks spectacular though!! Units get bloodier and muddier as the battle progresses, each soldier in a unit looks different from the other. It's probably not going to be terribly historically accurate, but by golly it looks like a shitload of fun! I know I can't wait.

Exactly, if it's as good as RTW then it's only a graphics update, but better graphics are better than nothing, as long as it doesn't play worse than RTW. The "combo" thing must be like Black & White 2, while units in BW2 are totally unrealistic and arcadish, they look AWESOME, you can actually zoom in all the way and watch them FIGHT, of course, they do some unrealistic moves, but it's a fantasy game anyway.

My only concern are the Aztecs and the strategic map, somehow I think it would be easier to code a good AI for a "province", risk type of map (even hexagons) than this free-roaming map, of course, it would need TONS more "provinces" than the Original MTW had so that we could actually manouver around, maybe a free-roaming mode within a province mode? Something never tried before, two armies move into the same province, then they take turns free-roaming inside that province untill they retreat or engage in battle, nah, this is too complicated, too complex and too hard to be made in a pleasant way, but it would add supply issues, ie. if you cut out an Army by conquering the provinces behind it (encircle) he would need to supply itself from the province he's in and if that province doesn't have enough food for his army they die or start deserting, of course armies could have their own supply wagons, so they can survive X number of turns, like a garrison in siege can survive X number of turns.

But the Aztecs, what the hell, how is this going to work? A Mini-map? A "Viking Invasion" of sorts?

No offense, but I find the Aztec war much more boring than other conflicts, personal preference I guess, if I was in CA, I wouldn't pick the Aztecs for a mini-campaign, but I guess we'll have to wait and see, who knows, maybe it's fun, I hope...

[Dux Corvanus]

Mmmmm, the time range covers one of the most interesting periods of military history, that of the 1st military revolution, with the arrival of artillery and the mixed units of pikes & muskets essayed by Castilian commanders -such as the 'Great Captain' Gonzalo de Córdoba- in Italy, and the definitive fall of medieval knights and men of arms as the main tactical resource -with Crécy and Azincourt as milestones.

But I don't feel confident we'll ever see that progression. As an example, that definition of the Catholic Church as an arrogant demanding power in that era -when it was going thru one of its darker moments, with the unending confrontation with the Sacred Empire, the French 'napping' of Popes in Avignon and the cismatic phenomena (curiously enough, the game ends in the midst of protestant Reformation)- gives a somewhat weak and simplistic 'feel' of politics in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Looks like they simply are converting RTW's 'Senate' into the 'Pope'. They won't even bother in change the RTW key city: Rome (nor even when the Pope has his seat in Avignon, or there are Anti-Popes).

I wonder how they'll deal this time with Crusades, the Bizantium decadence, the Otoman rise, the Iberian Reconquista, the Italian labyrinth, the Pope-Emperor conflicts, the post-Viking states, the Hanseatic commerce, the forming of Eastern powers, the arrival of the Age of Discoveries -giving Spain and Portugal huge resources towards the end of the timeline- etc. Too complex and challenging, if they really want to make a difference with Medieval 1, more than simply adapting it to a new engine -with a probable loss of number of factions and game depth.

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

[TB666]

And Shigawire is right: please, plant those trebuchets on solid ground.

A guy posted this in the other MTW2 thread
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...et/wheels.html

[Jebus]

Edit: BTW, I don't understand why they put Aztecs (Mexica) there. Do they really believe that American civilizations had a chance against European powers? It's true that they were tough -but only because Cortés had only a few hundred men there: he had to mobilize all the native tribes that were being opressed by Aztecs to finish them. But had an European nation employed a full attack with all the resources available in the Ancient World, and the culturally advanced -but technologically lame- Aztecs had fallen equally. In fact, all American rich civilizations were doomed since the very moment Columbus thought he had found his fortune.

Heh, technology wasn't even the most important. I wonder how they will model European germs - if even.

Also, this timeline is - for lack of a better word - nonsensical. If you want to make a medieval warfare game, starting in 1080 and ending in 1530 makes no sense. Because that would mean half your game isn't Medieval, but Early Modern. People fought very differently from around the 100-years war onward - in a stile that contrasted greatly from the knight-in-shining armour tactics that we associate with the Middle Ages. Plus, I'd doubt they would be able to modern the rise of cities and decline of the feudal system correctly within the limits of the RTW engine. If they would even bother with that at all, of course.

And I also agree with Dux Corvanus on the issue of politics. This whole pass-out-your-princesses and conquer-the-world-because-the-pope-says-so crap is making my toes curl.

[Jebus]

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

[Ypoknons]

Any game that's announced as EPIC!, THE BEST EVER!, HUGE! etc. is bound to suck.

... and if you didn't notice, most liked RTW. It's core strengths - especially the battle system - is still lightyears ahead of any other game in simulating the mechcanics of classical and medieval combat. It's so easy to bash historical inaccuracies to make yourself feel learned, but would you rather have historically (and slightly modding) troubled engine or no game at all? If CA made TW fantasy from the start instead of mock-history people would even be interested in realism. Goodness be happy that there is a Total War series and that the next game will have greatly improved graphics. Does bad hype actually annoy you even you play?

[Kushan]

I'm personally holding a neutral opinion of MTW II. We all saw the pre RTW coverage, and then we all saw what it came to be. Yes, i'll by MTW II the day it comes out, but I dont want to get my hopes up.

If the hype, for the most part, seems to equal up then I'll change my opinionm until then we'll just have to wait and see.

I personally am planning on removing the Aztecs, and bring the map more on a European/Asia focus. I dont find it realistic to conquer the Aztecs in the Middel Ages.

Kushan

[Shigawire]

I agree about the Aztecs. It seems like a wild goose-chase to bring them into the game, when there are so many factions that ought to have representation.

[Ypoknons]

I personally am planning on removing the Aztecs, and bring the map more on a European/Asia focus. I dont find it realistic to conquer the Aztecs in the Middel Ages

Actually the conquest was finished within the timeframe of MTW2, but certainly it made little difference to the historical situation of Europe before 1530 and is much more of a Renaissance thing. I hope I understood you right.

[Ajantis]

I was looking forward to this but now all these negative comments have made me think... well this sucks. im sad :(

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ooh, nice. What is it with you guys saying Rome can't be played without mods. Of courrse you can play without mods, thats what I do all the time.

MTW2 will likely not have all the individual moves and visuals it promises now, just as the customised units got cut from Rome, but it will still be a good, fun game.

[Ludens]

Dux Corvanus, I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that it is unrealistic to expect more historical accuracy when the developers have (in my mind) already shown to be disclined to go beyond the superficial. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is. Bashing them will not change that.

[Helgi]

Love The screenshots for Medieval 2, but I'm going to take a wait and see, given what, Vanilla R:TW was like. Let's hope this was not rushed.

[Greek_fire19]

RTW was unplayable? Really?

Here are a list of review scores at the time:

Gamespot: 9.1
Gamespy: 4.5/5
Eurogamer: 9/10
IGN.com: 9.4/10
AVault: 4.5/10
Gamerseurope:9.5/10
Gamingillustrated.com 96%
ferrago.com: 89%
PC Gamer: 92.0%
Computer Gaming World: 90.0%
The average customer review of RTW on Amazon is 4.5/5, despite, if I remember correctly, an attempt by a group of disgruntled fans to lower it by giving it 1 star because it wasnt realistic enough, or whatever.

Obviously, yes, you can say: 'yes but the poor reviewers were just dazzled by the pretty pictures, they gave it a score before they realised how awful it really is'

But obviously that's not true. Lots of pretty games get low scores because they play like crap.

People act like they were betrayed by CA. In fact we were spoiled by CA, they gave us a game that allows us to depict huge, beautiful battles across epic scenery and use (by and large) realistic tactics to win them. If CA had never done that what would we have? Same old RTS's?

People here moaning that MTW2 Will never be exactly what they really really really want is like the kid who wants a chocolate chip ice cream who cries when he only gets a honeycomb ice cream. It's petulant and silly.

Obviously CA owe us something, I paid £35 for Rome, after all. On the other hand, I would have gladly paid £35 for a game with half the scope of RTW. CA are visionaries, and it really annoys me when people bash them.

[VAE VICTUS]

well i dont know about you, but i spooged my pants...

it looks awesome!words...arent...enough...................................................................... .................................................................................................... .............................

[Gealai]

All I want is:
a) a better AI
b) a greater moddability
c) a fine engine

It won't be historic accurate, however I hope they move more toward it

Gealai

[Antagonist]

Obviously my previous post was intended as a joke, when I read that my mind somehow formed the image of somebody frowning at the chaos of battle and executing maneuvers with mouse and keyboard, but then the music suddenly changes, the game zooms in and the guy drops the PC stuff, picks up a gamepad and starts bashing out combos.

Incidentally, this interview came out a few minutes ago and is worth a look. While the screenshots certainly look very nice, the accompaning blurb with comments like "...designed to appeal to all gamers, not just hardcore strategy fans" inclined me to a certain cynicism about how the game would play. But this interview makes me feel a little better about it. It confirms that the talk of combos is an aesthetic innovation intended to make the battles look better, as against a surreal platform-jumping genre-blurring synthesis of real time strategy and beat-em-up. Also the faction list, they have Venice and Milan instead of "The Italians" and also appear to be featuring a nation I've never even heard of, which surprises me.

My main hope is still for increased modability though, since it's unlikely to be the game I really want to play in it's original form.

Antagonist

[Chester]

I agree with many posters comments here. Don't start typing with adreneline in your blood. It looks good, but whocares. Every single game that has come out in the past 5 years has looked good.

Quality Graphics are now industry standard. It's nothing new. All that's ever mattered was the gameplay. And being lovers of history, why else are we here?, I'm sure we will all find that the game is going to be watered down for brain dead 13 year olds.

And one more thing. These new models look very complex, I hope we can find people in this community that can skin them properly.

[Jebus]

Also the faction list, they have Venice and Milan instead of "The Italians".

Yet, they still have 'Spain'.

A crime against the grand battlefield the Iberian peninsula was in the Middle Ages...

[Kralizec]

Yet, they still have 'Spain'.

A crime against the grand battlefield the Iberian peninsula was in the Middle Ages...

They have Portugal in it, and Navarre as an emerging faction. It's certainly an improvement over the original MTW. Just mod your copy of MTW2 and replace "Spanish" with "Castillian"