MII:TW - Disappointed?

[Mahrabals apprentice]

I'm disappointed. The last thing I wanted in a new TW game was MTW:redux. MTW while good was not the best TW game, that is either STW or RTW. Anything would have been better. I would have prefered a game that started in 1530 and went till 1850.

I have never tried STW, but if you enjoyed RTW more than MTW I think your out of your tree
RTW looked slicker but doesn't play aswell. Whereas MTW looks very dated nowr days

[elbasto]

If this game is going to be to Rome TW what MTW I was to Shogun... it's going to be outstanding.

[Sand]

Kinda dissapointed - I had hoped for something new rather than a rehash - Napoleon:TW would introduce gunpowder warfare as a major facet (not the side show it was in Shogun) along with cannons and cavalry and might well have seen the end of the Total Seige aspect of the other games (cannons > stone walls). With M2:TW I can see myself storming another 1000 or so fortresses with the rare, rare field battle.

If there was going to be a rehash, Id have preferred for them to do Shogun over again. With less variety of units the work on the battle AI, which is badly required, would be easier.

But M:TW2 is what we got. I just hope they dont repeat the annoyances from M:TW. I wept with joy when I loaded up RTW and saw Princess units were not reflected and marraiges were abstracted. The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted. Diplomats should be abstracted as well - send them to open an embassy, then they "dissapear" and you conduct dip thru that embassy rather than chasing the faction round the map. Given how pointless diplomacy is in TW games why clutter the map with useless units? Merchants and Priests? Again, map clutter. And boost the units speed *dramatically* on the strategic maps. Its hard to imagine running a Crusade using RTW speeds. The trip to the New World would take 14 or 15 game years in RTW. One way.

Id like to see a bit of a change in unit recruitment to reflect the feudal structure and the fact that standing armies were hideously expensive/rare - make upkeep *very* high to prevent the forming of large standing armies, but offset it by having "mercenaries/vassals" recruitable in the summer period, that then disband in the winter. The core of the army would then be the "kings own", fleshed out by his vassals troops which campaign for the summer, returning to the harvest in the autumn/winter. The quality of vassals depends on the prosperity of the province/loyalty of the populace. It would reflect reality, and act to nerf "rushes".

If theyre thoughtful and work to improve the game in more than eye candy, then eventually it could be well worth the grave digging. If its just M:TW pimped up to look like R:TW itll be a case of why bother?

[ajaxfetish]

As the middle ages is my favorite period, I'm excited. A more modern game (Napoleon, etc.) would be great, but not till they have a new engine and can incorporate naval warfare and a gunpowder-based army. What they've got now is perfect for medieval fighting and I'd love to see medieval with improved graphics, as long as there's no loss in gameplay.

I'd still prefer an expansion to be set earlier, in the dark ages, as this is a huge and fascinating chunk of the medieval era that is somehow ignored in the original release of both medieval games. I'd like to see it incorporate all of Europe, though, not just a small part like the British Isles (and possibly be playable through the other periods, even).

Ajax

[Templar Knight]

No way! I am somewhat relieved.

I love the middle ages and a game set in ancient China or some fantasy nonsense would not be my cup of tea. I would have loved a 16th-18th century one but Im happy

[Mithrandir]

I like it, because of the options.

However, a fresh idea would've been welcome as well.

Ofcourse a perfect LOTR total war (as if that could happen,seeing how perfect is in the eye of the beholder) would be my choice :).

I'm also hoping someone will mod MTW2 to STW 2 :D.

[Craterus]

No way! I am somewhat relieved.

I love the middle ages and a game set in ancient China or some fantasy nonsense would not be my cup of tea. I would have loved a 16th-18th century one but Im happy

Maybe that could be the expansion.

The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted.

I don't like the sound of that, or priests. I never had the original MTW, and this priests, princesses and merchants business does sound like "map clutter". I think I would prefer the way RTW does this..

[Templar Knight]

Maybe that could be the expansion.

I hope so, but it will probably be an earlier period similar to VI

[Servius]

I agree with the posters happy for a return to MTW, but I also am very cautious about the gameplay. Personally, I thought STW was good, MTW was really good, but then RTW was crap, gameplay-wise at least.

So yeah, if it's MTW's design team and game play, but just with new skins, I'm happy. If it's all that AND a better AI, I'm even happier, but if it's anything like RTW, I'm affraid it'll just be more junk treading on the good name of CA's last best game.

[babarian34]

Kinda dissapointed - I had hoped for something new rather than a rehash - Napoleon:TW would introduce gunpowder warfare as a major facet (not the side show it was in Shogun) along with cannons and cavalry and might well have seen the end of the Total Seige aspect of the other games (cannons > stone walls). With M2:TW I can see myself storming another 1000 or so fortresses with the rare, rare field battle.

If there was going to be a rehash, Id have preferred for them to do Shogun over again. With less variety of units the work on the battle AI, which is badly required, would be easier.

But M:TW2 is what we got. I just hope they dont repeat the annoyances from M:TW. I wept with joy when I loaded up RTW and saw Princess units were not reflected and marraiges were abstracted. The mention of them again is not filling me with nostalgia. It was annoying to shove them around the map trying to get anyone to marry them. Pure map clutter, and they should be abstracted. Diplomats should be abstracted as well - send them to open an embassy, then they "dissapear" and you conduct dip thru that embassy rather than chasing the faction round the map. Given how pointless diplomacy is in TW games why clutter the map with useless units? Merchants and Priests? Again, map clutter. And boost the units speed *dramatically* on the strategic maps. Its hard to imagine running a Crusade using RTW speeds. The trip to the New World would take 14 or 15 game years in RTW. One way.

Id like to see a bit of a change in unit recruitment to reflect the feudal structure and the fact that standing armies were hideously expensive/rare - make upkeep *very* high to prevent the forming of large standing armies, but offset it by having "mercenaries/vassals" recruitable in the summer period, that then disband in the winter. The core of the army would then be the "kings own", fleshed out by his vassals troops which campaign for the summer, returning to the harvest in the autumn/winter. The quality of vassals depends on the prosperity of the province/loyalty of the populace. It would reflect reality, and act to nerf "rushes".

If theyre thoughtful and work to improve the game in more than eye candy, then eventually it could be well worth the grave digging. If its just M:TW pimped up to look like R:TW itll be a case of why bother?

I agree with you, especially the part about standing armies and recruitment in medieval times.
However, I know already that CA won't do anything of the things you said (maybe the reduction of diplomat/princess micro, but thats it)
Why i know this? - Because CA is a conservative games studio, like most of the studios on the market. Why try something really new and exciting if the majority of players is happy to play the same sort of game again.


Mithrandir: edited language & insult.

[kurko]

I can't say I'm disappointed for something that I haven't played anyway.

But I have an idea since STW. I think one aspect of the game should be implemented for advanced users. Runs as follow:

In the heat of the battle things end up going too fast. You order Cav to flank by the right side, then clicks on the infantry and order them to attack each enemy infantry, then sets the archers to fire at the enemy archers, so there won't be friendly fire, thenyoucomebackatyourCavontherightflankandorderthentogobehindtheenemy lines,, then you start sweating, then you come to the left flank to see how disastrous the things are, and discover that a infantry unit is idle, then you go crazy of so many actions needed when you have only ONE mouse and ONE hand to give all the orders(actually, i don't count the keyboard hehe)

Well, I think there should be an "Tactical Manouveries Editor"! Há! I mean, for example, that I use the archers in front of my infantry in the begining of the battle. Then my archers fire and enemy cav charges. I need to order them to move behind the front line, while I order my infantry to move a bit forward to make the sequence faster. I mean, it's not hard at all, when you have the P button at your disposal. What about Multiplayer when you can't pause? I don't like it when i have to pause to fix things up.
This tactics editor could be an script file or a interface full of coloured arrows, then you assign the key corresponding to the tactic(a hotkey) and then adjust the arrows, setting the manouvering the way you want, because in the past, soldiers when training formations, they used to train this kind of manouvering. I can feel the Triarii's pain, hearing every day phrases such as 'Don't let you formation to break! Keep the Line!'!
As in reality, thus could be in Medieval 2! A more complex battle system.

What do you think about it?

[LadyAnn]

It is not too hard to control multiple units, although there is a learning curve. From what you described, I think you zoomed in too much and you didn't use either unit grouping or/and way points or/and hot keys.

Annie

*waves to Orda, Mith* lost orginal email addy and forgot password so am a renewed newbie :D

[Gaiseric]

The battles in RTW do go by pretty fast compared to MTW. I hope they slow them down so that I can get a chance to see the differant looks of each individual unit.

I am also looking forward to the town/castle siege aspect. In RTW most of my battles are sieges and they get old because the cities all are laid out the same. CA mentioned that that they might be looking into terrain effects for sieges so that each siege would be differant.

I am very exicited for MTW2 and I know it could be a great game if CA improved the battles/sieges......and a few other things as well

[lars573]

I have never tried STW, but if you enjoyed RTW more than MTW I think your out of your tree
RTW looked slicker but doesn't play aswell. Whereas MTW looks very dated nowr days

RTW does play better. The infinitly better battle interface and improved AI made it possible for me to fight tactical battles and enjoy them. MTW and STW had the craptastic battle interface and moniter punchingly bad battle AI. What saved STW was the videos of the ninjas and Geishas and the Japanese setting.

[buujin]

RTW does play better. The infinitly better battle interface and improved AI made it possible for me to fight tactical battles and enjoy them. MTW and STW had the craptastic battle interface and moniter punchingly bad battle AI. What saved STW was the videos of the ninjas and Geishas and the Japanese setting.

I Utterly Disagree with that. RTW has much worse Battefield AI then its predecessors. The enemy units dont even work in cohesion they simply charge one at a time at your line of troops and rout. MTW and STW may have had a less pretty interface but it was more practical and more complex.
In RTW they are using single buttons to perform several different functions, none of which actually work very well.

Talking of routing! in RTW when a unit routs it gets utterly crushed by any opposing forces which are near it, leaving very little chance to rally. One thing i prefered about the MTW battles was the re-grouping of your forces and often successful counter attacks. In RTW is seems like as soon as a unit starts routin the game is over.

[Mithrandir]

Let's focus on MTW 2 , not on how some of you were dissappointed by another game

Bashing RTW isn't doing anyone any good. Be contructive, it's easier than it seems

-Mithrandir.

[lars573]

I Utterly Disagree with that. RTW has much worse Battefield AI then its predecessors. The enemy units dont even work in cohesion they simply charge one at a time at your line of troops and rout. MTW and STW may have had a less pretty interface but it was more practical and more complex.
In RTW they are using single buttons to perform several different functions, none of which actually work very well.

Talking of routing! in RTW when a unit routs it gets utterly crushed by any opposing forces which are near it, leaving very little chance to rally. One thing i prefered about the MTW battles was the re-grouping of your forces and often successful counter attacks. In RTW is seems like as soon as a unit starts routin the game is over.

That's why it's better. I'm saying that bring back any of the AI or control interface of MTW to MTW2 is a bad idea. It will make the game crap.

[Ser Clegane]

I am very pleased by CA's decision to make M:TW 2 the next TW-game

I would have loved to see a new S:TW as well, but I do not have too high hopes that we are going to see that one in the coming years.

Realistically, the TW-series moved from being a kind of "niche"-product (S:TW) to a game that appeals to a broader customer base (M:TW and R:TW) , and I think future TW-games will stay on this path, which will make a new S:TW or something like "China: Total War" very unlikely (I am not saying that those aren't interesting, but they would rather be niche-products).

There are not that many potential topics for TW-games that would guarantee broader popularity. If we rule out modern warfare (WWI and WWII, which - at least IMHO - do not go wuite well with the TW-concept in its current form) what's left is basically:

- Medieval era

- Napoleonic era

- Rome/Greece

- Fantasy

We just had Rome/Greece. so out of the remaining options "Medieval" would have been my favourite choice (Napoleonic era doesn't appeal to me that much, a Fantasy:TW I would probably also enjoy, but I have the feeling that it would somehow lack the immersion factor of the other TW-games)