MII:TW - Disappointed?

[AntiochusIII]

I kinda agree with Steppe Merc's worries here, but I'd like to be optimistic.

They are, after all, the good old Creative Assembly. I have bought their games since Shogun: Total War, and since then, I love Japan.

But the Aztecs have no place in this game, in my opinion. Cortez visited them like, what? 1512? THAT's definitely Renaissance, not Medieval. They also have no cavalry, as Steppe said: a major balancing problem sighted ahead.

And CA, unfortunately, has never been that skilled in portraying the development of civilizations and the changing nature of the European world at the time. It is hard enough to present the urbanization of Medieval Europe, not to mention the complexities of the Renaissance; a completely different game is worth it for that period.

Bloodyhell, I want my knights and not the Aztecs obsidian-armed warriors. As much as I'd like to sack, or expand, Tenochtitlan into a great city or a great heap of ruins, I'd rather go for a more perfected Constantinople anyday -- at least in a Medieval game like this one is going to be. I also worry about the map scale.

And gunpowder turns me off when it comes in smaller guns. Volleys of gunfire can't compare to the fun of sword and spears. Cannons, of course, are tolerated, since they are big and easy to take down. That's why I've never been a Napoleanic enthusiast.

So I have to say, I'm not disappointed at all. Just worried.

Of course, I'd like to have a China: Total War someday (*cough*close-minded people*cough* -- Pffftghhh!!!), but Medieval is as good a choice as any.

Looking forward to it. Take your time, CA. I can wait for the best.

[Subedei]

What i am really looking forward is, to play the Mongols. They are part of the game, right? Maybe they'll get their own Mod....but that's a bit 2 far into the future. I really like the Medieval setting....loved Medieval, love RTR....

[DukeofSerbia]

No, no and no. I just wanted Medieval with Rome engine.

[Templar Knight]

Hmm, perhaps the Aztec campaign will be somewhat part of the larger campaign but on a separate map. Aztec gold will also be of great use when reforming your armies from feudal ones into a somewhat professional force with guns and cannons.

[Gen_Lee]

As the most enjoyable times I had with Mtw engine are when Im playing Ntw, Atw and now Pike&musketier v1.0, I really dont mind they focus Mtw2 till 1580, that will probably allow for even better versions of above mods.
About Rtw, I really hope they can keep the look while making Mtw combat style.
I was a very disapointed Rtw player (I pre ordered the game, instaled, played the toturial, started a campaign and was terrible bored by the asteroid pace of the units, unistaled the game more then a year ago and only after this Christmas I give it another try, this time much more enjoyable with Rtr or Biv1.6 Atilla's mod).
So for Me, Mtw2 will hopefull allow for real great mods to be done on the time I enjoy most, from the birth of My country, Portugal (That I hope this time can be playable, not a freaking spanish province, for Christ's sake Portugal is independent since 1143!!!) till the Xix century with the look of Rtw and the feel of Mtw.

[Gen_Lee]

No, no and no. I just wanted Medieval with Rome engine.

If I played only the strategic part of the game, I would be with You, but the real time combats are really (On vanilla game) anoying and boring compared with Mtw ones.
Some fights I had with Mtw+vi Bkb or med mod (Let Me say I never played vanilla Mtw, lol) where oustanding, taking more then 2 hours to finish them, watching Ai really play as it should.
Some applies to Nap Tc or several Atw custom battles and most of all to the 1st P&m battle i did, where the diversity and way of enployment of the units where a real chalenge, both to me and to the Ai.
So I really understand any wants the look and feel of Rtw startegic part over Mtw (2 simple) but no way I want the Rtw combat feeling, let single players think and enjoy a fight, while being chalenged. Not all players are online ones!!! (There I really beleave Rtw looks better then Mtw, at least no Ai to fight).

[Butcher]

Lots of promise, could be a great game..

Mind you, i've said that about a certain game before..

[Butcher]

*dble post*

[Hunter KIng George]

Best choice CA has ever made...just look at all the buzz this has created. Just hopes the MP side is as great as its original! SP is fun and all, but Mp is just in a whole different level and experience. I love the Medieval era and to include the Aztecs...just perfect! Let's just hope for the best!

[DukeofSerbia]

If I played only the strategic part of the game, I would be with You, but the real time combats are really (On vanilla game) anoying and boring compared with Mtw ones.
Some fights I had with Mtw+vi Bkb or med mod (Let Me say I never played vanilla Mtw, lol) where oustanding, taking more then 2 hours to finish them, watching Ai really play as it should.
Some applies to Nap Tc or several Atw custom battles and most of all to the 1st P&m battle i did, where the diversity and way of enployment of the units where a real chalenge, both to me and to the Ai.
So I really understand any wants the look and feel of Rtw startegic part over Mtw (2 simple) but no way I want the Rtw combat feeling, let single players think and enjoy a fight, while being chalenged. Not all players are online ones!!! (There I really beleave Rtw looks better then Mtw, at least no Ai to fight).

Actually, I want strategic map from MTW and battles from MTW, but with RTW engine in battles.

[player1]

I doubt they'll ever revert to Risk type campaign for future games.

[The Hun]

Without getting into how much of whiner Steppe is I'll say that there were no horses in North america from like 20000 BC until the 16th century. The paeleolithic peoples of north america ate the horses instead of riding them. The Spainish brought them back here with them. All those native tribes they show with horses in western movies didn't have them until they stole them from the Spainish. And yes medieval was geographical. It was, like the dark ages, a european phemomenon.

I know full well that no horses existed. My point is so what? Horses do not make Medieval period. And for time frame I say there is no exact cut off date. Myself I do not like the Aztec thing but that is a part I will not bother with I suppose. I am sure it will have good and bad things like Rome.

[Viking]

Yeah, I`m sort of dissapointed. I`ve played this stuff before, and it`s called MTW.

Oh well, I`ll probably buy it anyway.

[AquaLurker]

Disappointed? Quite... Supprised?? Definately not. Like KOEI, they will always remake "interesting" periods of histories over and over again e.g Three Kingdom, Nobunaga, Genghiz Khan, Chu & Han etc.

Well I did hopped that they will make something like "Mongol Total War" with the campaign map stretching from Japan to eastern europe which will definately be more interesting then Europe alone. Maybe they will but I doubt so, I think CA will focused on the European Market, its more practical to sell something they and the majority of their fans are more familiar with which is also easier to identify.

I like idea about the aztec campaign, just hope it is not too one sided in terms of game play.

[Nelson]

Revisiting Medieval is a good choice by CA. I’m glad it will reach into the 16th century. The Renaissance was an interesting period. Gunpowder was important but infantry and cavalry melee often determined who the winner would be. Early firearms were anything but boring.

I am also pleased to see that units will no longer appear as clones of one man with one weapon style.

[alman7272]

We don't even know how the Aztecs will be used in the game, so calm down guys. Maybe it will be "discovery" at a certain year in which a portion of the campaign map gets revealed and you can spend some time trying to conquer the Americas. But I wouldn't worry...you're still going to be fighting the medieval peoples for 99% of the game, I'd say.

and yes it does look good, but so did RTW; however, since I like the MTW period better than the Roman period I'm optimistic. plus, the pope's back. That's enough to make me buy it.

[Favre]

I kinda agree with Steppe Merc's worries here, but I'd like to be optimistic.

They are, after all, the good old Creative Assembly. I have bought their games since Shogun: Total War, and since then, I love Japan.

But the Aztecs have no place in this game, in my opinion. Cortez visited them like, what? 1512? THAT's definitely Renaissance, not Medieval. They also have no cavalry, as Steppe said: a major balancing problem sighted ahead.

And CA, unfortunately, has never been that skilled in portraying the development of civilizations and the changing nature of the European world at the time. It is hard enough to present the urbanization of Medieval Europe, not to mention the complexities of the Renaissance; a completely different game is worth it for that period.

Bloodyhell, I want my knights and not the Aztecs obsidian-armed warriors. As much as I'd like to sack, or expand, Tenochtitlan into a great city or a great heap of ruins, I'd rather go for a more perfected Constantinople anyday -- at least in a Medieval game like this one is going to be. I also worry about the map scale.

And gunpowder turns me off when it comes in smaller guns. Volleys of gunfire can't compare to the fun of sword and spears. Cannons, of course, are tolerated, since they are big and easy to take down. That's why I've never been a Napoleanic enthusiast.

So I have to say, I'm not disappointed at all. Just worried.

Of course, I'd like to have a China: Total War someday (*cough*close-minded people*cough* -- Pffftghhh!!!), but Medieval is as good a choice as any.

Looking forward to it. Take your time, CA. I can wait for the best.

You guys are forgetting one huge ass thing - The AZTECS HAD NO STANDING ARMY

The Aztecs formed a triple alliance with Tlacopan (sp?) And Texcoco (?), And after conquering the tribes in central america they used their ritual human sacrifice to keep conquered tribes from rising up against them. That's the main reason the Spanish conquered them. They had no standing army, no military training, and no means of fighting other than what they happened to have lying around. Whenver they had to fight they drafted from the peaseants (This rarely happened because their conquered tribes were afraid of them).



How are the Aztecs supposed to fight with no stadding army?

Not only that, but they were so weak that when they migrated to Central America, They were defeated and driven back 3 times by the Toltecs, and they never once defeated the toltecs until they formed the triple alliance which gave them 3x the power and 3x the numbers.



Im just trying to enlighten all of you as to why CA might ahve made a bad decision.

[player1]

So big what?
Like Peasants and Town Watch from RTW are somehow satnding army.

Why should that take out fun of europian standing army crashing aztec natives, drafted or not?
They are not surely supposed to be playable anyway.

And you talk about tripled power in numbers.
I guess you don't talk about "economic" might, but the military one.

I'm glad that MTW2 is not just MTW reloaded.

[Favre]

They didnt draft, Their peasents fought when attacked, They had no army. Sure, Europeans can crash the natives, But Its going to be quite an easy fight.


When the Spanish got into the capital city of the Aztecs, they holed themseleves up into the temple. When escaping they left one of their men with a disease to spread through the Aztecs. Like 30 Spanish died on thier way out of the city.....And they had thousands of Aztecs swarming at them. Most of these Spanish that died during the escape were actually because they were so weighed down with gold that they had taken from the temple that when they were pushed into the series of water canals, they couldnt stay above the water.


Then when the Spanish came back with re-inforcements, (Only a couple hundred more men) The aztecs wouldnt give up their defences and the Spanish only lost a handful of men while staggering numbers of Aztec men died.



Jsut saying that either CA will protray the aztecs very badly, or it wont even be worth going to america to kill them.

[Justiciar]

I'd rather not get myself hyped up about it, or else I might find myself deeply depressed when I find it to be less than I'd hoped for.

[Papewaio]

I would have liked to see the engine being able to break the 10,000 men on the field mark after so long... more sprites would enable some of the bigger battles to be done, and it would make a bigger emphasis on why flanking was so important... with smaller armies it is rather easier to outflank... if the enemy is large enough they can anchor against cliffs and forests... this in turn means larger battles would require better tactics and explotations of gaps.

[Perplexed]

Whoever here says that they are dissappointed with the return to Medieval times probably never played MTW at all. This of course, makes me very sad, because MTW was without a doubt the best computerized strategy game ever made by human hand. I am consumed with joy at the prospect of a new MTW, in full 3D, and full of anxiety over the question "will CA mess it up?".

[Favre]

I am actually very very very excited, despite what my posts above make me sound like, I ordered MEdieveal: Total War 1 just because I couldnt get enough of RTW and BI, Even though the graphics are worse, I heard the campiagn's on MTW Were much more fun than RTW

[Perplexed]

I heard the campiagn's on MTW Were much more fun than RTW

You heard right, my man.

[Favre]

Well thats good to know, Im even more excited and more angry with Amazon for being so slow :P

[Viking]

Whoever here says that they are dissappointed with the return to Medieval times probably never played MTW at all. This of course, makes me very sad, because MTW was without a doubt the best computerized strategy game ever made by human hand. I am consumed with joy at the prospect of a new MTW, in full 3D, and full of anxiety over the question "will CA mess it up?".

I have played MTW; though after RTW. The Medieval era is not my favourite time period, and there was just another TW game about it. That`s why I`m dissapointed.

[Trajanus]

So long as they take parts from MTW, parts from RTW and add interesting new concepts and ideas that haven't been included before I'm happy to check it out.

I've played STW, MI, MTW, VI, RTW and BI I'm not gonna stop now.

[pdoan8]

For me, In all 3 TW, Medieval is the most interesting period. Shogun has great atmosphere but lacks a bit of variety. Rome has so much nice features but seems like one power nation vs all others (idea). So, I'm happy with M2TW.

As for CA, I think M2TW is a good move. MTW seems to have drawn the most gamers (most STW owners move on to MTW and many RTW owners go back in time for MTW). MTW is something that CA has done before and could have done it better if given the chance. With lesson learned from RTW (in many aspects), CA could make M2TW the best of the best.

[Butcher]

With lesson learned from RTW (in many aspects), CA could make M2TW the best of the best.

Could.

Here's hoping..

[The_B@fU$ ®]

What about ESPIONAGE!?
In RTW there was a absurd difrence between spy and assasin, spies had very little options, ando these two caracters could merge as one.
Is there any possibility that spies gain a bigger participation in states diplomasy, i meant as infiltrating as a opposit state's generals, priests?

PS. Sorry for my bad english im from Montenegro.