New MTW2 Q & A at Gamespot

[Dutch_guy]

It does seem new, though the interview doesn't reveal to much new information, by glancing the article this is what caught my interest :

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

GS: Naval combat was abstracted very heavily in Medieval and Rome, to the point where the computer automatically generated battle results whenever hostile fleets clashed. Will we see that same level of abstraction in Medieval 2, or will naval combat be fleshed out a bit more?

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.

Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map.

GS: Will the multiplayer gameplay in Medieval 2 still be restricted to being able to battle other players? We know that one of the impediments to creating a fully multiplayer campaign game is that, by Creative Assembly's calculations, it would take years to play an epic game from start to finish online.

BS: A full multiplayer campaign is certainly an idea we've discussed, but the time it would take to play out a full game to completion would seriously affect the number of players who could commit themselves to such a game mode. With this in mind, it makes far more sense for us to spend our time developing features that'll be enjoyed by a larger numbers of players. Having said that, we do have some exciting plans for multiplayer battles. We can talk about these in more detail in the months ahead.

Also, yes there are new screenies, interesting ones worth clicking the link.

[Puzz3D]

"The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns."

That means the campaign is about half the length of a campaign in RTW or MTW.


"Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map."

Well I hope the AI stops making frontal assualts it can't win with weak units as it does in RTW. BTW, the AI didn't do that in STW.

[Templar Knight]

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

[Zenicetus]

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources. I'd prefer they throw all their QA and balance testing into making sure the one long campaign is both realistic and fun to play, instead of having their efforts divided up into different historical periods.

[Martok]

Servius: I also wholeheartedly agree with everything you said; couldn't have put it better myself.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources.

Except that CA did have the resources to do this with MTW, so why can't they do it with Medieval 2 as well? And only having one long campaign would be ludicrous. Shogun and MTW both have different start periods/eras, so there's no reason why Medieval 2 shouldn't also have them.

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short. Yes, I can beat MTW in 200 turns if I wish; but it's not very fun for me, as I have to "rush" instead of "turtle" (which is my preferred style of playing). I have standard RTS's like Command & Conquer if I want to rush an enemy; I don't want to be forced into doing the same thing in an empire-building game like the TW series.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Psst!

Maybe modding can add more start dates if CA doesn't want to!

[Servius]

Well, in the end, if CA goes in a bad direction, the only way to encourage them to do otherwise is to put our money where our mouths are and not buy the game. CA will do whatever is most cost-effective. Given the differences between MTW and RTW, it seems pretty clear they believed that it was more cost-effective to shirk on game design in favor of a snazy graphics engine.

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I bought RTW sight-unseen because I was so impressed with STW and MTW. I was so disappointed with RTW that I didn't buy the expansion right away. I waited and I read a lot of player reviews and played the demo. The demo had all the same crappy terrain and unit AI as RTW, the corporate hype focused mostly on graphics and not on gameplay/AI improvements, and I didn't read that many player posts talking about how much better the AI was, so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

[screwtype]

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short.

Well, I don't know, to tell the truth, of the few RTW campaigns I played before I gave the game up as a pushover, I didn't play one that was more than 50 turns long because by that stage I was always so far ahead of the other powers it didn't matter. In fact, I usually became the biggest faction by about turn 20-24 as I recall.

So if they make the AI four times better, I guess it will take me four times as long or about 200 turns to get that same decisive break where I know there's no point continuing

[USMCNJ]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

[aw89]

I really hope they make that modable.(..)

[Garvanko]

Never played MTW. But this game looks interesting.

[Brighdaasa]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

may i point out that your math is seriously flawed? The outcome strangely is still the same
1530-1080 = 450

450/225 = 2

[Servius]

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

I'd really like to hear CA rave about how badass their AI is going to be this time around. I want them to promise the AI will never field an army without a general leading it again. Since they're using the RTW map, in which provincial borders basically mean nothing, I want them to promise that rebel bands won't wander aimlessly around the map. I want them to promise the AI will look after it's own economy wisely, so it doesn't bankrupt itself with a stack of Royal Knights like the Danes and Aragonese always seemed to in MTW.

I'm also a bit concerned about this castle-OR-city idea. It's completely innacurate from a historical perspective. I believe the gameplay choice they're trying to force (economy or military, but not both, at least not in the same "settlement", whatever that is) could be forced in another way. Time could be the limiting factor instead of the use of a settlement. Time was the limiting factor in STW, MTW, and RTW, in that you could only build one type of structure at a time, and all the time you spent building farm upgrades was time you didn't spend building military structures. I never saw a real problem with that way of forcing a balance between economics and military, so I'm not sure why we need this new system. I'm gonna be quite peeved if Constantinople can't be an economic AND military colossus. If it truely was both about a thousand years ago, it's kinda pathetic if we can't/won't recreate that in a game a thousand years later...

In general, I say graphics be damned. I have an imagination and I can compensate for less-than-stellar graphics, but I can't imagine my way past a crappy AI or dumb game mechanics.

[JR-]

i'm not keen on this 225 turns business.

if its 450 years i'd like 900 turns split between summer and winter.

[Hurin_Rules]

I agree completely with you Servius. They're focusing on their strengths and ignoring their weaknesses. The graphics for RTW were great, and were clearly not the main problem with the game. For me, the main weakness was gameplay, specifically a weak AI and battles that were too fast. This was why I played MTW for over a year, but RTW only off and on for about 4 months.

It seems that this article confirms that their priorities are directed not towards their base of loyal fans, but towards catching the eyes and pocketbooks of RTS and casual gamers. Disappointing. Well, thank God for modding.

[Powermonger]

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

Sadly the trend these days is for all developers to concentrate too much on the visuals and sacrifice the gameplay. I don't play as many games as I use to anymore, there just doesn't seem the same calibre of games to choose from. All this push to make everything 3D just doesn't make sense and seems to be in detriment to gameplay.

I was in EB the other day and was looking at all the titles and noticed Railroad Tycoon 3 sitting on the shelf. I picked it up and had a look and was severely dissappointed that the devs had gone full out 3D when the style of game doesn't even need it. The current situation in PC games reminds me of the early 90s when CDs were just starting to be used to distribute games and there was a big push by the developers to use as much FMV as possible. It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Anyway, MTW2 does look visually impressive but it all comes to naught if the rest of game falls far short. They need to make all the other aspects of the game just as polished if they don't want to release a dog.

[ivoignob]

It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

[screwtype]

Full motion video.

[BelgradeWar]

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

Full Motion Video.

[player1]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

The point is to have different seasons in the game, but also not to bog down game with too many turns like in RTW, when pretty much all game finish in 100 to 150 turns.

It would just suck to plan game for 900 turns, and never pass 1200AD, because you already conquered the world. It would make pointless most of addons in the game, like gunpowder or america discovery.


P.S.
I pretty much wanted to make mod like this for RTW, so that acutually there is a pressure to get to August empire before his at time. Or to make it gameplay balanced to have Marian refors around 110BC.

[screwtype]

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

[Dutch_guy]

You know I really was hoping for the return to the one year a turn idea.

I liked how that made it possible to play ( talking about Medieval here ) from early to late and enjoy every bit of it.
The season system in Medieval wasn't a s good as Rome's - with a clear turn based season variation - but it still had it.

As others have said in this thread, in Rome it was labouring to play more than ...say 200 turns. Normally you'd have won the game by then.
That really was a shame considering you had about the same amount of turns left to play.

I therefor hope they make each and every turn , all 225 of them, worth playing.
I hope they manage to find the balance between dragging the game on to far and finishing it to fast, the middle way would obviously be best.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.
In Rome I missed the importance of the weather it played no role at all, archer armies could still decimate barbarians in the rain, even fire fire-arrows in the rain, certainly that would have been hard to say the least.

It would be a very good thing if in the next total war game CA would be able to make weather more important than it was in Rome, and even in MEdieval, because I think CA have - for lack of a better word - the power to do so.

[screwtype]

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

[Dutch_guy]

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

I've never played Shogun, though I have heard of it's excellent weather features.

I agree Screwtype I hope it plays a more important role in M2TW too.

[econ21]

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

I see your point, but I did notice movement on the campaign map was more limited in snow. That could have a real effect when you were stretched - e.g. trying to respond to multiple threats[1].

BTW: I think fatigue may have had big impacts in RTW battles. I suspect that is one reason battles with the AI often seemed unchallenging - they were tired or exhausted by the time they reached your lines. As a result, they routed easily.

[1]Edit: after posting this, I started to doubt myself. I may be rather confused with the EB mod, where the seasons have a major effect on campaign mobility and you are encouraged to hunker down for the winter (through traits and other scripting).

[Voigtkampf]

First of all, I would like to ask all the participants of the MTW2 threads to restrain from mindlessly bashing CA or Rome or the oncoming MTW2.

That said, I speak in whole honesty, while I will not tolerate any rude approach to those mentioned above, I will by no means support the policy of mindless worship either.

I have loved Shogun and I have adored Medieval. Rome? I thought it would be on top of them all, and it was...but only graphic-wise. Gameplay went to hell, IMDHO of course, in comparison to MTW or STW.

Now, I remember the time preceding Rome and our lively debates here at the Org; I have gone estranged with one of my best virtual friends here at the Org when he became more and more aggressive towards CA and Rome for reasons of, some of you might remember, historical accuracy of the game. One part of the Org, including myself, was prepared to put gameplay ahead of historic accuracy; the other part was not willing to recognize any quality in Rome whatsoever until the game was completely accurate in terms of historic facts regarding nearly everything. Things got quite serious for a while, but at the end we were equally disappointed, since Rome was neither equal in gameplay to Medieval nor was it as historically accurate as the people now behind EB project wanted it to be…

The point is, I have defended Rome, and gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I will not extend the same courtesy to MTW2. I have written a large announcement about it in the computer magazine I write for, not saying one bad word about it. My expectations are, however, far from positive. Why? Well, you know the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Exactly.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

First of all, the epic battles of Medieval will not reappear, since we will have the real-time map of Rome instead of province map of Medieval. That will bind to it a large number of features that were inherent in Rome, and not in Medieval (hence, once again, a legitimate inquiry whether this is Medieval 2 or, actually, Rome 2), altering the gameplay to the worse TW experience possible instead of pointing it to MTW. We might easily have dozens of rebel hunting battles instead of those epic encounters with thousands of soldiers with several forces converging at one point in a province. MTW is unrealistic? Yes. More fun? Yes, yes, yes!

The programmers obviously once again concentrate on graphics; thousands of unique looking soldiers, attack and defense moves… Oh, yes, and AI will be improved. No, again no naval combat (too hard to make), but as someone pointed out, this argument loses at its credibility after hearing it for…what, eight years straight now? Instead, naval battles will be “tweaked”… Oh, dear…

So, all in all, I have a bad feeling about this, and it is legitimate to speak out that way. It is true, you cannot judge the book before its been written completely, but knowing the writer, his previous work and what the latest book is about, I’d say you have a fairly good chance of hitting the spot damn close.

[Martok]

You're eloquent as usual, Voigtkampf. I can't really find a single thing I disagree with there.

I want Medieval 2 to be a good game; I want it to kick *** and blow me away. But given the direction the TW series has taken with Rome (and so far what we've seen of Medieval 2 has done little to alleviate my fears), I find it difficult to be optimistic. To quote my esteemed colleague here:

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me

Couldn't have said it better.

[Dead Moroz]

Voigtkampf, your post is almost exactly my thoughts. That's what I would like to say but could not because of lack of eloquence and bad knowledge of English.

But one thing I disagree.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

I'm designer and know that nice cover is at least 50% of product's selling. But I'm sure that buttress on cool cover only is wrong marketing policy for company which wants to stay on top of certain business for long time. You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products. But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later. There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series.

[player1]

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

More production time?
Maybe for MTW3?

[BelgradeWar]

Maybe the game will have it's flaws, but I fell in love with graphics instantly...