Guess I'm not getting this game...

[Gtafanboy]

I just read that the campaign map would be like romes. I was really looking forward to MTW risk style, and they go ruin it with Romes crappy system. I really wanted this game, now I just can't get it, because that MTW campaign map is SO much better then the Rome one. I hope that they decide to go back.

[lars573]

They won't ever. S/MTW risk style map was so limiting it's not funny. The 3D world map of RTW is light years better than the risk map. It would be a collosal step backwards and the wrong move to go back to the risk style map.

[Gtafanboy]

In some peoples opinions. Others will love it(I will...)

[Ragnor_Lodbrok]

I've only played RTW, what is the difference between these systems?

[Gtafanboy]

MTWs and STWs map is like risk, you pick up your armies and move them into provinces which you then can take over, or if you own it move. You obviously know Romes system, so I won't explain that. I don't really know why I like MTWs better, I just do. That's why I like MTW better I guess

[lars573]

In some peoples opinions. Others will love it(I will...)

In anyone who wants a better games opinion.

I've only played RTW, what is the difference between these systems?

The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

[Gtafanboy]

In anyone who wants a better games opinion.


The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

Maybe I like the Commodore better :) , but seriously, I just like MTW better in every way except graphics. And even then I think they are still good.

[Ragnor_Lodbrok]

The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

Well, I prefer the new Rome map. :D

[Dutch_guy]

I understand perfectly well why Gtafanboy would want to have a risk style map, I myself fell in love with it the moment I played it - and I played Rome before I played Medieval.
It was easier for the AI to make choices, therefor it was able to produce a challenge, which is what makes Medieval, especially on the harder settings, a challenging game to play.
Yes, there is much room for improvement and a step to improve the map has been made with Rome.

Rome's map was 3D and was a ''living'' map, whereas Medieval had a static world map. Rome's map is prettier but harder for the AI, Medieval's map is not so pretty compared to Rome's but it is way easier for the AI to use.

I for one do not think we should go back to the Medieval /Shogun type of map, I deem it best that CA should perfect this type of world map... and yes there is a lot to be done in that area and I hope they start doing this right now, with M2TW.

So what can we hope for... In my opinion what we need is a 3D living map ( Rome) divided in to invisible for - lack of a better word - barriers which gives the AI limited choices as in Medieval. So as to not render it useless on the Campaign map.

[sapi]

They won't ever. S/MTW risk style map was so limiting it's not funny. The 3D world map of RTW is light years better than the risk map. It would be a collosal step backwards and the wrong move to go back to the risk style map.

Need i say any more?

He's got it in one...

[Trithemius]

The RTW map, despite the odd pesky quirk, was a major improvement. In MTW you could "express ship" your armies from Britain to the Levant if you were so inclined (and maintained the integrity of your fleet-chains). The RTW system allows for operational movements - now a battle between the same forces can come out vastly different depending on the terrain on which it is fought. This makes it more varied, and more interesting.

One thing I would like to see is an expansion of the settlement "site radius" based on the level of 'government building' - on the assumption that higher levels of governance grant more honest and reliable reporting from more extensive networks of vassals and court officers. That, or they could make the watch towers (or "keeps" in MTW2 I suppose?) less hideously goofy looking than n RTW? :P

[screwtype]

The RTW map, despite the odd pesky quirk, was a major improvement. In MTW you could "express ship" your armies from Britain to the Levant if you were so inclined (and maintained the integrity of your fleet-chains).

What was wrong with that? Didn't bother me, it seemed perfectly logical.

The RTW system allows for operational movements - now a battle between the same forces can come out vastly different depending on the terrain on which it is fought. This makes it more varied, and more interesting.

In theory yes, in practice it didn't work very well, because the battlemaps are not very interesting anyway.

It might also work better if the defender were allowed a little leeway in where on the strategic map he chose to set up a defence. But that might require a lot of work for the AI. I suppose you could have hexes that were rated on their conduciveness to defence, so that AI armies could shift to an adjacent hex if it had a better defence rating...

One thing I would like to see is an expansion of the settlement "site radius" based on the level of 'government building' - on the assumption that higher levels of governance grant more honest and reliable reporting from more extensive networks of vassals and court officers. That, or they could make the watch towers (or "keeps" in MTW2 I suppose?) less hideously goofy looking than n RTW? :P

Yeah, that sounds sensible. But you'd still want watchtowers for less developed provinces.

[Trithemius]

What was wrong with that? Didn't bother me, it seemed perfectly logical.

It defies logic to imply that ti takes the same time increment to travel by land from Ille de France to Normandy as it takes to sail from Portsmouth to Antioch. :)

In theory yes, in practice it didn't work very well, because the battlemaps are not very interesting anyway.

I've had some good battles actually, perhaps I need to rely on the terrain more than some master commanders - but I always take terrain into account when planning my campaigns in RTW.

It might also work better if the defender were allowed a little leeway in where on the strategic map he chose to set up a defence. But that might require a lot of work for the AI. I suppose you could have hexes that were rated on their conduciveness to defence, so that AI armies could shift to an adjacent hex if it had a better defence rating...

That'd be quite interesting, although processor intensive I think.

Yeah, that sounds sensible. But you'd still want watchtowers for less developed provinces.

So long as they don't look like arse I won't complain too much. ;)

[screwtype]

It defies logic to imply that ti takes the same time increment to travel by land from Ille de France to Normandy as it takes to sail from Portsmouth to Antioch. :)

True, but in my opinion that is more a function of the unrealistically slow movement of the land unit rather than the excessive speed of the ship.

I've had some good battles actually, perhaps I need to rely on the terrain more than some master commanders - but I always take terrain into account when planning my campaigns in RTW.

Personally, I was usually just happy if my army could reach the enemy army. I usually only took account of the terrain if it was a steep mountainside and the troop match up was not in my favour.

That'd be quite interesting, although processor intensive I think.

Actually, you could just have some simple algorithms for it. Hexes could be rated for their defensive bonus for different types of armies. So you might have a defence rating for a horse army, a ranged unit army, an infantry army etc.

Then you'd have another simple algorithm to determine which army category the AI army fitted into, and the army would then move to the appropriate nearby hex based on its suitability for defence with an army of that type.

So long as they don't look like arse I won't complain too much. ;)

Personally, I thought the whole campaign map looked like a dog's breakfast (apart from the fact that it appeared to be processor intensive). Too dark for a start. Hopefully the new campaign map will be a bit more attractive this time around.

[Andy Shadows]

So rome style map is enough for somebody to skip the game? I quess is that many of this complaining suddenly dissappears when the game comes out. ;)

[tempName]

ca knows that most of us are going to get the game no matter what they do. hopefully they put an honest effort into so its not a lunchbag let down.

[fallen851]

ca knows that most of us are going to get the game no matter what they do.

If MTW2 is a letdown, this is exactly the reason why. I'm really afriad this sequel is going to be like, well Myth 3: The Wolf Age, exploiting the name of a good series for profit by producing a junk game.