An appeal and an apology to CA. (And several suggestions.)

[Lord Adherbal]

If the battles play as fast as RTW, then I'm hoping that I can slow it down again just as easily. Instant routing could be adjusted in RTW as well by minor text editing, so if it's still present in M2TW, it should be easy to address it for personal preference.

not
in
multiplayer


but if they want the kind of MP community that forces them to shut down the public chat to stop the abuse, then they should stick to the RTW gameplay.

[sunsmountain]

When I viewed the before mentioned screenshots, I discovered that England's victory conditions were: "Control 14 regions including London, Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, and outlive France.

London, Jerusalem, ok. But the other 2? Rome perhaps when angry at the Pope and wanting to control/dispatch of him (for which they used assassins if at all). But Constantinople? Crazy CA, but remember, this is a pre-alpha screenshot! Sure they will change these goals, I'm glad they have decided to implement glory goals at all!!

[Zatoichi]

not
in
multiplayer

Ah, yes. Quite right. I've never played any TW games online, so this has never been an issue for me.

Is there any way to play other like-minded players who have also set their speeds slower? Or is that impractical? Like I say, I've never tried multiplayer, so I wouldn't have a clue.

[Lord Adherbal]

it's possible - and it's been tried. But there is no way to convince a large enough amount of people to use a specific mod, because no one ever agrees on what's the "perfect balance". If the vanilla gameplay isn't right, MP is doomed. Some brave souls keep playing, using artificial rules such as "no elephants/berserkers/egypt/HAs/..." but I rather sacrifise the better gfx of RTW for the much better gameplay of MTW MP (not that RTW looks so much better from a high camera angle, certainly not easier to recognise the units).

[Ludens]

I think all suggestions have merrit, but I voted A.I., diplomacy and battle speed. These are my priorities; the first two because they cannot be modded and the third because it is something I really disliked about R:TW. The others would be nice too, but I can do without them. They seem to be suggested with a slow strategic game in mind, and I think the designers are actually trying to speed it up. Also, since I probably will be downloading a realism mod shortly after installing M2:TW, they aren't really important to me.

[Puzz3D]

if they want the kind of MP community that forces them to shut down the public chat to stop the abuse, then they should stick to the RTW gameplay.

I hope MTW/VI multiplayer doesn't get shutdown because a lot of effort is going into NTW, DUX and STW mods for multiplayer. The gameplay you can get in MTW/VI with mods is not achievable in RTW/BI.

[Lord Adherbal]

I hope MTW/VI multiplayer doesn't get shutdown because a lot of effort is going into NTW, DUX and STW mods for multiplayer. The gameplay you can get in MTW/VI with mods is not achievable in RTW/BI.

let's hope Activision's financial department doesn't notice the "Gamespy MTW lobby hosting" line on their bill

[Puzz3D]

let's hope Activision's financial department doesn't notice the "Gamespy MTW lobby hosting" line on their bill

Right now Activision is still selling MTW and VI in the USA, but soon MTW Gold will replace them, and Sega publishes that.

[Ness]

I didn't know is Multiple Choice Poll

edit:I only vote for better AI

[The_678]

I agree with most of the points, but my biggest gripe to me is the victory conditions. This is new news to me and once again I am dissapointed with CA for this. One of the reasons MTW was so good was that it was totally free-form, with you being able to anything you wanted to win. Conquer 60% of the world. With that you could play the game differently every time. But with Victory conditions you are forced to go in the same or a similar direction every time. Using the English as an example, what if I just wanted to conquer Europe? With this conditons you will be forced to attack Rome and Constantiople which I may not want to do. They are taking away the freedom of the game. The more I hear of the game, the more I wish I hadn't lost Disc 1 of MTW and could just play that and have no worries about restrictions or inferior AI.

[econ21]

One of the reasons MTW was so good was that it was totally free-form, with you being able to anything you wanted to win. Conquer 60% of the world. With that you could play the game differently every time. But with Victory conditions you are forced to go in the same or a similar direction every time.

Alternate victory conditions would be nice - so either "conquer the world/60% etc" or some glory goals. Then that would please people like you who want the freeform game and people like me who find "conquer 60%/50 provinces etc" a bit of a yawn. I loved the MTW glorious achievements - especially the crusades and some of the more idiosyncratic ones (the Krak de Chevalier).

I guess the Council of Nobles missions might give some of the character of GAs - just as the Senate missions did in RTW. I rather like some direction to the game and really liked the Senate missions. They were usually appropriate and the carrots/sticks were just the right magnitude (=> so the missions were optional but nice to pull off).

Generally speaking, customing victory conditions to the faction as BI did makes a lot of sense. EB also does this very well.

[NodachiSam]

I though you could only pick one option so I picked better diplomacy. I guess that explains the priority as I see it :P

[Grifman]

Using the English as an example, what if I just wanted to conquer Europe? With this conditons you will be forced to attack Rome and Constantiople which I may not want to do.

Did they move Rome and Constantinople without telling me? I thought they were in Europe. Damn CA! :)