A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

[L'Impresario]

We've even ensured that each nation has the correct accent.

Heh, I'm sure this gives a whole new meaning to the word "correct".
Also did I get it right, infantry can impale themselves?

[Perplexed]

Also did I get it right, infantry can impale themselves?

AI infantry can, apparently.

[Oaty]

AI infantry can, apparently.

That statement was pure evil, but funny and true.

In Medieval II, the AI will not only remember previous dealings you've had with it but your dealings with other factions, too. It'll then base its stance towards you on all of those factors."

So finally if I shell money to a faction/nation, then suddenly share a border I won't immediately be greeted by a full stack army

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.

Like that's new news

[econ21]

What's more, once your medieval empire becomes overwhelmingly powerful, you'll quickly find your rivals rallying together to oppose your expanding kingdom, a feature which the team hopes will make the game challenging from beginning to end.

Like that's new news

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? I know other games have that "clubbing together against the pack leader" but I have not noticed it in RTW. (Can't recall about MTW and STW).

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

[Peasant Phill]

In MTW factions will not ally with you so easily (or not at all) if you're to big. In that case it's also more possible that all your neighbors suddenly start to attack together (think HRE).

I find it strange that CA depicts almost every thing that was included in a TW game but not in RTW as a new feature. It's as if they distance themselves from STW and MTW or that they ignore the older fanbase. Either way I find it a really strange and even (in case of option 2) an insulting move.

[screwtype]

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? I know other games have that "clubbing together against the pack leader" but I have not noticed it in RTW. (Can't recall about MTW and STW).

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

Actually, I think it is realistic - if you look at the history of Europe, so much of it had to do with maintaining the balance of power. In fact, that was virtually the official foreign policy of Britain for centuries.

I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.

[econ21]

Actually, I think it is realistic - if you look at the history of Europe, so much of it had to do with maintaining the balance of power. In fact, that was virtually the official foreign policy of Britain for centuries.

I think this is a gameplay vs realism thing. Ganging up on the leader may make for a more competitive game (because you are playing to the same objectives and now are one player against N others colluding). But it can't be a realistic as a rule because it assumes each AI faction has the goal is to stop other factions "winning the game" (or becoming too powerful). In reality, of course, countries have their own interests and these may or may not coincide with another power being dominant. For example, much of the world is currently content with a Pax Americana while others don't see it as in their interest.

I think it's a much needed game mechanic and I'm pleased to hear they've implemented it in M2TW. You really do need the challenge to increase as you gain more territory. However, I'm not sure if this technique alone will be enough to make the mid game challenging, but it should at least help.

Again, a realism vs playability thing. Personally, I'd find it more interesting to be able to cultivate a dependable ally, browbeat a weak faction or cut a nefarious deal (Molotov-Ribbentrop style) with the enemy of my enemy. Having the AI suddenly collectively turn pyscho on me if I get too big just breaks the immersion. But then I've always preferred turtling and going for limited GA goals to the exhausting (and ahistorical) goal of conquering the entire map (or 50 provinces etc).

I agree it is important to maintain the mid-game challenge. But perhaps this is better done by programming the game so that AI factions can rise in power and reach - just as the human does. The best TW game I ever played was when I stepped into a mid-game Almohad PBM, with half the map orange and the other half purple. The conflict with a powerful Byzantine was epic, especially when added to loyalty problems and re-emergent factions including the terminator style "I'll be back" Papacy

[screwtype]

Ganging up on the leader may make for a more competitive game (because you are playing to the same objectives and now are one player against N others colluding). But it can't be a realistic as a rule because it assumes each AI faction has the goal is to stop other factions "winning the game" (or becoming too powerful). In reality, of course, countries have their own interests and these may or may not coincide with another power being dominant. For example, much of the world is currently content with a Pax Americana while others don't see it as in their interest.

I disagree. I think ganging up is a realistic mechanic, as I already stated. And it's certainly as realistic as the alternative. There are many examples in history where a bunch of powers got together to stop one power from growing too powerful. Heck, just look at the history of classical Greece - it's an object lesson in the strategy. The reason a Greek city-state never came to dominate the world like Rome was because Greece was a constantly changing flux of different alliances ensuring that one city could never come to dominate. Look, for example, at what happened to Athens when it tried to create an Athenian Empire.

The history of Europe is much the same, and although I'm less familiar with other parts of the world I'm sure you'd find similar patterns over and over.

The fact that some powers come to dominate the world in any case is not proof that most countries like it this way - Empires usually come about for the simple reason that the other powers are not able to stop one great power from growing stronger.

Again, a realism vs playability thing. Personally, I'd find it more interesting to be able to cultivate a dependable ally, browbeat a weak faction or cut a nefarious deal (Molotov-Ribbentrop style) with the enemy of my enemy. Having the AI suddenly collectively turn pyscho on me if I get too big just breaks the immersion. But then I've always preferred turtling and going for limited GA goals to the exhausting (and ahistorical) goal of conquering the entire map (or 50 provinces etc).

I take your point regarding a GA game, but let's face it, it doesn't look like M2TW is going to have a GA campaign. And since it's going to be primarily about conquest, a "ganging up" mechanic is important to maintaining balance and challenge in my opinion.

I agree it is important to maintain the mid-game challenge. But perhaps this is better done by programming the game so that AI factions can rise in power and reach - just as the human does. The best TW game I ever played was when I stepped into a mid-game Almohad PBM, with half the map orange and the other half purple. The conflict with a powerful Byzantine was epic, especially when added to loyalty problems and re-emergent factions including the terminator style "I'll be back" Papacy

I'd be very much against the idea of the AI being scripted to allow one power to rise above the rest along with the human player. I'd much rather have random effects from game to game, it would be pretty boring to know that one power or another is always going to be rising in power in tandem with you. It would also make it easy to focus your attentions on that one power in order to beat it.

Arguably though there could be some concessions made to diplomacy. So for example, if you had cultivated good relations with a power, its trigger for declaring war on you might be higher than for factions with whom you had a neutral or bad relationship.

It's admittedly a complicated issue, but for me the fundamental issue is gameplay and I'm more than willing to sacrifice some diplomatic nuances in order to ensure the game remains a real challenge right to the end.

[Oaty]

Not sure what you mean about it not being new news. But it is new to TW at least, isn't it? .

Well I'd say it's not new but tweaked IMO The A.I. would eventually prefer to gang up on the human in all series and once you shared a border with them war was inevitable

[Fwapper]

............ "clubbing together against the pack leader"...........

I actually don't like that kind of mechanic. It's not realistic: for example, it's not like all the world is going "Oooh, America is getting too powerful, let's all gang up on her." Moreover, it rather debases the diplomacy and means that if you are going to win it has got to be by total war. Yes, I know we could hardly sue CA under trade descriptions but still, I'd like to see more scope for diplomacy. Civ4 does it much better, with it being possible - but not easy - to charm your way to the top.

This is definately realistic... OK so I can't think of a medieval example BUT, in the years before WWI, the european nations gradually separated into two clearly defined alliance groups with agreements that said "If you go to war against so and so, we will also go to war with them." I'd like to see this kind of agreement possible. Also, one set of alliances were made to defend against powerful, arrogent Germany, while the other set were made to gain Germany's protection and help. This was basically just clubbing into two clear groups which go to war all togeather.

For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z

A war between B and Z alone would be impossible. If B did declare war on Z, then A and C should join in the war, as should X and Y. Get what I mean? No didn't think so...

[econ21]

For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z

I am all for entangling alliances, but I think the "gang up on the leader" mechanic will make them short term at best. As I understand it, once player faction A outstrips the rest of the AI factions, they will form a de facto alliance against you - regardless of the relationships you've tried to build up over the years.

[Furious Mental]

Well I think it is reasonable that if one's faction becomes so large it threatens its neighbours, it's reasonable for them to form an alliance against one. That is indeed often what happened historically. However one should also be able to force other states into lop sided alliances due to one's power.

[Fwapper]

For example, one alliance group is made up of A, B and C, the other is X, Y and Z

I am all for entangling alliances, but I think the "gang up on the leader" mechanic will make them short term at best. As I understand it, once player faction A outstrips the rest of the AI factions, they will form a de facto alliance against you - regardless of the relationships you've tried to build up over the years.

The A,B,C vs X,Y,Z example I was thinking of was basically clubbing up on the leader. As it happened in history: Britain, France & Russia ganged up on Germany as it became too powerful - it upset the balance of power - Germany (in defence) Made alliances with Austria and Italy. These alliances were solid ones which were not easily broken, unlike those in RTW. ...OK so italy did swap sides when her alliance group started losing, but most alliances worked. :P

[CBR]

But the graphics are better than ever so no worries.


CBR

[L'Impresario]

Tsk tsk tsk, such bitterness, shame...

During the course of the next 20 minutes, I sit through three battles, each one more brutal and cinematic than the last.

Now, now, I hope the "sit through" has a similar meaning to "correct accents" :)