A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

[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.

[econ21]

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 wasn't saying scripted, I was saying make the ebb and flow of AI factions dynamic so that some factions could rise to prominence at a similar rate to the human. This is primarily a matter of tweaking the strategic AI so that it is aggressive enough. IIRC, Shogun had this - perhaps overly so (Hojo horde). In MTW, it was less marked but could still happen. Vanilla RTW out of the box was rather static, by contrast - the hallmark of a broken strategic AI (save and reload bug? poor naval AI?). But my impression is that the patches to RTW have made the AI situation more fluid ie the strategic map alters more over time regardless of what the human does. I still think more tweaks could be made here - even in war, large AI armies do sometimes seem to mill around with little purpose though and AI vs AI wars are often desultory affairs compared to human conquests. The Risk style map led to more cut throat strategic AI.

On the realism of ganging up, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Quite often in history it seems that when faced with a rising power, countries decided if you can't beat em, join em. Organising a collective response is often very difficult and is one reason why large single powers can dominate areas that collectively could rival or bring them down.

...once you shared a border with them war was inevitable

You're probably right but that was one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of TW, IMO. It made the game too much a matter of unremitting war and led to very strange suicidal AI behaviour. I just went back to Civ4 recently and while the AI would invariably attack you opportunistically if you were weak, the behaviour of the AI factions was so much richer and more interesting than that in TW.

[screwtype]

Quite often in history it seems that when faced with a rising power, countries decided if you can't beat em, join em.

Well, exactly. If you can't beat 'em. Thankyou for making my point

Apart from that, I think there's an argument for a GA campaign where ganging up would not apply. I also think it would perhaps be nice to have some extra options, like "always war" or "always peace". There's really no reason why a range of different gamers' preferences couldn't be catered for in a game like this.

But the bottom line for me will always be - give me a challenge, please!

[R'as al Ghul]

Apart from the flaws of the preview there're some nice features included.
I look forward to some.

Avid Total War fans will be happy to know that the assassination animations - brief cut-scenes, which chart the success or failure of a professional hit - are back after their disappearance in Medieval and Rome. "We have loads of these, so it's unlikely you'll ever see the same one twice," Roxburgh says. "There are different movies for all of the different targets you can kill, for successes, failures and even ones for when the target manages to escape," adds Mark Sutherns.

The following is really nice, a lot of my empires had a very important capital.
If the AI will try to destroy them, it could be a real challenge.

"We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more. Your enemies may stick a large army on a fleet and come and attack you at your main city. That's why all of the city fortifications you've built up for your main cities will become far more important this time around,"

Dead bodies now stack up in horrific mounds

There'll be loads of new features in these battles that you'll have to take into account, like impassable terrain. The AI will look at that and think of how it can use it to its advantage,"

New feature? Let's just hope the AI is up to it.
Would be nice to have the dead bodies as impassable terrain.

[Lucjan]

Well, exactly. If you can't beat 'em. Thankyou for making my point

Apart from that, I think there's an argument for a GA campaign where ganging up would not apply. I also think it would perhaps be nice to have some extra options, like "always war" or "always peace". There's really no reason why a range of different gamers' preferences couldn't be catered for in a game like this.

But the bottom line for me will always be - give me a challenge, please!

Sounds to me like you're asking for a list of custom campaign options, similar to civ IV.

[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