A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

[screwtype]

3 battles, including one siege, all with lots of men, over in 20 minutes? Sigh.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I read that.

[Incongruous]

fatality moves

Mortal Combat Deadly Strategy!
The great warriors Byzantium and France joined forces to purchase the ultimate warriors, Scorpio Swordsmen! Get over Here!

[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.

[screwtype]

Does anyone with any historical knowledge know how these things actually worked? From my uninformed perspective I imagined that if a force of infantry had no other option than to move through an area guarded by these spikes, then rather than just charge through as normal they'd instead move really slowly suffering only a few losses but arriving at the otherside piecemeal and voulnerable to attack. I suppose this would depend on the density of the spikes, but I just can't see a armoured person willingly charging a wooden spike with enough momentum to pierce his armour.

English bowmen didn't use spikes to stop infantry, they used spikes to stop cavalry. Wooden spikes should have next to no effect on infantry, so I don't know what this reviewer is talking about when he says the French inf. show "tactical naivete" to march up to the spikes.

[professorspatula]

Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups when I need my general riding his 480BHP Mustang steed to blitz the enemy pikemen who's close range light sabers usually just kill him outright. Come on CA, sort yourself out. We're waiting for the TW revolution to begin!

[screwtype]

Yes. You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

And power-ups. Don't forget the power-ups!

[screwtype]

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups

Aw, ya beat me to it, professor!

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: The linked article.

Yep. I'm going to have to buy a new video card.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Get over Here!

Then FINISH HIM!!! a scorpio soldier impales a soldier's head with a rope with a blade. (forgot the word)

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. And quad-damage powerups when I need my general riding his 480BHP Mustang steed to blitz the enemy pikemen who's close range light sabers usually just kill him outright.

[manbaps]

When I read that I interpreted it in three different ways at the same time.
1 - I thought instantaneously to the wooden stake scene in Braveheart, where the infantry waited until the very last second to drop down and lift the stakes into the air, effectively implailing the entire english cavalry charge and destroying the greatest asset they had on the field that day. I could see the archers waiting until the last second to impale some charging infantry with hidden stakes like that, then charging or firing on the demoralized and scared crapless infantry that just suddenly got a mouthful of spears that hadn't previously existed only a second or so ago.
2 - I thought of the possibility of a really dense hedge of large spikes pre-placed into the ground. The infantry try to move too quickly through the hedge and their comrades in the rear accidentally push the front ranks into spikes as they try to shove their way through.
3 - The infantry try to quickly move through the spikes and the archers unload on them as they do, the kebab part coming from infantry being impaled while wading through the spikes by arrows or infantry who see this happening trying to route and falling over the obstacles, impaling themselves on them in the process.


I would love for nothing more than to hope that the infantry didn't just blatantly charge a wall of spikes it could clearly see.

I can just see these spikes making suicidal generals even more suicidal. Ais thinking: "Theres some spikes... need to through... lets try using my most powerful unit! Its bound to work! The fact i could flank it is irrelevant front on charges all the way!"

[The Spartan (Returns)]

if CA can put spikes again. thay should also use flamable pitch. (to burn people)

[r johnson]

[/QUOTE]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."[/QUOTE]

Well it seems more realistic as a whole

[IrishArmenian]

Let's try not to consult the movie "BraveHeart" for military history and tactics. It is just not the wisest thing to do.

[4th Dimension]

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."

Well something similar featured in RTW. When you broke an alliance by attacking your ally, after that you realy had a hard time allying with anyone.
So it's not realy entirely new function.

[B-Wing]

Mortal Combat Deadly Strategy! . . . Scorpio Swordsmen! Get over Here!

You'll have health packs strewn around the battlefield to replenish your hitpoints.

And quad-damage powerups

You guys are great.

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the spike part: anyone remembering a, well sort of, spikes the CIA handed to their Cuban friends to litter the roads with and effectively end all forms of transport by road? I mean those are nearly the same as the spikes the Medieval Archers used (the CIA ones were to be assembled from 2 pieces) and they do hurt infantry. Not all infantry carries all steel suits!

But still: such a pity the infantry guys seemed to have charged recklessly towards archers...

[Myrddraal]

this is the same magazine that didn't actually review Rome Total War, they just presented a glorified press release with a 90%+ score at the end and made no real mention of problems with the game. They even said RTW had 'AI so great Hannibal could be in charge'. Which Hannibal are they talking about exactly? Some drunken unwashed tramp co-incidently called Hannibal who hasn't seen a bath in his life time, let alone a battlefield? PC Zone seem much like all the other games publications these days: full of over the top enthusiasm for games and developers they're in bed with.

Agreed, this review doesn't have a clue...

[Ignoramus]

How about carriage trebuchets?

[screwtype]

About the spike part: anyone remembering a, well sort of, spikes the CIA handed to their Cuban friends to litter the roads with and effectively end all forms of transport by road? I mean those are nearly the same as the spikes the Medieval Archers used (the CIA ones were to be assembled from 2 pieces) and they do hurt infantry. Not all infantry carries all steel suits!

But still: such a pity the infantry guys seemed to have charged recklessly towards archers...

I have no idea what the CIA did in Cuba, but it's hardly relevant to what English archers did 700 years ago.

The longbowmen would make one wooden spike each which they would plant in the ground in front of their position. More than enough to deter a cavalry attack, but hardly an effective defence against infantry. The most such a wall of spikes would be likely to do was impede the movement of infantry as it tried to make its way through them.

[Lucjan]

Let's try not to consult the movie "BraveHeart" for military history and tactics. It is just not the wisest thing to do.

Any allusion to justify CA's use of the spikes against infantry would please me so long as it meant the infantry didn't just blindly walk into spikes it could clearly see.

So let's not arrogantly insult people for no reason. It is just not the nicest thing to do... Especially when I've done nothing to wrong you.

[Vlad Tzepes]

"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."

I'm worried. I've seen it before - hopeless ennemies refusing any peace deal. It was dull.

"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."

I'm happy. Hope they won't invade with all-peasant cannon-fodder armies, though.

"What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety, but the breathtaking level of detail that these battles contain."

Now I'm really worried. This guy compares AI with graphics, first of all. Secondly - if even him, most probably not a TW fan, notices a "naive" AI, then what should I expect?

[SpencerH]

As an obstacle, a spike wall would slow an inf advance but it wouldnt stop it. Nor would one expect to have too many men stupid enough to impale themselves on the pointy ends instead of clearing the obstacle. I wonder if CA have included the capability of inf to clear battlefield obstacles in MTW2?

[Lucjan]

Just a thought, because we haven't actually seen a screen shot of these 'spikes.' They may be concealed behind shrubbery or potentially hidden like a tiger trap. Infantry who thought they were just running through a hedge of shrubs accidentally impaling themselves on spears they couldn't see or falling into covered spike pits isn't, too out there as far as feasibility goes.

Though I'll admit, it's stretching it a little.

[magnum]

Check Gamespot for an image of archers using the spike ability.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ex.html?page=3

Image #58 (3rd image for Mar 17, 2006.) I agree that the spikes should only slow infantry down. It'd be hard to imagine an infantryman impaling themself on one of those spikes.

[B-Wing]

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.

Most of you have been skeptical about this note, for good reason. Its one thing for the AI factions to declare alliances and refuse alliances with you. Its another thing entirely for them to actually work together to bring you down. Its not a very impressive or effective AI that will, upon the player obtaining a certain number of provinces, no longer accept alliances with him and more easily accept alliances with your enemies. A much more exciting and dangerous AI is one that will actually cooperate with its allies, support them financially, grant rights of passage, defend one another from invasion, and launch joint invasions on their mutual enemies. I haven't personally experienced that in any TW games I've played.

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.

I'm really happy to hear that. I think the naval AI was overall the weakest aspect of RTW. Enemy navies were certainly aggressive and numerous, but hardly intelligent. I remember many occassions in which an enemy faction would "lodge" large numbers of troops, including generals, inside their boats, which would sit idly on their shores for multiple turns, often without any other fleets nearby to protect them. Sinking one of these ships, and thereby destroying all the units inside, was far too simple.

[Lucjan]

Has anybody played Knights of Honor?

The diplomacy system in that game is absolutely beautiful as far as what I would like and expect from a medieval game. If only CA would take a page from their book.

[Ignoramus]

Yes, I have played Knights of Honour. The diplomacy is amazing, but the campaign and battle AI have a lot to be desired.

[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

[Aquitaine]

Infantry, even tightly-packed, heavily-armored infantry, are unlikely to impale themselves on anything. The idea of using a wall of stakes against footmen is pretty ridiculous, such that it would even look ridiculous in a computer game (raaaaaahhhh *splat*).

The whole point is that a horse is running at full tilt and can't turn quickly (have you ever tried to turn a horse? sometimes they just won't turn quickly if it's Tuesday, even if they're not at full tilt), and even then a lot of horses were smart enough to go 'hey, i don't want to impale myself, i think i'll rear up and stop really fast and throw my rider!' So they were a dodgy proposition even when they were used against cavalry.