A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

[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

[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.

[screwtype]

Now that you mention it, that's probably where I got the idea from

[sunsmountain]

What strikes me most though isn't the French tactical naivety,

This has already been mentioned, but this probably means the French were under the control of the AI. Perhaps CA likes playing the AI this way, so they can win. The skilled TW players perhaps left the design team long ago, like in STW or MTW.

Perhaps...

(I don't care for 3D piles of bodies piling up, use those resources to give the AI a few more loops...)

[B-Wing]

I don't care for 3D piles of bodies piling up, use those resources to give the AI a few more loops...

I'll amen that.

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

This would be great, too.

[alman7272]

Mercilessly slaughter the prisoners you capture during a battle (a feature reprised from the original Medieval) and your general's 'dread' rating will rocket, making enemies fearful on the battlefield and civilians more obedient within cities. And while showing mercy in war may make your generals a target for 'big girly girl' remarks from opposing armies, at least the people will love them should you order them to babysit a settlement. Unless of course they raid the fridge, invite over their girlfriend and leave sticky stains on the sofa, in which case, they could be faced with a revolution.

w00t

[Puzz3D]

From the interview: "Battle number two is a desert skirmish. English crusaders battle the Egyptians, pounding the massed enemy ranks with mighty cannons."

This is tactical fantasy, and I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.

[zakalwe]

I presume the battle was over in about 5 minutes since they played 3 battles including setup time in 20 minutes.

I think CA probably had the battles in mid-flow or just cut to the juicy bits.




hopefully

[Puzz3D]

I think CA probably had the battles in mid-flow or just cut to the juicy bits.

You mean the jucy bit of crusader cannon pounding infantry in a desert skirmish?

[zakalwe]

Probably were lots of juicy bits afterwards anyway.

Nought wrong with giving crusaders cannons though. It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.

You're right about cannons in desert skirmishes though

[x-dANGEr]

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/ima..._screen001.jpg

Man.. Now I am starting not to care about the gameplay.. I just want to make movies of battles with that engine..

[4th Dimension]

Ohoh. This pic means that knights DO have a secondary weapon. And it seems that they even know how to use it.

[Puzz3D]

It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.

You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

[IrishArmenian]

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.

I mean no offense to you. I mean that Holly Wood is not very accurate.

[Lucjan]

I'm well aware of this, but with grass as high as it is in fallow fields, where it looks like much of the fighting in the screenshots takes place, it is a feasible concept.

[DisruptorX]

You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

I think you are overreacting just a bit. I mean, the flaming arrows in rome did hardly any damage at all against most troops. Generals die of old age in all the games, it won't be any different in this one. You start off with historical figures as generals in MTW, heck, I'm pretty sure that the English start with William the Conquerer and he dies off of old age almost immediately.

Troops flying all over the place is no less realistic as the complete lack of blood and gore. Its rather fun to watch, too.

[Perplexed]

heck, I'm pretty sure that the English start with William the Conquerer and he dies off of old age almost immediately.

That's another thing I've been thinking about.

If the "turns" that CA is implementing last multiple years, then surely kings and generals will only last a couple of turns, which will seriously impede the game's immersiveness... You might only have a good general for a few turns, and then he's gone.

Maybe I'm not understanding the turn idea (I hope so), but if I am then that's just one more failed feature...

[zakalwe]

It's an alternative universe from 1080 onwards after all.

You can say that again! Even time doesn't correspond to time in our universe. They might as well change the strategic map to a completely fictitious geography. Think of the replayability with a random generated strategic map.

I hope we aren't treated to anymore History Channel programs using the Total War engine to reenact historical battles because it can't be done with this game.

Please retain men being incinerated in 5 seconds by a flaming arrow because I don't think I could play the game without that feature, and make the men blow up higher into the air when hit by exploding rocks and cannon balls. Everyone knows that DaVinci invented exploding cannon balls on turn 175, and the crusaders used them in the 15th century to beat Saladin who was still alive because he aged very slowly.

errr time for your medicine?

What's your point? You disputing the fact that as soon as you start playing the game you are creating an alternative history?

Crusaders with cannons in the 15th century? Why not? That is what TW is all about.

[DisruptorX]

I would have to agree. I do not enjoy playing the historical battles at all, I enjoy making an alternate historical empire and creating my own armies, etc. That is what the total war games are all about. The mostly historical troops (Egypt in RTW didn't happen ) and realistic tactics are great, of course.

[Subedei]

You simply can`t pack all the parameters -affecting the outcome of a battle or the evolution of a culture over the centuries- into one single programm. Accepting that, I just play around and have fun (or get very angry at 'em rebels blocking my roads)....and I am very glad CA & -most of all- the modding teams try to give us a "taste of history". Anyways: BL is a semi-fictional scenario & still a lot of fun...or b/c of the fact it is fictional....

[x-dANGEr]

I noticed you can zoom in more on the campaign map.. Is it only me noticing that?

[The Spartan (Returns)]

I noticed you can zoom in more on the campaign map.. Is it only me noticing that?

you can do that in RTW .

[x-dANGEr]

That close ?!

[screwtype]

That's another thing I've been thinking about.

If the "turns" that CA is implementing last multiple years, then surely kings and generals will only last a couple of turns, which will seriously impede the game's immersiveness... You might only have a good general for a few turns, and then he's gone.

Maybe I'm not understanding the turn idea (I hope so), but if I am then that's just one more failed feature...

Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns - so basically they live four times longer than they ought to.

Yes, it's anomalous, but the idea is that since turns aren't numbered by years, you won't notice it.

[zakalwe]

Sounds like nonsense doesn;t it?

[Puzz3D]

You disputing the fact that as soon as you start playing the game you are creating an alternative history?

You aren't creating an alternative history. With each installment more fantasy elements are introduced to the point now that alternate universe is a better description.

Crusaders with cannons in the 15th century? Why not? That is what TW is all about.

Then let's have flying machines in the 15th century as well. There is no limit to how much the history can be distorted and the realism degraded then justified by claiming it makes the game more fun.