A REALLY Interesting Preview Of M2TW

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

French tactical naivety...


I guess CA hopes that at least the French will buy their game... That would indeed be naive

They might be disappointed as we learnt the trick with RTW.

3 battles in 20 min, crazy running units, it looks more of the same: I guess I'll pass

Louis,

[Perplexed]

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.

When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...

[Bob the Insane]

Hopefully it will all be moddable... Though the aging of generals could easily be hard coded item. Still it is hard to be overly critical until you actually see it in action...

[Lucjan]

When it comes to the point that CA hides a crucial part of the gameplay so that we won't notice the flaws in the new system, something has gone very badly wrong...

I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.

[B-Wing]

Basically, as I recall, every turn represents two years of time but characters will only age one year every two turns ...

Not accusing you of giving misinformation, but where did you get that info from?

[Perplexed]

I would hardly call the aging of generals a crucial part of the gameplay if the passage of turns won't be relative to time anyway. It's a trivial problem, albeit I am a little concerned as to what purpose this serves, but it remains trivial. And I highly doubt they would let it go unmoddable.

If they're not going to indicate the year at all () then I suppose it doesn't matter that much. However, it seems strange that in a supposedly historical game in which the starting year and the ending year are clearly indentified, that the year would not be shown...

[screwtype]

Not accusing you of giving misinformation, but where did you get that info from?

It was worked out at the org ages ago, but it's not hard to do the math for yourself. The campaign is x number of turns long and the campaign covers x number of years. Now I've forgotten the actual numbers, but if you do the math I think you'll find it boils down to 2 years per turn.

Meanwhile, CA told us fairly early on that characters will age one year every two turns, ie one summer turn + one winter turn = 1 year.

So basically characters end up living four times longer than they oughta.

Don't take my word for it though, this is all from memory, so you might want to check it out for yourself.

Essentially what they've done (in case you're wondering) is to compress the timespan of the campaign so that they can incorporate numerous different periods, whilst at the same time keeping the campaign at a length to suit the average gamer (ie 200 or 250 turns, whatever).

My guess though is that this will be fully moddable so that it will be a simple fix to match turns with years like the previous games. But doing so will probably leave you with a humungously long campaign of 800 or even 1000 turns. But then some people might think that's pretty kewl.

Edit: Ah, here it is, the original thread. Enjoy!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62117

[Wandarah]

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.

...but CA arent trying to accurately depict history.

[Tamur]

An enormously amusing, cynical thread. Long live the org, CA's gadfly.

[therother]

Long live the org, CA's gadfly.

Well, quite. I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way.

Nice to see you back.

[Puzz3D]

...but CA arent trying to accurately depict history.

The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

[Perplexed]

It was worked out at the org ages ago, but it's not hard to do the math for yourself. The campaign is x number of turns long and the campaign covers x number of years. Now I've forgotten the actual numbers, but if you do the math I think you'll find it boils down to 2 years per turn.

Meanwhile, CA told us fairly early on that characters will age one year every two turns, ie one summer turn + one winter turn = 1 year.

So basically characters end up living four times longer than they oughta.

So a turn is a two-season period? I thought you meant that each turn was a one-year period and that characters aged a year every two years. If one turn equals two seasons then that's fine, and characters won't age more than they should.

My mind is at rest (on this issue ).

[4th Dimension]

I think what he meant is that with the published timeline and the number of turns your winter actualy lasts two years.

It boils down to it that CA wanted to inlude all those nice units from many periods so they published the timeline. But you won't actualy play that long because if you consider ine turn one season, with taking in consideration that there are two times less turns than years you will actualy play for only the quarter of the period.

[Ilsamir Lord]

I hope weak game reviews from half wits do not have more impact on game design than the hardcore fans

Of course they do. Hardcore fans are a minority whereas these so-called "falf-wits" are representing the likely reaction of the disinterested general public. I think it's a little unfortuneate to call reviewers half-wits when they are merely expressing their opinions. It continually puzzles me that the most hardcore of fans are usually the most critical. Surely they should be happy that a series they like gets popular support. To succeed commercially you can't rely on a small cult following, you have to appeal to the masses.

[screwtype]

So a turn is a two-season period? I thought you meant that each turn was a one-year period and that characters aged a year every two years. If one turn equals two seasons then that's fine, and characters won't age more than they should.

My mind is at rest (on this issue ).

No, that's not what I said. I suggest you go back and read my post, or better still perhaps, go and read the old thread that I provided a link to.

[Perplexed]

No, that's not what I said. I suggest you go back and read my post, or better still perhaps, go and read the old thread that I provided a link to.

Missed the link. Now it's clarified.

[Mooks]

Im not buying this game.

I was attracted to TW by the historical gameplay. I myself, love history and read books all the time, to think that a game and a history book was combined was awsome. The TW series is no longer "historical", it's fantasy. It just takes place in real eras.

Im not going to bash CA. Total war just isn't my type of game anymore.

P.S that reviewer guy sounds like a idiot.

[zakalwe]

The TW games were never really simply depicting historical accuracy - TW had the uber-geisha, 1 man army kensai, etc. The same thing with MTW.

[Wandarah]

The word history should no longer be used in connection with Total War. Gamey is a much better word to use.

If they put a little extra work into the AI, I bet they could get the suicide general to charge directly at your biggest cannon when it was ready to fire. That would Rock!

well obviously it's either one extreme or the other.

[Orb]

This looks like another RTW...

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

IMO, CA reached their pinnacle with the original Medieval. All these 'new' features that they are 'introducing' seem to be either from the previous games or graphical.

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

[econ21]

Non-existant AI, poor gameplay, low balance, minor but obvious flaws everywhere BUT it has shiny graphics, so none of the reviewers care.

....

You need only look at EB to see what RTW could have been.

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.

[edyzmedieval]

The previews looks good, but something tells me the AI is going to be as bad as in RTW. They need a new engine, definitely.

[Puzz3D]

They need a new engine, definitely.

Removing the bias that causes the AI to attack with weaker armies and make frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target units would help.

[Orda Khan]

"Non-existant AI" is a little harsh. EB does not - cannot - change the AI, so if EB is a worthwhile project, then RTW must have left it some servicable AI. For what it's worth, I think RTW AI is not stellar but it is not that bad for a complex computer wargame.

Very poor would be a better description, though when talking about 'Intelligence', non existant is fairly close. The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

........Orda

[econ21]

The AI does not deploy meaningful formations, does not use its projectiles wisely and sends lone units to certain death. The question that abounds in these forums is that the STW AI was far better, so what has happened?

To be honest, I don't recall STW AI being markedly better in any of above three respects.

RTW starting formations can be modded. But I don't have a big problem with them. I can't say they seem any worse than MTW ones. Maybe they sacrifice depth for breadth, occasionally. The main formation problem that irks me is a not the formations per se but a failure to keep formation - specifically breaking up a nice phalanx line at the last minute for no good reason. The formations/AI for barbarian and the horse archer armies perform reasonably ok.

The AI use of projectiles is kind of hit and miss, it is true, but then it often has been in TW.

The lone units charging to certain death does happen occasionally, but I noticed it more in STW when most neighbouring factions would have become rebels after 20 turns or so because they lost their Daimyos in suicide charges against me.

It's true the STW AI gives you a much better fight. But I think that is largely because of its behaviour at the strategic level (with a little cheating, it plays the Risk game extremely well IMO), so that you are often beaten before the battle starts. And it's also because the higher morale and slower kill speeds allow it to grind you down on the battlefield (especially when combined with the remorseless reinforcements coming from its smart strategic performance).

[Lucjan]

I never seemed to have a problem with rome's ai when the enemy had a larger army than my own, which, because of the factions I habitually play as, happens quite often. If they can only somehow make the ai behave more like it does when it knows it's numbers are superior even when it's not, it might provide a little bit of a better fight.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Guys, why do you all have negative opinions on this game?!! THE GAME HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED!!! Since now, ive seen a dozen guys confessing they're not buying it!

I remember STW's AI was quite good (long time since I last played). It did know how to interact with environments and set up good formations. MTW's AI was even better. Rome's was just, Rome's. Stupid formations, suicidal general who charges head on to a phalanx, archers who shoot fire arrows all the time. I think that CA might have pulled it off this time.

If you remember the video where there was the english vs the egyptians, where the german player was saying "Zultan Zaladin", which also contained cannons. I remember that the AI actually mauled the player (or he could have been a noob.lol.), and advanced to the players position similarily to MTW's AI.

[Zalmoxis]

I liked the preview, but I'll wait for the game.

[snevets]

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.

To be fair to CA this might be how it happens in game, and the kebab comment might of just been the journalist embelishing what he saw. Either way it's difficult to assess whether or not this was a viable strategy from the perspective of the AI unless we know exactly what kind of obstacle these spikes represent and what kind of losses can be expected when forced to move through them.

Unless I'm much mistaken they're evolved versions of roman lilies. Ever had a kid leave jacks out on the floor then walked through the room with bare feet later that night? Yeah, ouch, that infinately worse.

[Lusted]

and lo, Lusted doth read the articles on M2TW, and produceth thus these quotes on thee fair M2TW: (more related to campaign map ai, but still related to ai)

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.

We're making the campaign map AI far more proactive than before. You'll find that your homeland will be attacked a lot more.

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

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...42571&skip=yes

Talking of the campaign map, there are new agents, improved diplomacy, and improved trade, as well as a host of new buildings added to the tech tree; new sabotage and espionage options,

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...4512&page=2&q=

The diplomacy system has been improved. We're going to give the player a lot more information about how the artificial intelligence feels both about them and about the offer on the table. However, at the same time the AI will take offence at insulting offers and will have a better memory of past dealings. You should be able to trust your allies, but only up to a point.

We're definitely committed to improving the AI on both the campaign map and battlefield and plan to make a significant step forward from Rome.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/m...ml?sid=6146146

We've also introduced a new recruitment system, a new enhanced system for the treatment of religion, enhanced diplomacy, new trade options, improved missions, improved sabotage and espionage, improved AI, new tech tree buildings and new agent characters.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/699/699515p1.html