a Lord played MTW2

[Duke John]

Or a full game review from a reliable TW vet.

That could be a problem, practically all of them seem to have the same attitude.
"You buy it."
"No, you buy it!"
"I am not even touching it before you!"

[Martok]

That could be a problem, practically all of them seem to have the same attitude.
"You buy it."
"No, you buy it!"
"I am not even touching it before you!"

Guilty as charged.

[edyzmedieval]

I'll buy it.

Like I care about initial playing, I care more about modding.

[Little Legioner]

I'll buy it.

Like I care about initial playing, I care more about modding.

Then, we should pay much more money compared to CA?

Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

We do you fix they say simply. Isn't it? "Do something" yes modders do something. Thanks to god we have talented modders to "do something".

CA made me a pessimist person. Shortly i'm dying to learn that whats were so wrong in older series? What was wrong in STW and MTW? They were'nt able to reach "all types of players" ? They were financialy a failure? So, what?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything. All this pessimism about the game is gettting really old and really boring me now

[TB666]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything.

Indeed especially since it goes against what we have heard in previews and considering that this 753 posted that and was never heard from again.

[L'Impresario]

Player 753 who just played the demo said the game seemed to be about 70% completed and that it crashed a lot because parts were unfinished.

I don't think there's a clause saying that a game must be completed in order to get a release.

[screwtype]

There are probably alot more things to be ironed out before the release. Just because the AI is bad at Agincourt doesn't mean anything. All this pessimism about the game is gettting really old and really boring me now

Yes, I have to agree with that, the game isn't finished so what is the point of criticizing the gameplay now? Let's at least try and wait for the finished product (ie the demo) before getting all pessimistic about alleged missing features.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gah. I'm already pessimistic. I remember when we were told not to be pessimistic when the unit preview for the gladiator in RTW was released.

CA have confirmed they are continuing in the RTW battle-lite direction, that they view making a halfway realistic battle simulator as 'market limiting'.

It also sounds like MTW2 has some issues for a game to be released in November(?).

That is not my main problem with it. The problem is having to wait 1+ years for a good mod to make the game good.

It is, of course, CA's right to make whatever game they please. I would not be unhappy about some competition in the genre, however.

Crazed Rabbit

[AussieGiant]

Great report, but I'd keep everything in perspective.

There is a lot of work to be done. Some work sounds kind of serious (Cavalry getting murdered after charging Billmen in the rear), and some not so serious.

In the end I am consistently surprised by the number of reports from people all over the planet regarding movement speeds and kill rates. CA must have worked this out by now surely?

In the end the graphics seem to have been solved but the core battle behaviour is still a tough nut for CA to crack.

I'm looking forward to the guy's here getting their hands on the Demo.

[Lord Adherbal]

Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..

which only matters if the unit is 1 rank deep, or when the soldiers haven't turned around yet before their are charged in the back.

[Lord Zimoa of Flanders]

On a side note Lord Chretzel was also diappointed there were no CA/Sega
representatives, being able to answer some technical questions on the engine.

He was probably better technically baggaged than the guys showing off MTW2.

The MTW2 engine has great potential, I hope they look at some great suggestions and critic raised the last two years here within the community.

We just have to wait and see and pray a little...

LZoF

[Puzz3D]

Posted at the Total War Forums by the player who played the demo.

The Demo Battles were very very easy to win and i have to say the combat is pretty fast , even infantry combat.....

....Mark Sutherns , Marketing Manager from Creative Assembly said for him personally Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

I think this says it all. Creative Assembly is continuing down the path they started with RTW. If that doesn't please you, you must be a hardcore player. Wait for the SP mods a year or so down the road, and hope at least one of them improves the gameplay enough that you find it worth playing. For multiplayer, I'm putting my effort into Samurai Wars.

[Lord Adherbal]

then the modding support AND the combat engine had better been excellent cos I'm not gonna bother modding with buggy tools and a flawed engine again.

[Lord Adherbal]

All combat is based on individual soldiers fighting. If they turn towards the threat there wont be any special flank/rear modifier for the attacker. That has been the case in all total war games.

hm I always had the feeling most units started "losing (badly)" once they became surrounded, while they would be "winning (easily)" when attacking in one direction only.

How can a man still fight at 100% effeciency when he's "wavering" by the knowledge that the enemy is all around him. Not to mension how important of the support from deeper ranks was in infantry combat.

[CBR]

A unit hit in the flank or rear would have much higher loss rate. Some soldiers didnt have time to turn before getting hit and then the next rank of soldiers could be hit that then had to run because they by default are facing forward.

I have seen units that fought for some time, even when totally surrounded, simply because they didnt take that many losses at first and all the men who had an opponent had turned to face them them.

In RTW that just happens more often as soldiers dont have to have an opponent attacking them before turning towards him.

How can a man still fight at 100% effeciency when he's "wavering" by the knowledge that the enemy is all around him. Not to mension how important of the support from deeper ranks was in infantry combat.

A square/column formation should be able to fight properly even though its surrounded and that is pretty historical too. Of course there is always a danger that parts of the unit would fall back a bit if combat goes badly, and the unit overall would be too compressed.

But historically a unit surprised by an enemy coming in from the rear would most likely rout even before impact. Even if the rear ranks managed to turn around they would overall not be of the same fighting quality as the front ranks of the unit.

AFAIK pike units went into a dense formation (half the normal width per man) when facing cavalry and used 4 ranks of pikes, so that would mean a formation of 8 ranks were needed to face cavalry with maximum/optimal number of pikes.


CBR

[Lord Adherbal]

A square/column formation should be able to fight properly even though its surrounded and that is pretty historical too. Of course there is always a danger that parts of the unit would fall back a bit if combat goes badly, and the unit overall would be too compressed.

that only counts when they have spears, pikes or bajonets and when it faces cavalry. Squares repelled cavalry because horses would refuse to walk into the hedge of sharp points, and the horsemen would not be able to reach the enemy with their swords.

The only accounts of squares being broken by cavalry is when they either broke before contact, or when the muskets were disabled by rainy weather and enemy lancers would ride up to the square and stab their way through the line of infantry - whose bajonets could not outreach the lance.


Remember how the romans were slaughtered at Cannae. If they didn't "receive a combat penalty" from the panic that spread then how would so few carthaginian soldiers with worse equipment ever be able to slaughter so much romans.

Aslong as a strong unit can attack the enemy head on they can push forward and grind through the enemy. But when they are suddenly attacked in the back, the rear ranks can nolonger give support to that forward movement. Any attempt to move forward in a certain direction will open up the formation allowing individual men to become surrounded and killed easily. Add to that the fear from the knowledge that there is no way to retreat to anymore, soldiers will be much less focused on attacking but only about staying alife.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well CA is still working on it right?

[CBR]

that only counts when they have spears, pikes or bajonets and when it faces cavalry. Squares repelled cavalry because horses would refuse to walk into the hedge of sharp points, and the horsemen would not be able to reach the enemy with their swords..

What does what weapon they used have to do with it? The point is that such a formation does not have a real flank or rear. It is formed up with enough depth and width to be able to deal with attacks from any direction.

The only accounts of squares being broken by cavalry is when they either broke before contact, or when the muskets were disabled by rainy weather and enemy lancers would ride up to the square and stab their way through the line of infantry - whose bajonets could not outreach the lance.

Thats Napoleonic times, and I wont even go into details on that as that would be OT. There are examples of cavalry piercing pike formations only to reform and come back for another attack. That also has nothing to do with what Im saying. Read above.

Remember how the romans were slaughtered at Cannae. If they didn't "receive a combat penalty" from the panic that spread then how would so few carthaginian soldiers with worse equipment ever be able to slaughter so much romans.

We know the pursuing and disordered infantry, that had broken through the center, got hit in both flanks by the African infantry. Apart from the obvious losses taken from such an attack it would most likely have caused a big movement of men retreating towards the center. Men from second and third line might still have been moving forward and it would have caused a compressed mass of confused and desperate men.

As RTW doesnt have any penalties for overlapping units, it is difficult to recreate with this combat engine. It also has a simplistic morale/combat system that doesnt make losing units fall back but either fight or flight.

Aslong as a strong unit can attack the enemy head on they can push forward and grind through the enemy. But when they are suddenly attacked in the back, the rear ranks can nolonger give support to that forward movement. Any attempt to move forward in a certain direction will open up the formation allowing individual men to become surrounded and killed easily.

Yes that is certainly true but units can certainly stand firm and fight hard without attacking much. Hastings is one example.

Add to that the fear from the knowledge that there is no way to retreat to anymore, soldiers will be much less focused on attacking but only about staying alife

Sun Tzu says something like: "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape". RTW now has units fighting to the death if they are completely surrounded. Leave a way out and it becomes easier to kill them.


CBR

[Little Legioner]

The Demo Battles were very very easy to win and i have to say the combat is pretty fast , even infantry combat.....

....Mark Sutherns , Marketing Manager from Creative Assembly said for him personally Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game aswell.

This is a disaster, then

Just imagine a person who wants to reach all types of person at any cost. You can't do that if you are man of principle.

While the CA was acting like that they are completely erasing personality and extraordinary style of TW series. Infact, willingly they make the game simply ordinary. Excuse my words but they aimed on not making the best but money.

I remember tons of realism mods in RTW! I don't remember RTW as a complete game. RTW was a cripple game which needs a mod staff for walking.

[Orda Khan]

For multiplayer, I'm putting my effort into Samurai Wars.

Make the most of it, you'll probably find the VI server shut down before too long

......Orda

[econ21]

This was a good topic, but is starting to go off-topic fast and to veer into territory that is strictly off limits within the Org forums. I've deleted posts referring to that territory, so let's forget all about them and get back to the subject of the first post. Any more off-topic stuff, I'll lock the thread and start handing out warning points.

[Midnight]

This is disappointing news. Personally, I don't care about vegetation, beautiful units, etc, since I usually don't have the camera very close (otherwise I miss things on the battlefield). I'm not happy to hear that units sometimes still just stop dead for no reason, and if surrounding the enemy now does next to nothing...

[Lord Adherbal]

if surrounding the enemy now does next to nothing...

in RTW it gives a morale penalty, but no combat penalty (or one that is so small that it has no effect). The result is that unless the surrounded unit routs, it will not suffer from being surrounded by weaker units. If it could beat the 2 weaker units in a head-on attack, it'll beat them even faster when they try to surround it.

[CBR]

All combat is based on individual soldiers fighting. If they turn towards the threat there wont be any special flank/rear modifier for the attacker. That has been the case in all total war games.

But RTW soldiers sense danger and turn towards it and that wasnt really the case in STW/MTW until after enemy impact.


CBR

[x-dANGEr]

in RTW it gives a morale penalty, but no combat penalty (or one that is so small that it has no effect). The result is that unless the surrounded unit routs, it will not suffer from being surrounded by weaker units. If it could beat the 2 weaker units in a head-on attack, it'll beat them even faster when they try to surround it.

Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..

[Puzz3D]

Isn't the fact that the Defence Skill or the Shield ratios aren't counted for attacks from the back enough..

For individual combat yes, but for unit level combat RTW isn't playing like STW/MTW. I happened to be running some tests in Samurai Wars last night, and I had to confront a YC (yari cav) with an NC (naginata cav). The YC will defeat the NC frontally. I think an NC in hold formation can last about 1 minute vs a YC. The YC had the NC down to half strength while it had lost only 10%. However, I had a CA (cav archer) at 60% strength nearby. If I had thrown that CA into the melee frontally I would have lost, but I maneuvered the CA around and hit the YC from the back. The 90% strength YC routed. In STW/MTW, a rear attack gets a 350% combat bonus or a 500% combat bonus if charged in the rear for a couple of combat cycles. This coupled with the morale penalty associated with rear attack tripped the YC into a rout.

The system is balanced so that a rear attack with a unit that would loose frontally can rout a strong unit if the strong unit is already engaged. A rear attack by itself will rout a relatively weak unit. You can get this gameplay in STW/MTW while still having the units stand and fight for a relatively long time when only engaged frontally. That's what sets up the ablility to carry out these flanking meneuvers, and you can do it multiple times during a battle. We spent long time making sure this kind of gameplay worked in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI.