the one thing i want from MTW2

[Callahan9119]

a civ4 like diplomacy

i know the graphics will look good

i know that if they simply copy the design model of mtw and rtw battles i would be happy

but i really want deep diplomacy, without a deep campaign map i grow quickly bored. no glorious achievements really bummed me out, no matter how fun and cool the battle are, if its simply just destroy all, with a few hints of diplomacy and economic/social gain it doesnt stack up to what it should for this many years of TW development


the game looks really nice so far, but i hope i am suprised with the campaign map

[gunslinger]

The one thing I want?

How about a game that costs about $20 and runs perfectly on a pentium II with 128 mb of RAM?

[the_mango55]

sorry I guess I missed where they changed the name to Medieval II: Total Dipomacy and Economics.

[The_678]

For me the one thing i want back is the orignal reinforements. I hated how in rtw you had to settle for a army that was good for all situations. In MTW i remember haveing armies of like 10 infantry 10 cav and 10 missles (just and example) and in the reinforcement screen setting teh army for the situation. Some battle like defending, youd want more archers while for attacking more cav. But in rome you had to have a balanced army for all situations. I know i wont see it but that is the biggest thing i want back.

[Bioximo]

I agreed Sabutai for some reason. I was played as Gauls, Seleucids. They are the sick peoples of their area. The other nations full attacked to me without diplomacy, even allies.. Germans, Britons, Romans, Spain, Carthage.. Bah, boring stuff. It was a Rome: Total WAR yes. But nothing else. 3,4 battles in one turn. It turns me down. They dont accept diplomatic relations for no reason. Anyway, TW series are one of the best games I played ever. Just a little bit diplomacy needed. IMO for sure.

[screwtype]

sorry I guess I missed where they changed the name to Medieval II: Total Diplomacy and Economics.

All the same I feel for the guys who didn't get Glorious Achievements this time around. There were obviously a lot of fans of this strategy and it must be disappointing not to see it replicated in the new game.

[rory_20_uk]

War does involve politics and economics.

War is politics by other means, and war costs, hence economics.

Some have the peculiar desire to not have each and every game a blood soaked slaughter of everyone in Europe with narry a thought to whatever anyone thinks.

The series has as a main selling point the strategic map. The better that gets, the better the battles can be.

[Callahan9119]

i agree the main thing this game has is its campaign map, the battles are good...what needs improved the the dynamic of the strategy map. there are tons of games that focus on pure domination through war and war only.

glorious achievements was the most fun thing for me, trade, being advanced etc were as good as battles won

and remember, the conflict between richard and saladin was as much about diplomacy <or more> than of actual fighting

and i too miss being able to set your reinforcments deployment pattern

[Chuffy]

sorry I guess I missed where they changed the name to Medieval II: Total Dipomacy and Economics.

Well done for actually knowing what War is about.

[SirGrotius]

All the same I feel for the guys who didn't get Glorious Achievements this time around. There were obviously a lot of fans of this strategy and it must be disappointing not to see it replicated in the new game.

Oh wow, I haven't been following MTW2, and now I see that there are no glorious acievements? Why? haha, it's just so strange to me that they would take out such a fun aspect of the game.

[Callahan9119]

i know :(

my favorite thing was playing the danes and forming a trading empire...but i was always annoyed the danes couldnt crusade, i always liked forming an alliance with the english, and only making war to defend them and my trading interests

destroying everyone is fun a couple times, but it becomes rather tedious after a while

[Fate]

i know :(

my favorite thing was playing the danes and forming a trading empire...but i was always annoyed the danes couldnt crusade, i always liked forming an alliance with the english, and only making war to defend them and my trading interests

destroying everyone is fun a couple times, but it becomes rather tedious after a while

Agreed!! i really need to get around to playing MTW with glorious achievements, but im still so stuck into rome because of all the mods!! I would like to see, if not glorious achievements, then something similar and entertaining, instead of just destroy such and such.

[Callahan9119]

i can understand this style of play more in rtw, as there was only one thing going on during that time, and it was rome kicking everones arse. even before this era, it was pretty easy to grab yourself a full fledged empire.

i really want a game option that is point based, where economy, culture AND military victory are tallied equally

[JR-]

i hear the diplomacy is much improved, and i look forward to it.

[CaesarAugustus]

Ya I agree with sabutai, diplomacy is what attracted me to civilisation 4.......but the game is called rome total WAR so i guess if you want a really in depth diplomacy system you should stick to the civ games.

.....Medieval II: Total Dipomacy and Economics.

Thats actually a great idea

[Polemists]

Despite how you all feel regarding diplomacy fact is no one except a small minute exclusive few have actually played with the diplomacy system or economic system from Medieval. There are more options then Rome that I see, now yes it does seem most options of politics seems to be incorpirated for the Catholic Factions. Still recall there is a council of nobles now pulling your strings, princess's are back, Merchants are in, and you can create monopolies. There's now a political hierachy of religion trying to achieve in the Catholic Faction (I"m sure with mods in other factions to.)

Personally Rome held me a long time, if I include the expansion. I didn't download a single mod, and it was still a very good game. I think Medieval will be to, but I'd be hesitant to judge anything before I personally have played it. Just my opinion tho.

[Callahan9119]

well if you've been playing basically the same game since stw like i feel i have been, you begin to expect more, like them not leaving out a popular and interesting aspect of the game

diplomacy and trade and civics and culture are as much a part of war as battle

[Ulstan]

Multiplayer campaign. I don't care how long it takes to complete, I just want the option available to me.

[Polemists]

I guess because I've been there since MTW and not STW I am in a different boat. If you exclude the glorious achievements and titles (mostly I just miss titles for personal feeling, it was just cooler if a guy was a Earl of Wessex). Otherwise I see pretty well what Rome had, and many features of MTW and some features of shogun. Do I think it's a improvement to the past? Yes, but then again this is individual based, if you don't think it's better your always welcome to play old games.